"In college, a friend demanded to know what kind of idiot I was that I hadn’t yet watched Tarkovsky’s “Solaris.” “It’s so boring,” he said with evident awe. “You have to watch it, but you won’t get it.”
He was right: I had to watch it, and I didn’t get it. I had to watch it — on a laserdisc in the university library — because the intimation that there was a film that connoisseurs knew that I’d never heard of was too much to bear. I didn’t get it because its mesmerizing pace was so far removed from my cinematic metabolism that several times during its 165 minutes, I awoke in a panic, only to find that the same thing was happening onscreen as was happening when I closed my eyes. (Seas roiling; Russians brooding.) After I left the library, my friend asked me what I thought. “That was amazing,” I said. When he asked me what part I liked the best, I picked the five-minute sequence of a car driving down a highway, because it seemed the most boring. He nodded his approval.
Forever after, rather than avoiding slow-moving films, I’ve viewed aridity as a sign of sophistication. Part of being a civilized watcher of films, I doggedly believe, is seeing movies that care little for my short attention span — movies that find ways to burrow underneath my boredom to create a lasting impression. I still remember watching Derek Jarman’s 1993 “Blue,” a movie that’s simply 79 minutes of narration over a screen colored an unwavering deep blue. (It’s available on DVD — “enhanced for wide-screen TVs,” thank goodness.)"
My aspirational viewing is different in its particulars from Lyra’s, but we both embrace unfamiliar viewing experiences even though — or because — we struggle to understand them. We both yearn: Lyra to be 8 years old; me to experience culture at an ever more elevated level.
Det hele kan siges med et ord. "Udfordring". Ikke at være bange for at se film, som udfordrer én. Men det er ikke ensbetydende med, at man skal "hoppe" med på, hvad "andre synes", blot fordi man tror, at det er det "andre vil høre". Man skal være tro mod ens syn, men derfor kan man godt "yearn", længes, efter nye synsindtryk. Hvis man blot bliver i den "trygge andegård", omfavner genkendeligheden og forventer det samme om og om igen ... det er jo at stå i stampe.
Nu har jeg set Pirates 4 i dag og jeg "yearn'er" absolut ikke mere efter at se flere fortolkningen af de samme jokes, samme timing og samme Jack Sparrow figur. Det er blevet så tandløst og så forudsigeligt, at hæmoroider kan synes som mindre spild af tid.
Alle har et fradrag, Helle hun har to ... Helle ... havets tournedos
I’ve kept out of the fracas because I thought Kois’ piece was silly-season fluff. Of course I wrote my own replies in my head, such as We used to have a name for this: Philistinism. I also thought that the essay operated in bad faith. Kois wasn’t as apologetic as he tried to seem. He claims humility (he “yearns…to experience culture at a more elevated level”) when really disdaining this area of cinema and considering the people who claim to enjoy it mere poseurs.
[. . .]
So Kois may assume that “boring” films have persisted in today’s film culture because of snobbism, but there are deeper reasons. The competition among filmmakers to push an aesthetic horizon further, the narrowing of audience tastes, the search for a budget-appropriate niche that could stand in opposition to the visual spectacle of the New Hollywood–these seem to me important factors in making slow movies a ghetto for cinephiles.
Why shouldn’t people follow Kois in giving up their vegetables? No reason, except that they’re missing some worthwhile cinematic experiences. Not all austere movies are good, but viewers who want to expand their cinematic horizons should consider the possibility of learning to look at certain movies differently. Kois can’t see that; he thinks that people who like the movies that bore him are usually phonies. But I believe that some of those admirers have developed a repertory of viewing habits that adjust to different cinematic traditions. If you can like both Stravinsky and rock and roll, why can’t you like Hou and Spielberg?
#1 Fellaheen 13 år siden
Uddrag:
"In college, a friend demanded to know what kind of idiot I was that I hadn’t yet watched Tarkovsky’s “Solaris.” “It’s so boring,” he said with evident awe. “You have to watch it, but you won’t get it.”
He was right: I had to watch it, and I didn’t get it. I had to watch it — on a laserdisc in the university library — because the intimation that there was a film that connoisseurs knew that I’d never heard of was too much to bear. I didn’t get it because its mesmerizing pace was so far removed from my cinematic metabolism that several times during its 165 minutes, I awoke in a panic, only to find that the same thing was happening onscreen as was happening when I closed my eyes. (Seas roiling; Russians brooding.) After I left the library, my friend asked me what I thought. “That was amazing,” I said. When he asked me what part I liked the best, I picked the five-minute sequence of a car driving down a highway, because it seemed the most boring. He nodded his approval.
Forever after, rather than avoiding slow-moving films, I’ve viewed aridity as a sign of sophistication. Part of being a civilized watcher of films, I doggedly believe, is seeing movies that care little for my short attention span — movies that find ways to burrow underneath my boredom to create a lasting impression. I still remember watching Derek Jarman’s 1993 “Blue,” a movie that’s simply 79 minutes of narration over a screen colored an unwavering deep blue. (It’s available on DVD — “enhanced for wide-screen TVs,” thank goodness.)"
--
Hvad synes i om dette essay? Har Dan Kois ret?
#2 MMB 13 år siden
#3 MMB 13 år siden
#4 Bruce 13 år siden
My aspirational viewing is different in its particulars from Lyra’s, but we both embrace unfamiliar viewing experiences even though — or because — we struggle to understand them. We both yearn: Lyra to be 8 years old; me to experience culture at an ever more elevated level.
Det hele kan siges med et ord. "Udfordring". Ikke at være bange for at se film, som udfordrer én. Men det er ikke ensbetydende med, at man skal "hoppe" med på, hvad "andre synes", blot fordi man tror, at det er det "andre vil høre". Man skal være tro mod ens syn, men derfor kan man godt "yearn", længes, efter nye synsindtryk. Hvis man blot bliver i den "trygge andegård", omfavner genkendeligheden og forventer det samme om og om igen ... det er jo at stå i stampe.
Nu har jeg set Pirates 4 i dag og jeg "yearn'er" absolut ikke mere efter at se flere fortolkningen af de samme jokes, samme timing og samme Jack Sparrow figur. Det er blevet så tandløst og så forudsigeligt, at hæmoroider kan synes som mindre spild af tid.
#5 Highland Park 13 år siden
#6 Bruce 13 år siden
1) 3D
2) 90 minutters spilletid
3) Woody Allen skriver manuskriptet
4) WETA står for greenscreen optagelserne
5) Man genbruger jazz scoret fra Bullitt
#7 MMB 13 år siden