Is it Boring Because Its Art? Or is it Art Because Its Boring?

Harry Tuttle over at Unspoken Cinema has put together a wonderful Blog-a-thon on “Contemplative Cinema”. This is my submission. Feel free to comment below, and at the blog-a-thon’s main page.Good cinema has always been known as a feast for the eyes and ears. Great stories supported by wonderful scripts, remarkable performances, and beautiful cinematography. A two-hour meal that keeps us glued to the screen. We stay because we wonder what will happen next or we are just mesmerized by the intelligent and heartwarming dialog and the emotion on the actor’s faces.

But what if elements of this recipe were removed? Let’s say the dialog is removed. This changes the experience. But film was made the same way for 30 years without dialog, and everything else is still in place. What about the story? If the story is removed, all we have is a succession of scenes that are designed to generate emotion.

Now, the dialog and the story do not have to disappear, but if they cease to be in the forefront of the film then what is left? The emotions generated by the scenes by the use of pace and direction. That is what the film would be about. That is what I would call Contemplative Cinema.

There are some great examples of this, and a lot of people are going straight to one of the most famous: Bela Tarr’s Satantango. A discussion of Contemplative Cinema would not be complete without mentioning this opus. Clocking in at 7.5 hours, this Hungarian film has very little dialog, and features shots that average about 10 minutes in length.

There is a story, but that is not really the point of the film. Visually, it is stunning. Each shot is masterful and mesmerizing. Watching the film is like watching a moving painting. Each image is explored for several minutes, and if this film is for you, it will never be boring.

Still, without a traditional story, you really have to actively participate in the viewing in order to fully appreciate it. Most of us are used to passiveness while going to the theater, and this is not the way to view Contemplative Cinema. The question I am trying to answer is: Because “Contemplate Cinema” is boring to the average viewer, does that make it a higher form of art?

Quite simply, put: No. Any form of art is a good thing. If someone makes a 16 hour film about paint drying, and they truly believe in what they are doing, then that is art. But there are other forms of cinema that combine traditional and “Contemplative” forms. These films are the ones that I believe are just as worthwhile, but have been overshadowed by the less accessible films. These films take chances like Satantango, but stay close enough to traditional movie parameters that they are still entertaining on many levels.

Before I go into discussing an example of this type of film I want to stress how much I love “Contemplative Cinema” in its purest form. I don’t think Bela Tarr should change a thing in the way he makes films. I just want to explore another area that stays close to traditional film-making. Just because a film would bore the average movie-goer, does not mean that is a higher form of art then one that will keep him or her entertained. There is a fine line between art and boredom. (cough cough… Wavelength).

There are some great example of this hybrid film including a trio made by Gus Van Sant. Inspired by Bela Tarr himself, Gus Van Sant showcases the same film-making elements, but highlights stories and dialog and keeps them all under two hours in length. Gerry, Elephant, and Last Days are all great films in their own way, but my personal favorite is Elephant.

This film tells the story of a high school shooting from several different points of view. It is broken down into “Stories”, each proceeded by a title card with the characters name. The pace is slow at first. The camera lazily follows students walking down hallways and in and out of the school. Slowly, the story is revealed. The events get close to when the shooting is going to happen, but then start over again from the point of view of a new character.

Eventually, we see the ending, all filmed in the same waltzing camera style of the rest of the film. It is eerily powerful. We see all the events, but luckily the film does not try to explain or rationalize anything.

Elephant has a story, character development, some good dialog, and was filmed with extreme technical and artistic skill. The lack of a conclusion at the end keeps the film in a powerful fly-on-the-wall mode. Unlike Satantango, this is a film that is best viewed all at once from the beginning. There is a story arc. Although each scene is beautiful, their impact would be lessened without the development of everything that came before them.

Overall, Elephant is a marvelous example of Contemplative Cinema merged with traditional cinema. A story with character development, a climax, and action all told in a series of long artistic shots that leave the viewer in a strange state of helplessness as the events unfold. One of the scariest films that I have ever seen.

I hope that this helps people see the viewpoint that the style of Contemplative Cinema can be used in many different ways. I believe it is more a state of mind then an elitist set of rules. If a film has action and a plot, and doesn’t bore the average viewer, that doesn’t mean it is not good as Satantango.

When a discussion of Satantango, Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles, and Cremaster is taking place, I hope that someone brings up such worthy films as Elephant, Time of the Wolf, and A Talking Picture. Just because they won’t bore the average viewer, doesn’t mean that they are not art.

UPDATE: I recently attended a screening of Satantango in Brooklyn, and I have come to change my opinion of the film after seeing it in a crowded theatre. I now feel that it is less art, more boring. It actually looks very ugly alot of the time. It follows very dull people doing unteresting things. There are some great payoffs, (The wind blowing papers, leaves and garbage around two walking figures, a young-girl rolling around with her cat, the shifts in time, tango-style.) Still, those payoffs were not enough to keep me interested throughout. It is something to see, but I now consider it a bit over-rated. Maybe it was because I was viewing it on the big-screen, or maybe it was because I was being “forced” to sit through the whole length of it. Whatever the case, it did not strike me as great as it did on my first viewing.