As long as we’re speaking broadly, I’ll say it’s more directly a reaction to the current dominant mode of filmmaking—rapid cutting, multiple coverage, overshooting, selective focus, etc.
Indirectly perhaps as the glut of media in its rapid and nonstop insistence is reflected in cinema and therefore reacted against as Matt suggests.
I think it has to do with the attention the increased availability of the internet has availed Eastern European cinema. The influence of directors like Tarr has spread into a lot of different niches.
But, it’s hardly a new phenomenon. Your set of criteria perfectly describes Chantal Akerman. It’s just that this method of filmmaking has a very specific appeal, and the internet has made it easier for those who like that appeal to find it.
@ MATT PARKS
I find both extremes to be very uninteresting, as often is the case with “black and white” renditions of life.
Allow me to illustrate.
@Matt
I didn’t consider that the filmmaking was a reaction to the “fast” filmmaking, but I think it’s a valid—and in some ways, more likely explanation. I say more likely because I tend to feel like any emerging development/movement in an artform usually occurs as a reaction to the past or present trends.
Still, I wonder if that ends the conversation? What do others think? Can we make a case for “contemplative cinema” being a reaction to the internet age? Or what about something that Greg seems to suggest—that “fast cinema” is perhaps a manifestation of the internet age; therefore, if contemplative cinema is a reaction to “fast cinema,” it is also an indirect reaction to the internet age?
@Jirin
Contemplative cinema, as I’m describing it, may not be a new phenomenon—although I think it would be interesting if other people could point out significant differences from older films with similar qualities. However, I do think a significant number of filmmakers (not just Eastern Europe—but Asia and South America) employing this approach recently—so much so that it seems to be a movement—is quite interesting. Did it happen when Akerman made Jeanne Dielman or was she basically the only one? Why has the “trend” occurred now?
I wouldn’t just say internet age Jazz, I think the reaction against the sorts of things I was describing has been around for longer than that. It seemed to grow more from television and modern advertising as well as the perceived increased pace of our lives.
““fast cinema” is perhaps a manifestation of the internet age; therefore, if contemplative cinema is a reaction to “fast cinema,” it is also an indirect reaction to the internet age?”
Yes, I think so. Generally I think that “fast cinema” has developed along with technology and other factors that have contributed to “the internet age” (having perhaps first passed through “the television age”).
@Greg
But contemplative cinema seems to be a relatively recent phenomena—I think the effects of the internet have exacerbated the problems brought on by TV and computers. (I don’t mean to suggest that effects of the internet are purely quantitative; they’re not.) One of the effects of the internet and wireless technologies that’s relevant to this discussion is the erosion of contemplative moments. Both technologies allow people to be plugged in at all times and in all places. Now, we’ve had other diversions that could intrude into contemplative opportunities, but I think the electronic media are even more seductive and addictive.
So I’m wondering if some filmmakers are trying to preserve and promote contemplative activity. They might be using cinema as a safe-haven for this sort of activity—maybe an oasis for those who want an alternative or escape from the information overloaded world.
Well contemplative cinema came into existence long before the internet age took off, but I’m sure the internet age and its shortcomings provides contemplative filmmakers something substantive to comment on.
“But contemplative cinema seems to be a relatively recent phenomena”
Nah. Ozu. Tarkovsky. Bresson….
….neo-realism…….
—PolarisDiB
Yeah, the discussions about the “speed of life” have been around for a long time. It keeps increasing though, and the dominant media does reflect this, so that may be why contemplative cinema, or movies which seem to oppose this tendency keep coming back to the fore in the art-film world. It’s always a give and take.
With all due respect Jazz, and taking into account that you have created more great threads than anyone here lately and are almost singlehandedly keeping the forum interesting, threads like this one run into problems, I think, because you’re putting way too much importance into labels and trends rather than specifics. Perhaps it’s overblown when I say these terms are just marketing tools but they are definitely a kind of critic-speak shorthand that mostly misses the point of films like Goodbye, Dragon Inn. I’m not saying all trends and movements should never be talked about but at most they are an easy, but not always effective, way of introducing new viewers with limited knowledge about non-mainstream cinema. I really think it can be detrimental to real critical insight to see every film first and foremost as a part of a cultural or artistic movement.
Yeah, it’s been around probably since the beginning. It does seem there’s been a proliferation in recent decades though, but that may just be a proliferation of attention paid to it recently. It’s hard to tell with any certainty.
@DiB
So you don’t see any significant—or meaningful differences—between Ozu, Tarkovsky, Bresson and Neo-Realistic filmmakers and the more recent filmmakers that I’m thinking of? Let me suggest a few. I think the recent filmmakers using a similar approach as those directors—but only slower, maybe even more mundane. Moreoever, it’s not just “speed” but “reduction”—as in, stripping down of story, ways of expressing emotions, maybe even characters. Something like Los Muertos, for example, makes Tokyo Story or Bicycle Thieves feel like a complex mainstream narrative. Maybe even the symbolism is also reduced and simplified. For example, many of Tarkvosky’s films have more complex imagery, metaphors and thematic material than some of these films I’m thinking of.
But here’s another key difference to my mind: there seems to be a significant of filmmakers adopting this approach at the same time. Why now? Why are so many (if this is true) doing this now? Just pure coincidence?
@Mike
It sounds like you’re concerned that I might be using these labels and generalizations in a way that might cause us to miss the important details of specific films—that we would make sweeping generalizations and do a disservice to individual films. I understand this concern, but I’m not trying to talk about this label as a way to use or even legitimize it; the purpose of the thread is not to analyze specific films within this label.
Instead, I want to explore the reasons filmmakers have become interested in similar approaches—and to see if others think there is a relationship between this trend (if it is trend) and the rise of the internet and other internet related technologies. Does that make sense? And if so, do you still find this discussion problematic?
Well, i know you know what you want to say in a thread so I wasn’t confused about your not meaning to lump films together, I was just concerned that these discussions often lead to that. For instance, I’m not entirely sure that Ozu’s films should be called contemplative. I realize you didn’t say they were and I realize they do share aspects with the films you mean but it’s basically the whole notion of exactly what you bring up in the beginning of your last post that worries me. I’m not saying you’re participating in any kind of conspiracy or anything, just that I don’t see how discussing Los Muertos as a part of a larger discussion of contemplative cinema can be anywhere near as fruitful as discussing Los Muertos alone, and perhaps bringing up its contemplative qualities as well as comparing it to one or two films with which it may share a few aspects. I could be crazy, but it worries me a bit.
Well, I brought up specific films mainly to support the notion that there is something different about recent “contemplative cinema” versus older films that could also be similarly described. Again, I’d be happy to move to discussing the specific filmmaking approach as it relates to the internet or any other reason for it.
“However, I do think a significant number of filmmakers (not just Eastern Europe—but Asia and South America) employing this approach recently—so much so that it seems to be a movement—is quite interesting. Did it happen when Akerman made Jeanne Dielman or was she basically the only one? Why has the “trend” occurred now?”
Did Ackerman herself even continue making this kind of film. The problem with the whole “contemplative label” is that you have to do a fairly rigorous and specific differential diagnosis or a lot of films fit. What to you see as the “something different” in the recent ones, Jazz?
Certainly hard to deny the recent influx of contemplative, could be a response to the internet, sure.
Could be the fact that this style is easy to do on the cheap, and also could be the fact that it’s a relatively safe approach.
By safe I mean, your taking considerably less “risks”, as your not really bringing much to the table. It’s very easy to film something contemplative, pass it off as “high art”, and have “critics” eat it up.
Agree that the popularity of contemplative cinema is at least partly a reaction to contemporary mainstream Hollywood film-making cliches (and MTV and all the rest). I can say that personally this is definitely the case.
Safe and easy, though? Disagree. I think it takes enormous skill to pull off well. Not all contemplative films are good (we’ve been through this before elsewhere).
Contemplate my DP.
^I am, and it’s good, very good…
oh I’ve no doubt it takes considerable skill to do contemplative well (Tarkovsky), but I think the line is very, very thin between brilliance, and utter drivel.
And thus it is “easy” to go out, grab a camera find an actor/subject and shoot a contemplative film, and simply hope people interpret you on the brilliant side. (many critics fall into this trap it seems.)
Add to this the practical appeal of shooting contemplative in terms of complexities and budget (not to mention the fears and/or risks of trying original or unique styles) and it is no wonder in the amount of films being put out in this vein.
@Matt
See my response to DiB.
@Axel
…and it is no wonder in the amount of films being put out in this vein.
I don’t know. That the approach is cheap might partly explain the trend. However, look at the mumblecore films. I don’t think of them as contemplative cinema—not the ones I’ve seen anyway. Moreover, unless you have some compelling evidence to back up the claim, saying filmmakers have gravitated towards this approach primarily because they can easily win praise (by fooling people) is close to an insult. I don’t think we could make this claim even if a film wasn’t very good, either.
“But here’s another key difference to my mind: there seems to be a significant of filmmakers adopting this approach at the same time. Why now? Why are so many (if this is true) doing this now? Just pure coincidence?”
This style has become a cinematic shorthand that unites filmmakers from all over the world. These are films that are designed to get into festivals and, yes, to give off a default sensibility of “seriousness”. I feel it’s a cliche now and almost completely uninteresting. I also agree that these types of films are low-budget and that helps propagate their growth among the independent segment.
“By safe I mean, your taking considerably less “risks”, as your not really bringing much to the table. It’s very easy to film something contemplative, pass it off as “high art”, and have “critics” eat it up.”
Agree. Is “Aurora” truly and honestly a good film? Or is it only good because we recognize the name of the auteur and he is working in this default mode of profundity? Not saying it’s a bad film but it appears to me to be average at best.
@Bobby
I’d have to see quite a bit of bad contemplative films—which I haven’t—to come the same conclusion as you and Axel. They wouldn’t just have to be bad, but bad in such a way that would make me suspect the motives. Just because a film is bad—or average—doesn’t mean the film was a cheap attempt at critical acclaim.
On the other hand, I could admit that some filmmakers motivated for these reasons—especially several filmmakers received praise for films with this approach. But let me put it this way. I think there’s enough good films/filmmakers that we could assume other reasons for adopting this approach. Or would you disagree with that?
I want to explore the reasons filmmakers have become interested in similar approaches—and to see if others think there is a relationship between this trend (if it is trend) and the rise of the internet and other internet related technologies.
You have to list (contemporary) filmmakers reasons the see how they are similar. ( Mike has a valid concern here.)
Next you have to define ‘internet related technologies’. Are they things only used on the web? Does a web-based editing platform change anything about editing? What if a slow film were edited on-line?
In photography there was rise in pinhole imagery (slow), but also a rise in collage/montage work (fast) – so one cancels the other.The significance of either trend?
Well, i would say contemplative cinema emerged after world war two, maybe specifically in the late 50’s. But neo-realism and Bazins concept of “the long take that reveals the ambiguity of reality” was the beginning of it. I think contemplative cinema is really a post-structuralist art. There sure is an affinity between contemplative films like 2001 or Tarkovskys Zerkalo and the french Nietzscheans and post-structuralist philosophers Lyotard, Guatarri and Deleuze, they’re all having message of “immanence”.
The immanence and comtemplation of film is maybe most evident in the works of Jonas Mekas, which is really never binary, never dialectical or transcendent, always a stream a life, a stream of situations and moments and completely immanent, God is something internalized in human relations. Contemplative filmmaking is, in broader terms, a reaction against dialectics, that of our society and of course Eisensteins theories and the First Cinema of Hollywood. What Eisenstein tried was to organize the formless matter that is film, impose upon it meaningless superstructures, make a dialectical sense of the flow of life and time in the shots. Film is not dialectical or essential, it’s an art of immanence, difference and tragedy, that’s what Tarkovsky (among others) understood.
Bazins concept of “the long take that reveals the ambiguity of reality”
Finally someone mentions Bazin.
And doesn’t speed suggest a lack of ambiguity?
When one pushes their sports car on twisty tree-lined country roads, aren’t they pushing aside the uncertainty that there is a stalled haywagon around the next corner? depending on the technology of oversized brakes to overcome fate?
1950s Japan was known for its societies heavy use of the internet … I gets that must have pissed Ozu off a bit and why he lent more to his contemplative aesthetics. Same with Tarkovsky, Russia in the 1970s was pretty much web crazed, so obviously this had an effect on his work.
Jazzaloha
I recently watched Goodbye, Dragon Inn, some questions involving contemplative cinema popped up. My sense is that in the last fifteen years (just a guess) a movement of contemplative filmmaking has emerged. I don’t really want to go into defining what I mean by that (since we tried to sort the definition out here), but I’m wondering if the movement is a reaction to the internet and internet related technologies. To me, this seems like a reasonable hypothesis, and in this thread I’m hoping to see if others agree with this and also discuss the reasons filmmakers have responded this way (what about internet technologies has made them react this way) and what they might hope to achieve as a result. I have some thoughts on this, but I’ll just leave it here for now and see what others say.
Before I turn this loose, let me briefly define what I mean by contemplative filmmaking. Here are some qualities:
1. Films with a stripped down or non-existent story line. The film is based more on a situation, than a story.
2. The use of long, static camera shots—where almost nothing seems to be happening. Maybe the camera points at a person walking down a corridor for several minutes. These moments feel similar to looking at a painting or a photograph—and when the film has many of these moments it creates the sense that the entire film is trying to be a painting or photograph more than a film.
3. The activity in these scenes (if there are any) are often mundane.
A part of me also wants to use the word, “reductionist” to describe the filmmaking as the story, characters, dialogue all seemed to be reduced or stripped down. There might be other qualities that I’m missing, but hopefully you get the idea (and I don’t really want to get hung up on the definition).