Contemporary Contemplative Cinema - The Default Style for Lazy Hacks

@Axel

I wish more filmmakers were as fearless as WKW, however it’s a sad facet of human nature to want to follow a mold, a roadmap, regardless of what your “genre” is.

I don’t know think “following a mold” is a such a bad thing. Most rock guitarists followed Hendrix’s “mold”; ditto jazz musicians and Charlie Parker or jazz saxophonists with Coltrane.

Speaking of music, I thought of an analogy with CCC that might be helpful. John Cage basically stripped away harmony, melody and rhythm. He did this in order to emphasize sounds—and not just sounds made by instruments, but all sounds. He believed that if people really paid attention to sounds—if they listened intently, as they would a serious piece of music—these sounds could be aesthetically pleasing. This is a valid approach, imo, but not for those who believe that music must have harmony, melody and rhythm and must be made by musical instruments.

Something similar may be going on with CCC filmmaking. Narrative, dialogue, music, acting, editing might be eliminated or reduced in order to emphasize images. The filmmaker wants to convey ideas and feelings primarily through images—and not so much images placed side-by-side via editing, but images almost in isolation—not unlike a painting or photograph. Indeed some of these films—such as Sokurov’s Mother and Son or Tarr’s Werckmeister Harmonies—feel like “moving” paintings or photographs. I think this is an interesting a valid approach.

To get into why the value of this approach would require us to explain the value of paintings and photography, which might be interesting, but I’m not prepared to do that right now. But let me say that the effect of a still almost interminable image with very little movement within the composed shot is a different sensation from images that get their meaning through the editing (i.e., image 1 placed next to image 2 equals leads to different meaning from the images in isolation).

The approach also deals with and conveys time in a different way from films editing and made in more conventional ways. I’d like to explore this more, as I have only a vague sense of what I’m saying right now. But I do believe that the approach opens up a different way of exploring time and creating a different type of experience for viewers.

@ JAZZ

Speaking of music, I thought of an analogy with CCC that might be helpful. John Cage basically stripped away harmony, melody and rhythm. He did this in order to emphasize sounds—and not just sounds made by instruments, but all sounds. He believed that if people really paid attention to sounds—if they listened intently, as they would a serious piece of music—these sounds could be aesthetically pleasing. This is a valid approach, imo, but not for those who believe that music must have harmony, melody and rhythm and must be made by musical instruments.

An apt analogy, in my mind it perfectly fits. I definitely think that there is validity in this approach, especially in concept.

My main point is that if you are going to go down this road, and choose to sacrifice harmony, melody, and rhythm to emphasize sound… you better be sure the sound you are choosing to emphasize is worthy of such emphasis! The act of cutting away and applying this emphasis in and of itself is usually not enough. If your “sound” isn’t excellent, then all you are doing is handicapping yourself by neglecting harmony, melody, ect.

It’s important to understand that you are making a trade when you do this…. Harmony, melody, and rhythm are powerful tools. Now, on the other hand if you’ve got some really unbelievable sound on your hands… then this method can potentially be very interesting to explore.

The issue’s begin to arise in that a lot of “auteurs” think they have good enough sound to merit exploring this avenue, when in reality they don’t. It’s not that their sound is bad or anything, it’s probably fine… but again if your sound isn’t absolutely the be all end all…. the trade off isn’t worth it. You are loosing more in sacrificing Melody, Harmony, and Rhythm than you gain in the emphasis.

@Axel

The act of cutting away and applying this emphasis in and of itself is usually not enough.

Sure, but the mere presence of harmony, melody and rhythm is usually not enough, either, right? We’re just talking about a different approaches, and whether the film is any good or not depends on the way the filmmakers use the approach, which includes their talent and ideas. A narrative based film with dialogue, conventional acting and editing still requires talent and ideas to make a good film. So I don’t see the approaches as different as you seem to.

Personally, my sense is that the desire to communicate through images—more than dialogue, narrative, acting, etc.—is what’s behind this trend; it’s a striving for pure cinema in a way, and given both the hyper-editing in movies, TV, music videos and the fast-paced, information overloaded lifestyle many of us live, I can understand why some filmmakers feel drawn to a slower, more contemplative, more “static” approach.

What I think is threatening about this approach is that it requires a lot from viewers—both patience and active viewing. I would even say that it requires a bit more courage because knowing if these types of films are genuinely artistic or fraudulent is not easy. One can feel like they’re being had or uncertain about this and that is unnerving, annoying and can even get someone mad. In a way, trashing the whole aesthetic is much easier and safer. There’s no risk of being made a fool. But again, I don’t agree with trashing the whole approach.

@ JAZZ

Sure, but the mere presence of harmony, melody and rhythm is usually not enough, either, right?

To make a great film? No, not enough. But even in films that are let’s say “less than ideal”, the presences of these things give you something to grab onto. You get to say, “Well that film was bad… but I did like that melody” ect. ect.

When you’ve stripped away to naught but the “sound”… and the film doesn’t work, you arn’t left with much to hold on to in order to make the viewing more “bearable”…. so instead you either “get it” or you are left completely out in the cold. Nothing wrong with an “all or nothing” approach it just uh sucks when it’s nothing know what I mean? =D

Personally, my sense is that the desire to communicate through images—more than dialogue, narrative, acting, etc.—is what’s behind this trend; it’s a striving for pure cinema in a way, and given both the hyper-editing in movies, TV, music videos and the fast-paced, information overloaded lifestyle many of us live, I can understand why some filmmakers feel drawn to a slower, more contemplative, more “static” approach.

I too can understand this, movements similar to this have always been around in contrast to “hollywood”. But at what point does that pendulum swing back the other way, and suddenly the mundane has become the majority, and it’s a breath of fresh air to see something “lively” in a film? Now you may disagree with me that we’ve gotten to that point, but that line certainly exists somewhere.

There’s no risk of being made a fool. But again, I don’t agree with trashing the whole approach.

It’s certainly a risk/reward scenario in my mind. You are taking a high risk with a possibility of high reward. If you score you score big, if you miss then you crash hard. It’s the crashing hard part that taxes me as a viewer. I just wish more filmmakers would recognize the fact that they are indeed taking a heavy risk. (And this is not only true for the extreme “slow” side… it is also true for the extreme “fast” side ala Michael Bay, it’s risky to play around with extremes".)

And I am certainly not advocating that the whole approach be trashed. Only expressing a wish to see it more carefully handled and applied.

@Axel

When you’ve stripped away to naught but the “sound”… and the film doesn’t work, you arn’t left with much to hold on to in order to make the viewing more “bearable”…. so instead you either “get it” or you are left completely out in the cold. Nothing wrong with an “all or nothing” approach it just uh sucks when it’s nothing know what I mean? =D

But to be fair, if the overall film is unsatisfying or worse, these other things to hang on are often little consolation—at least imo. Also, if the more minimalist/“reductionist” approach is the appropriate one, then that’s the main thing. A filmmaker shouldn’t decide not to use the approach because it doesn’t have other things to make the film bearable.

But at what point does that pendulum swing back the other way, and suddenly the mundane has become the majority, and it’s a breath of fresh air to see something “lively” in a film? Now you may disagree with me that we’ve gotten to that point, but that line certainly exists somewhere.

Sure. But what makes you say we’ve come to that point? Have you been seeing a lot of CCC films that suggest that the filmmakers have run out of creative and meaningful ways for using this approach? And how do you distinguish these films from films that just don’t work for some other reason or films that you just personally don’t care for? (And if possible, how about naming some of these films.)

It’s certainly a risk/reward scenario in my mind. You are taking a high risk with a possibility of high reward. If you score you score big, if you miss then you crash hard. It’s the crashing hard part that taxes me as a viewer. I just wish more filmmakers would recognize the fact that they are indeed taking a heavy risk.

This strikes me as a little odd. To me, the farther a film moves away from Hollywood conventions, the greater the risk it will be taking. But filmmakers who choose to do this, shouldn’t be criticized or warned—in a way that sounds like a threat—e.g., “If your film doesn’t have these qualities, you should really reconsider…” A filmmaker should be free to choose this approach—and if it doesn’t work, I don’t think we should chide them for not including other elements that could make the film more accessible or appealing.

And I am certainly not advocating that the whole approach be trashed. Only expressing a wish to see it more carefully handled and applied.

FWIW, my impression is that you are trashing the approach, or at least feel like your saying there are many filmmakers who are not using the approach in a meaningful way—and/or using the approach insincerely (i.e., just hopping on a trend, trying to win easy critical acclaim, etc.).

I have never encountered a revered piece of literature so tedious and unrewarding to wade through as many of these so-called contemplative films. Has Mr. Weerasethakul been accorded some privilege even John Milton did not possess? Only in film can someone point a camera, set up long takes, and have all the profundity in the universe attributed to empty, unimaginative tripe cobbled together by fifth-rate intellects. I’d rather watch Transformers 2 a million times than deal with the mind-boggling ineptitude on display in cinema’s “art house”.

“Only in film can someone point a camera”

Well, that is sorta what makes it film, isn’t it? Enjoy Transformers 2.

Enjoy bad movies.

I will. because I hate film

Tedious and unrewarding does just about sum up the majority of “acclaimed” CCC that I have seen….

Half-kidding. Maybe.

Maybe Tervarian well lend you his copy of the earnesty ept Transformers 2, Axel. ;)

That kinda sounds like my idea of hell actually, Transformers 2 and The Death of Mr. Lazarescu double feature on infinite loop.

You ol’ classicist, you.

“I have never encountered a revered piece of literature…”

Who’s talking about literature?
“Non sequitur (Latin for ‘it does not follow’), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.”

Two completely different artistic mediums have two completely different means of formal expression? Shocking!

I’m talking about literature. My point is exactly that every sentence of a War and Peace is charged with Tolstoy’s superior mind and intuitive artistry, whereas certain luminaries of cinema can record a wall for three hours and have this production trumpeted as an artistic masterpiece of unspeakable depth; barring any rare outbursts of creative and lively onscreen proceedings so sunken by the remainder, a film like Uncle Boonmee has as much merit as The Boondock Saints.

“every sentence of a War and Peace is charged with Tolstoy’s superior mind and intuitive artistry”

Every sentence? “Well, Prince, so Genoa and Lucca are now just family estates of the Buonapartes”?

What, specifically is no good about Uncle Boonmee?

Tevarian said, I have never encountered a revered piece of literature so tedious and unrewarding to wade through as many of these so-called contemplative films. Has Mr. Weerasethakul been accorded some privilege even John Milton did not possess? Only in film can someone point a camera, set up long takes, and have all the profundity in the universe attributed to empty, unimaginative tripe cobbled together by fifth-rate intellects.

Like Matt, I’d also like to hear specifics. What makes Weersethakul’s films “tedious,” “unrewarding”, “empty” and “unimaginative tripe?” The problem with stopping at these adjectives is that there’s no way of knowing if the problem lies with the film or with the viewer. I have many friends who only like Hollywood movies, and I’m pretty sure they would have a similar reaction that you did, but they’re also going to react that way to any film without a straightforward and strong story. I respect that they don’t like these films, but I don’t really put too much stock in their judgment of the films.

“I’m talking about literature.”

And I’ll take your discussion seriously when you actually detail how film and literature are related in any manner, at all.

Otherwise:
“Non sequitur (Latin for ‘it does not follow’), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.”

Is there a method of explaining how a series of quasi-still shots lasting one minute thirty seconds or whatever, with no context suffusing this period with vibrancy, may very well breach a deadening point past which a healthy attention span alive to activity within a frame is at risk of falling into a mindless stupor?

@ Tevarian

Well, if all you’re saying is “I was bored by it”, that’s fine, but that doesn’t really say much of anything about the film.

As to "Is there a method of explaining . . . ", here’s a basic argument for the interest of the film by Ed Howard , supported with specifics (both descriptions and screen shots) from the film. I would expect that, if the film were really “empty, unimaginative tripe cobbled together by fifth-rate intellects,” one could use a similar sort of model to offer a contrary opinion/reading of the film.

“Is there a method of explaining how a series of quasi-still shots lasting one minute thirty seconds or whatever, with no context suffusing this period with vibrancy…”

Except that Weerasethakul shot much of Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives with tracking shots (take the outdoor farm sequence or the fish sequence), even moving almost exclusively into handheld takes in the cave sequence.

Why is the only criticism people have been able to muster on this supposed style of films on this thread hasn’t actually been what’s onscreen, but a hyperbole that doesn’t engage with the films in the least bit?

What I described certainly is a significant amount of Uncle Boonmee, enough to tank the film. I nowhere claimed the whole film (or even most) consists of such.

What is it with this thread?

While a person can certainly find the experience of a movie to be ‘tedious" “empty” and “unrewarding”, asking that person to explain how is likely to be a futile endeavor since the terms used would describe a failure to engage with the film, and that failure is going to limit the usefulness of what they have to say about it, leaving only the personal impression of the time spent. That’s a large part of why those terms aren’t conducive to any discussion which is seeking something more than a sort of polling of reaction.

I would also add that while many novels tend to rely more on plot than come of the films being discussed, there is also a traditional of long descriptive passages in a number of acclaimed “classics” which can serve as something of an equivalent to some of the tendencies within the movies being talked about. It isn’t an exact parallel of course since they are two different forms, but to suggest that great literature wouldn’t do what these films might is a generalization that is too loose at best and would require more precise examples.

You can look to paintings for some other sorts of rough equivalents in terms of balance between elements and suggestive thematic or formal linkages.

For example, look at this painting by Botticelli which balances the mundane with the more fantastic while having neither achieve dominance over the larger environment of the painting. This is pretty much the same sort of balance Apichatpong finds in Uncle Boonmee, but there it plays out over time rather than in a single image.

This one painted by Giorgione is much the same,

the figures in the foreground are balanced by the storm and city in the background, none achieving dominance over the other. This gives the whole of the painting a very different feel than it would have if the figures were more central to the work.

Of course, the western traditions of art aren’t the only ones, and for someone like Apichatpong, they might not be the best place to seek a comparison. In terms of “contemplative” art, one could do worse than to look at Asian art history. For just one example, here’s a work by Xu Daoning

which captures much of the contemplative thing pretty well. Of course one can’t blame people for not being entirely familiar or comfortable with art of this sort as it is a relatively new phenomenon, I mean it’s only been around for a thousand years or so, which is just a tiny drop in time’s bucket when you think about it. Sooner or later maybe this crazy new fad will catch on and more people will learn to appreciate it…

(You can see a larger version of that last work here )

@Tevarian

Is there a method of explaining how a series of quasi-still shots lasting one minute thirty seconds or whatever, with no context suffusing this period with vibrancy, may very well breach a deadening point past which a healthy attention span alive to activity within a frame is at risk of falling into a mindless stupor?

This comment makes me think of a question, and I’ll toss this out to Axel and others as well: how do you guys like looking at paintings? I ask because in my experience I sometimes have to put in quite a bit of time before really appreciating at painting. Even good paintings that instantly appeal to me evoke emotions and thoughts only after significant time of active looking. In other words, the more substantive aesthetic experiences of visual art take time, and often can’t be rushed. These points are germane because some CCC films have similar moments. Indeed, I get the feeling that some of these films are moving towards paintings/photography, so if you find paintings/photography “tedious” and “empty,” then I can understand why you don’t like some of these films.

I want to suggest something else—and I hope Matt, Wu and others who like CCC films can respond as well. I get the sense that some of the CCC filmmakers want to move films towards photography and painting—with the partial intention of featuring semi-still images (like paintings), instead of a edited moving images (like convention movies). I don’t know if the filmmakers intentionally strive for this, but I think it’s an interesting approach. Is there a difference between experiencing a still image like a photograph or painting and a series of moving images edited together? What’s the difference? Maybe if we can articulate some of the differences, we can explain the value of the CCC approach.

Yes, I do think many of the so-called CCC films are asking on the viewer to let go of some narrative expectations or notions of films being as strongly associated with a sort of literate culture and are instead relying on a sort of non-literate response where sounds and images take as much precedence as the narrative demands more closely linked to literary culture. This is why I don’t think these films are anything new exactly, though they have obviously changed over time, but the roots of this “movement” go at least as far back as someone like Sjostrom. One of the biggest changes over time is the paring down of the more directly involving melodramatic aspects of film. This is, to some degree, a tendency felt throughout films, and not just in the kinds of movies discussed in this thread, but in movies which have held to more plot or situation based narratives it isn’t felt in exactly the same way. It’s only when more recent films are compared to older ones where it is more clearly seen. I don’t think this is either a good or bad thing necessarily, it is just the trend of the times.

“I would also add that while many novels tend to rely more on plot than come of the films being discussed, there is also a traditional of long descriptive passages in a number of acclaimed “classics” which can serve as something of an equivalent to some of the tendencies within the movies being talked about.”

Absolutely, and I found it somewhat ironic that Tolstoy was a point of reference, as Russian novels are somewhat famous for this (I was reminded of Henry James comment in his preface to the The Tragic Muse, in which he called War & Peace a “large loose baggy monster” [or something to that effect], which is somewhat akin to the crit be leveled against CCC here).

Heh, yes, I was thinking of a lot of 19th century English literature in that regard, Hardy in particular, but it’s there in the Russians and Americans like Melville as well.

Greg said, While a person can certainly find the experience of a movie to be ‘tedious" “empty” and “unrewarding”, asking that person to explain how is likely to be a futile endeavor since the terms used would describe a failure to engage with the film, and that failure is going to limit the usefulness of what they have to say about it, leaving only the personal impression of the time spent.

Right, but if we can choose some specific scenes, then those who value the film (and remember enough of it) can offer specific reasons for why those scenes work.

Good topic, speaking for myself I find that while I can certainly appreciate the craft that goes into a painting, I’ve never encountered a painting that affected me so deeply that I was literally altered, permanently.

Maybe that’s a little dramatic but my point is that I think film has a very special kind of power, even among the various “arts”. Speaking in broad strokes, a good film attacks me from an emotional standpoint (I feel for the characters), an aesthetic standpoint (beautiful people / images), an acoustic standpoint (sound and music), and an intellectual standpoint (concepts and dialogue / scenario) all at once. For me, the more “arresting” a film is on more of these points, the better.

A painting can hit me from some of these angeles. A painting can obviously hit you aesthetically, and intellectually. But can a painting really hit you emotionally? Now of course paintings can evoke “emotions” out of you, but this is not the same for me as caring about a character in a film.

And, like a painting, I feel that the emotional element is often times what’s missing in CCC type endeavors. Take for example Uncle Boonmee. I can admire the way the film looks aesthetically, I can appreciate the often exquisite sound design present in Weerasethakul’s films. I can admire the film in concept, it’s themes and symbolisms. I can even appreciate the mood and tone of the film.

But what I find difficult to do is care about any of the people. Just like I’ve never seen a painting where I cared about the person in said painting.

I also feel the same about Spielberg’s films as an aside, I can admire the craft behind what he does, but he’s never made a film with a character I actually gave a hoot about. Some people probably don’t need that element, but for me it’s by far the most important thing!