Long and boring art movies (Guardian)

Are all art movies long and boring?

At three and a half hours, Warhol's Chelsea Girls, definitely goes on a bit. Are there any films in this œuvre which don't?

By: Lisa Drysdale (3 Oct 2007, The Guardian)

Any film that pushes the 120-minute mark better have something worthwhile to say for itself. But did you ever see a long, drawn-out art house movie that was utterly compelling to the last?

Last week I managed to catch a rare screening of Andy Warhol's avant-garde epic Chelsea Girls. Set in Manhattan's Chelsea Hotel, the audience plays voyeur to 12 distinct 30-minute scenes played out behind eight different hotel room doors. The Warhol twist? The episodes are double projected alongside one another onto a split screen.

Just as he did with his pop art portraits of the recently deceased/newly idolised, Warhol captures the spirit of the times: Chelsea Girls is New York in its patchouli-scented, drugged-up, backcombed heyday. Thanks to Giuliani, New York is now clean and serene, and even the future of the historic Chelsea Hotel itself is currently under debate.

Warhol's Factory entourage are the stars of the show: Nico trimming her "bangs", hair by hair; Ingrid Superstar taking time out from her trip under a dressing table while Mary Woronov and International Velvet spar above her; Brigid Berlin's junkie character, The Duchess, injecting herself through her trousers; Ondine holding court as the "Pope of Greenwich Village"; Eric Emerson waxing lyrical about the taste of his own sweat.

The short stories weave in and out of one another, with characters frequently appearing on the opposite side of the screen to play in a new scene. And I felt it was this overlap that gives the film its real story: we are all very much the product of our social interactions. This is particularly apparent in the case of sometime-sadist Hanoi Hannah (Mary Woronov), subdued into subservience in the company of her lover.

But while I certainly found parts of Chelsea Girls engaging, the novelty of watching Warhol's split screen storytelling wore off around eight episodes into the full dozen. (And judging by the number of walkouts during the 3 1/2 hour screening, I wasn't alone.)

Action is scarce, dialogue sparse. While there are some cracking put-downs throughout the film and some hearty laughs here and there, the individual scenes drag on. What Warhol takes 30 minutes to say could easily be fitted into 10. And while playing the two reels simultaneously certainly brings home the difference between seeing and observing, I felt it added little else. (Except, perhaps, that had they been played consecutively, I could have reached New York myself in the same time.)

So, when it comes to movies, how long is too long, and can artistic ploys really hope to save an otherwise mediocre film?

Related:

• "Overlong" Entertainment
• Theatrical Ad (ironic) 
• Dan Kois syndroma 1-2
• Boredom (Charney) / On being bored (Phillips) 
• Deficiant Subjectivity

_________________

see other posts on this debate : 1 (Flanagan) - 2 (James) - 3 (Shaviro 1) - 4 (Shaviro 2) - 5 (Thoret) - 6 (Guardian) - 7 (Boring is not an argument) - 8 (Lavallée) - 9 (Frieze) - 10 (James 2) - 11 (Romney)

Films de festival (Thoret)

Cinéma, l'académisme d'auteur

Dans son édito du dernier numéro des Cahiers du Cinéma [n° 620], sobrement titré «Dégueulasse», Jean-Michel Frodon s'indigne de l'émergence insidieuse d'une expression «nouvelle» et «infâme» qui s'immiscerait dans les couloirs du CNC et autres organismes d'aide à la création cinématographique. Depuis peu (quand ?), on y entendrait ainsi parler de «films de festivals» (FDF), expression jugée «injuste»,«infâme»,«insultante». Pourtant, les FDF existent bel et bien, je les ai rencontrés. Ce sont les Films d'auteur académiques (FAA).

Il serait fastidieux de procéder ici à l'inventaire des codes et de la rhétorique du FAA. Mais il suffit de parcourir certains des innombrables festivals de cinéma qui ont lieu chaque semaine dans le monde entier (j'omets ici les vitrines cannoises, berlinoise et vénitienne) pour se convaincre, moyennant un minimum d'honnêteté, de l'existence d'un genre dont l'omniprésence n'a d'équivalent que sa rareté dans nos salles. Ce fut par exemple mon cas, au mois de novembre dernier, lors du festival du film de Séoul, qui m'avait honoré d'une invitation en tant que membre du jury. Huit jours de sélection intensive et une vingtaine de films venus du Chili, d'Iran, du Japon, d'Inde et bien sûr de France, vortex esthético-idéologique du FAA dont l'horizon terminal se résume aux films de Godard (dernière période) et des Straub. Le programmateur du festival était ainsi convaincu de l'extrême popularité du couple auprès de la critique française. Quelle ne fut pas son étonnement lorsque je lui fis remarquer que dans la France de 2006, les films de Michael Mann, de Tsui Hark, de Clint Eastwood ou de Brian de Palma, mobilisaient autant d'énergies critiques que ceux des Straub.

En quoi se distinguaient ces vingt propositions de cinéma parmi «les plus audacieuses» du moment ? A quoi ressemblaient les contours artistiques de cet altercinéma si vanté par Frodon?

Il suffit d'ouvrir les yeux pour se rendre compte combien le cinéma d'auteur académique constitue le pendant naturel du cinéma industriel, moins son antidote ou son refus que son négatif parfait, son double inversé. Si le cinéma hollywoodien valorise la vitesse et le mouvement, le FAA lui, met un point d'honneur à ralentir le rythme (on parle alors de beauté contemplative), à étirer la longueur des plans jusqu'à l'immobilisme total. Si le cinéma industriel a tendance à surligner ses effets et à saturer ses plans d'informations visuelles et sonores, le FAA, lui ne montrera rien ou très peu. Ici, tout se passe alors dans le creux de l'image, et ce qu'il y a à voir n'est surtout pas visible. L'académisme ignore les frontières de même que le passage du grand ou petit marché ne garantit, a priori, aucun gain artistique. Pour des raisons rhétoriques et idéologiques (je suis ce que l'Autre n'est pas), le FAA a besoin de celui qu'il a érigé en ennemi puisqu'il s'y oppose et qu'il trouve dans cette opposition même, la matière de son identité. Ce que l'un filme, l'autre le rejette, et vice versa. Rabattre ainsi l'audace sur le simple refus, c'est prendre le risque de ne plus savoir distinguer Solaris du FAA indien [sic] The Forsaken Land, l'Avventura de l'iranien Portrait of Lady Far Away.

Si le cinéma industriel peut apparaître, souvent à juste titre, comme répétitif, formaté et véhiculant une idéologie consensuelle, le FAA en reproduit naturellement les travers et n'échappe donc pas à une forme d'académisme. D'une certaine façon, le FAA est l'allié objectif du film commercial. Il confond l'épure et le rien, l'abstraction et la pose, le vide et la raréfaction, la contemplation et l'ennui, l'enregistrement de la réalité et la vérité du réel qui, on le sait depuis les frères Lumière, n'a de chance d'advenir qu'à condition d'en fabriquer la fiction. Entre le pire film commercial et le pire FAA, un même néant est atteint, mais par deux chemins opposés. La caractéristique essentielle du FAA réside enfin dans le souci de ne jamais céder (ou le moins possible) aux sirènes du plaisir, de la forme, du spectacle, en bref, il témoigne d'une haine de la fiction, suspecte de faire le jeu d'un ultralibéralisme aliénant. Tel est son paradoxe: censé exprimer une irréductible et résistante singularité, il n'est que l'échantillon conventionnel, et donc interchangeable, d'une même formule.

Jean-Baptiste Thoret, Libération (07 Fév 2007)

_________________

see other posts on this debate : 1 (Flanagan) - 2 (James) - 3 (Shaviro 1) - 4 (Shaviro 2) - 5 (Thoret) - 6 (Guardian) - 7 (Boring is not an argument) - 8 (Lavallée) - 9 (Frieze) - 10 (James 2) - 11 (Romney)

Reject-oriented antilogy (Shaviro)

I'm disappointed that Steven Shaviro's scholarly take on the debate beats around the bush.

Misconceptions:

1. He wrongly conflates CCC with Modern Cinema (Antonioni, Jancso, Tarkovsky), then blames CCC for not looking enough LIKE Modern Cinema (daring, provocative, extremist, posthuman?).
2. Then he blames CCC for looking TOO MUCH like Modern predecessors!
3. He uses uncontroversial big names from the consensual canon of film history, the highest masters, and then blames today's filmmakers for not being as good.
4. He can only conceive art cinema if it is daring, provocative, original, insightful, refreshing, inventive... short of that it's not even worth considering.
5. He calls "routine", "strictly by the number", what auteurists refer to as a stylistic signature (which explains the recurrence!)
6. He calls "default international style" what is an unorganised transnational aesthetic convergence.
7. I don't even know what is the "slow norm", the "slow paradigm", so I can't comment.
8. He shares with us the auteurs he likes and the ones he doesn't like, the films he prefers and the ones he thinks are inferior... and equates his stylistic hierarchies with the fact that such or such style deserves to exist or not.
9. Takashi Miike is more inventive than all CCC combined... so what?
10. There are important contemporary directors who have nothing whatsoever to do with Contemplative Cinema... so what?
11. Being nostalgic and regressive is a "bad thing".
12. CCC can only seduce nostalgic, classicist, old-line cinephiles (like me?)
13. CCC is a way of saying No to mainstream Hollywood’s current fast-edit, post-continuity, highly digital style.

Where to start? There is no theoretical matter to respond to there... What is there to say?

He just says he doesn't LIKE this kind of style and that he WISHES that today's cinema would address socio-culturo-political issues of technology and newer media to feel contemporary. But he doesn't prove that CCC is bad cinema, nor that it's an invalid artistic interpretation of the world we live in.

1. If "Modern Cinema" (whatever this vague umbrella term refers to) was a seamless continuous history, I would agree. But the world has changed quite a bit since the 60ies, so it's easy to understand that the reaction of art to a NEW distinct kind of modernity has evolved too.

If you're going to expect Tsai Ming-liang to provide the exact content/style that Antonioni used to deliver, if you want Tarr to BE Jancsó, if you hope Reygadas to measure up to Tarkovsky... you could be waiting for a long time, cause it is not gonna happen. It's not meant to happen.

CCC is different precisely because it doesn't try to mimic older modernists, but develop a brand new style!

2. Forget about the Modernity references, because the films you see today aren't directly comparable to Antonioni or Tarkovsky. CCC is not wordy, not intellectual, not spiritual, not narrator-centric... no wonders it's nothing like the 60ies!

3. Not being as good as the highest masters doesn't mean that the film/auteur/movement is not legit. You're just subjectively evaluating their inferiority. In principle, new trends can emerge and strive without being greater than everything that has been done before. (not that I agree with his allegation that CCC is inferior!)

4. I would expect reasonable scholars to be able to take into considerations more than a single one possible aesthetic iteration to translate on the screen(s) what contemporaneity has brought upon us. He's being partial like an artist who develops the same style over and over. While the critic ought not take positions, but identify the many ways artists find to express their reactions to the same socio-politico-cultural conditions we live in.

Let me remind here, for the record, that during the period of the (Silent) Hollywood Golden Age (which was not shy of art film gems, later reappraised by artfilm critics), Surrealism coexisted with Soviet Montage, Caligarism and Réalisme Poétique, even though cinema culture wasn't any less international than today (territories and political borders were less permeable alright). In 1960, there were various expressions of the "anti-Hollywood" art scene : not only the Modern Cinema of Antonioni, but Italian Neorealism, La Nouvelle Vague, L'International Situationiste, New American Cinema. All very different aesthetics, very different formal responses to the same global climate of the Cold War...

What I'm saying is that Shaviro assumes that there can be only one alternative to Hollywood, and if CCC (which he insists to call "slow cinema") doesn't endorse the new technologies then it must be wrong, therefore slowness shall be excommunicated from art-cinema... we've seen enough of that. The artfilm aesthetic that is "right" is something else, something that "looks right", films where we can identify easily the signs of our modernity, something like Takashi Miike or Bong Joon-ho... OK. That is his partial hypothesis. It's what HE wants the "response to Hollywood" to be. But it doesn't prevent artists to find other ways, despite your preferences.

I don't know why he looks for a unique "international style" that would format all artfilm makers...

5. 6. 7. null

8. (see 3.) again a confusion between hierarchy and ontology

9. 10. It's not because you're going to find someone more "inventive" that it'll preclude CCC any invention at all. Nobody is suggesting that CCC is THE ONLY possible way for contemporary art cinema... at least I wouldn't say such thing.

If all you want, like Nick James, is to disparage these films, be honest, don't pretend you're making important statements about the existence of this trend.

11. This is a personal point of view. I don't think you're going to redefine Art History based on this slim assumption.

12. First, Modernity is not Classic... it's what follows Classicism by definition!

Nostalgic? Maybe, any cinephile who loves cinema history enough to watch films that are not current must be somehow nostalgic and "regressive". All depends if you imply a derogatory meaning to it. Are you looking down on cinephiles as a whole? I don't follow...

Again you're trying to force a point of view, it's not very scholarly.

Am I anti-new-technology? Not at all. I'm interested in the new images coming up. But on this blog we only discuss a very specific area of cinema which has little to do with this stuff.

Since I disagree about the conflation of CCC with Modernity, I'm going to disagree that CCC is being nostalgic or regressive. You realize that you'll have to prove that Hollywood's narrative is more progressive than art cinema?

13. I'm afraid he didn't go read the article (about Matthew Flanagan's Aesthetic of Slow) I linked in my post, because I already addressed this misconception at length. If you had to use a disclaimer to avoid being dragged in a rhetorical debate (what a scary thought for a scholar who prefers the hit-and-run tactic!), at least read what initiated it. Thanks.

In fact, he's replying to Flanagan there, when he opposes CCC to Hollywood. I never did such thing. Apparently I need to repeat this every time I write about CCC, and start all over as if nothing happened. If Shaviro talks about "the aesthetic of slow" and "slow films vs fast films" I have nothing to say, because this is simply not what CCC is and does.

The late (and still woefully underappreciated) Edward Yang abandoned the Antonioniesque stylings and slownesses of his earlier films for something more like a Renoiresque social realism with ensemble casts (I still think that Confucian Confusion and Mahjong are two of the greatest films of the 1990s, together constituting the postmodern equivalent of Rules of the Game).

What are you talking about??? So channeling Antonioni is "bad" but channeling Renoir makes it "OK"? it's not being unoriginal anymore? Is it still inventive and refreshing to simulate the older style of Renoir??? So I guess Antonioni stands for Modern, and an imitation of La Règle du Jeu (1939!) which is a precursor of Modernity, is Post-Modern??? Sorry, you lost me.

Shaviro disagrees that CCC is the most important aesthetic movement in our present cinema, but it's not a question of canonical hierarchy here. I'd be happy if this trend was at the very least understood for what it is (and not totally fantasised and perverted by people who fail to get immersed in contemplation). I don't care if everyone thinks it's a small, weak, short-lived movement, I don't care what intentions you give its filmmakers, I don't care if you think it is irrelevant to today's technological world. The point is to identify its very coherence, its own nature and not mistake it for something it is not, thus blame it for what it doesn't try to achieve.

_________________

see other posts on this debate : 1 (Flanagan) - 2 (James) - 3 (Shaviro 1) - 4 (Shaviro 2) - 5 (Thoret) - 6 (Guardian) - 7 (Boring is not an argument) - 8 (Lavallée) - 9 (Frieze) - 10 (James 2) - 11 (Romney)

Slowish Obsession, ter

The misunderstanding sinks in deeper...

Steven Shaviro fully endorses Nick James' quote in my previous post, and agrees that CCC is already a goner. But then again, he praises "new technologies", "digitalization" and "new media"... which explains where he's coming from. I beg to differ with the obtuse idea that art cinema MUST position itself against the dominant Hollywood format (the raison d'être of art was never to "oppose" commerce), that there shall be only ONE alternative style to THE dominant style, that this alternative should have to incorporate something technological or else would fail to address contemporary issues... None of this makes sense, culturally, theoretically or historically.

Vadim Rizov abunds : Slow Cinema Backlash (IFC, 12 May 2010)

"The problem isn't the masters. It's the second-tier wave of films that premiere at Berlin and smaller festivals, rarely get picked up for distribution, and simply stagnate in their own self-righteous slowness.

Outside the festival circuit few will ever see them. But those that do instantly understand why someone would wish a pox upon the whole movement. Earlier this year, a few American cities were treated to one such specimen: Jessica Hausner's "Lourdes." This is a movie that really does feel like it's slow because it doesn't know any better: shots go on but they're not particularly complicated. There are no visual riches worth taking in slowly and the drama fails to rise. The whole thing just feels dull. I have no idea how this got distribution [..]"

First : he assumes that the fact a film is bought by a distributor is significant for its cultural value. Which means he takes aesthetic cues from the commercial industry, or at least finds evidence to support his critical stance there! Apparently he expects the crowd of audience to tell him if a film "works" or not. This is mercantile talks. If you want to chip in on the aesthetic relevance of a film movement, you need to bring aesthetic arguments to the table, not Box Office numbers!

He would like to be a critic, and he publicly states that that film, a bad film according to him, shouldn't get distribution! You could rejoice that the film didn't get money from admission (if you're that kind of guy), but denying distribution (i.e. VISIBILITY) to a cultural good, BEFORE it could get criticized by critics and the audience, is called censorship (whether it is operated by the market or by an institutional certification).

Reviewers nowadays are merely pawns of the industry (proudly or inadvertently), they don't think for themselves! They believe Cinema is whatever the industry wants it (allows it) to be.

Second : his vocabulary betrays his taste bias. Typical of the detractors who don't GET what CCC intends to achieve. The shot is not "complicated" enough, as if complexity was a seal of greatness... "visual riches", not enough "drama". What can I say? He wants mainstream action and doesn't find it in CCC, thus discards it without trying to figure out if there are legit reasons to develop an art form WITHOUT these century old clutches inherited from Theatre and Literature.

But then again, this is the guy who believes that "slow criticism" sucks...

* * *

I regret that this debate stagnates on where critics would like art cinema to head towards, as if they were in a position to dictate how artists should respond to the new paradigms of our modernity... Critics forget their place and their role, which is to explicit what happens, not to boss artists around. Tell us whether the artists of our generation do a good job or not (because these articles don't address aesthetic issues, don't prove the failure of CCC, they just state that they got bored with the trend), but don't suggest them where to go!

Shaviro only reinforces the mentality outlined earlier by Gavin Smith in Film Comment, and now by Nick James in Sight & Sound : somehow "La Tradition de Qualité" is in artfilm festivals (which is a complete misunderstanding of what conformity Cahiers opposed in 1954!) and the real great cinema of today is in Hollywood (which has no Hitchcock or Selznick today to save it), or who knows where else, in digital cinema and exploitation...

I believe this is a MAJOR debate of today's cinema aesthetic. Not the only one, but without doubt one of the main questions that critics should address and explore to mark the film culture of our times. Incommensurably more important than Mumblecore, or the decline of the press!

I'm not saying that the pertinence of film criticism necessarily resides in defending CCC, because there is room for sound theoretical examination of its shortcomings.

But History will remember that Film Comment and Sight & Sound took a stance against this trend! I hope you won't feel embarrassed for taking the wrong side when the dust settles. But that's what timely criticism is all about : taking chances.

And I predict a big blunder of the institutional press for dismissing this aesthetic (while only keeping the safe bets on top masters). The debate mistreated, misunderstood, underestimated, neglected in 2010. CCC dates back as far as 1970ies and the various films were systematically colluded with Modern Cinema, Minimalism or other political side-issues, without ever appreciating its main aesthetic component that differs from Antonioni or Tarkovsky.

Just like the critics of the 60ies rejected the breakthrough of Modern Cinema, just like the conservative art critics of Classicism failed to welcome Impressionism, just like the established critics of Figurative Art rejected Cubism and Abstract Art... this is the old tune of shortsighted witnesses.

_________________

see other posts on this debate : 1 (Flanagan) - 2 (James) - 3 (Shaviro 1) - 4 (Shaviro 2) - 5 (Thoret) - 6 (Guardian) - 7 (Boring is not an argument) - 8 (Lavallée) - 9 (Frieze) - 10 (James 2) - 11 (Romney)

Slow films, easy life (Sight&Sound)

Via Filmwell :

"Part of the critical orthodoxy I have complained about has been the dominance of Slow Cinema, that “varied strain of austere minimalist cinema that has thrived internationally over the past ten years”, as Jonathan Romney put it [see here]. “What’s at stake,” he wrote, “is a certain rarefied intensity in the artistic gaze . . . a cinema that downplays event in favour of mood, evocativeness and an intensified sense of temporality.”

I admire and enjoy a good many of the best films of this kind, but I have begun to wonder if maybe some of them now offer an easy life for critics and programmers. After all, the festivals themselves commission many of these productions, and such films are easy to remember and discuss in detail because details are few. The bargain the newer variety of slow films seem to impose on the viewer is simple: it’s up to you to draw on your stoic patience and the fascination in your gaze, in case you miss a masterpiece.

Watching a film like the Berlin Golden Bear-winner Honey (”Bal” Semih Kaplanoglu, 2010) – a beautifully crafted work that, for me suffers from dwelling too much on the visual and aural qualities of its landscape and milieu – there are times, as you watch someone trudge up yet another woodland path, when you feel an implicit threat: admit you’re bored and you’re a philistine. Such films are passive-aggressive in that they demand great swathes of our precious time to achieve quite fleeting and slender aesthetic and political effects: sometimes it’s worth it, sometimes not. Slow Cinema has been the clear alternative to Hollywood for some time, but from now on, with Hollywood in trouble, I’ll be looking out for more active forms of rebellion."

“Passive Aggressive”, editorial by Nick James, Sight & Sound, April 2010

Typical. Misunderstanding CCC. Looking down on art cinema.

We're back in 2006 when CCC was ironically nicknamed "boring art films"! And this is not the dumbing down mainstream press uttering these words... it comes from the most artfilm-friendly cinephile publication in the UK, by the very colleague of Jonathan Romney (long-time defender of CCC) cited in the article. Real film critics giving up on art... who is going to defend real culture then?

First he calls it "slow cinema", like Matthew Flanagan (read "Slower or Contemplative?"), which is a mischaracterisation that induces contempt and caricature. Limiting this cinema to "slowness" is reductive and superficial. This is precisely because unhappy viewers remain on the surface of these films that they are unable to obtain any substance from them.

"Details are few" says he! It's not because you can hardly fill a half-page with plot points and characters arc, or because the list of notable features appearing on the screen is short, that there isn't anything else there to see. Critics need to learn how to name things (and fill up their list of itemisation) that are not obvious, to learn to find the content behind the appearance of emptiness, to learn to understand the depth and complexity in the intervals between the apparent (nominal) details.

It's like dismissing Kasimir Malevich or Yves Klein because there isn't enough "details" on the canvas... sometimes Art is not about WHAT is represented, but about what is NOT represented, or an abstract reflection on the effect of representational minimalism. I thought critics assimilated this breakthrough of non-figurative art long time ago! (see: Non-narrative Film Criticism)

I can't believe a serious magazine would publish such anti-intellectual banter. If you don't like these films, deal with it frontally. No need to pretend that art would never put you to sleep. I believe the guilt is onto the sleeper. Filmmakers, good or bad, don't have to make your job easier. That's your problem. If you have trouble watching films as an imposed assignment, find another job less strenuous on your patience. Because Film Criticism isn't going to change to suit your Diva's demands. When you trade your opinions on cinema, we don't need to know whether you enjoy getting up in the morning, forgetting to drink your coffee, driving to the screening room, struggling with your digestion, feeling nauseous from hangover, falling asleep... This is not the kind of "opinion" you're paid for. We don't ask critics whether they ENJOY watching films for a living, we ask them if these films are any good!

Here is how he defines his profession of film critic : "it’s up to you to draw on your stoic patience and the fascination in your gaze, in case you miss a masterpiece". The guy is paid to watch movies to give his opinion, and he would like us to feel sorry for him to have to watch all films before knowing whether it's a masterpiece... Maybe he expected the job to be signposted in advance, with big labels in red letters saying "MASTERPIECE" on the DVD screener, so he knows which films to watch and which ones he may skip. Dude! Your job is to watch the damn films, masterpieces or not. "Patience" and screen "fascination" is a REQUIREMENT of your job! "Precious time" is what your are required to invest for the privilege to give your opinion on films.

"sometimes it’s worth it, sometimes not" : wonderful insight! Thanks for the truism. How is this any different when you watch dumb comedies and superhero sequels??? Yeah, sometimes it's worth it, sometimes not. But if we knew in advance, you'd be out of job!

If you want to watch only "masterpieces", you're not a critic, you're a READER. Readers don't have to watch all the films, they sit at home and read in YOUR magazine which are the "masterpieces" because critics did their job. What is so hard to grasp here?

And this guy runs a film magazine and writes editorials??? At least he admits he's "bored and a philistine". Typical of the anti-intellectual, pro-entertainment inclination that plagues today's film culture. If you can't tell art from boredom, you won't be taken seriously when you think you've found art in mainstream formulaic genre... cause THAT is the easy life for a film critic (and most of the time they are overstating the alleged greatness of genres, hoping to pull a Truffaut)

This said, to be able to identify CCC in "slower films" doesn't mean that they are therefore ALL great or revolutionary or exceptional... Yes, there are bad CCC films! Who would have thought?

There are bad Soviet Montage films too, bad Italian neorealism films, bad Nouvelle Vague films, bad Westerns, bad documentaries... Yes. It happens! Thanks for the lesson Sight & Sound.

Did you expect films that play it "artsy" to be automatic wins? that if it LOOKS slow, then it must be great art? There is no recipe for art, not in art-films, not in genre movies.

CCC is not a formulaic trend that only produces masterpieces. It is an alternative way to make films, a new narrative mode, a different angle in storytelling, and it gives a new perspective to the audience. You can't judge it with your subjective mainstream prejudices (lack of details, lack of events, slowness, boredom...)

If young filmmakers try to imitate certain traits without understanding what CCC is, they are wrong and they make bad films. But that doesn't undermine CCC, not for savvy critics anyway. There are a lot of wannabe directors who think they can imitate a comedy formula and become a great filmmaker... but it's not that easy. Why? Because critics don't have the "easy life", they know to look past the surface and tell uninspired imitation from a genuine research that happens to take a form common to a certain trend.

If artists tried to avoid their art to look like nothing else around, we would never see the emergence of a collegial trend in the major aesthetic movements of cinema history, in Art history in general.

Related:

• Dan Kois Syndrome (Proud Bordeom)

_________________

see other posts on this debate : 1 (Flanagan) - 2 (James) - 3 (Shaviro 1) - 4 (Shaviro 2) - 5 (Thoret) - 6 (Guardian) - 7 (Boring is not an argument) - 8 (Lavallée) - 9 (Frieze) - 10 (James 2) - 11 (Romney)