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.

If I went and saw every film in 2006, there would probably be much worse films than the ones on this list. Those are throwaway films anyway. Films that only people with brain damage would go see. A list like that would be boring and obvious.What hurts me more are films that I wanted to see that turned out horrible. Films that really had promise. Those are the ones that let me down on a personal level, and those are the ones that are on my list. Each film below I went to the theatre to see, expecting to enjoy them at least a little bit. Boy, was I wrong.

I’m not sure if this list tells more about my naivete, or the films of 2006. I guess I’ll let the reader be the judge of that. Now, in order from least awful to most pitiful, I present my 2006 Bottom Five of the year!

I loved Lost in Translation and The Virgin Suicides, and a candy-pop biopic of the French queen seemed perfect for Sofia Coppola. The trailer was promising. I went in the theatre expecting a good film, but all I got was two hours of meaningless scenes. Sometimes the film felt like it would start getting good, but it just never did. The story was uncompelling, and the fresh pop feel I was expecting was nowhere to be found. Sofia Coppola is still a director who I admire, and I will still await her next film, even if it I do it a little less eagerly.

Coming off of the brilliant Haute Tension, I thought that Alexandre Aja would be able to turn the interesting source material into a slick horror film. He couldn’t do any worse than the original, right? Again, I was wrong. This film is nothing new. Just another stupid horror film. None of the talent Aja showed comes through in this. They even kept the stupid dog in the story! This film was worse than the original. At least Wes Craven’s was original.

What’s that in the sky? It’s bird… It’s a plane… It’s the worst Superman in a long line of horrible Supermen! I never understood the draw of Superman. He can’t be hurt. Lex Luthor is a stupid villain. This film brings absolutely nothing new to the character or to the film world in general. Not even that, but it has all the flair and style of an episode of Larry King Live. Lets just hope that this ends the Superhero genre, at least until Spiderman 3.

I saw the trailer for this film, and that was the main reason I wanted to see the movie. It looked fun. A lot of fun. An unofficial remake of Night of the Creeps, I was expecting an ode to the seventies and eighties splatter grindhouse flicks. All I got was horrid dialog, unimaginative creatures, and what was the worst-directed film of the year.Slugs! Slugs infecting brains! How can you mess it up! I wasn’t expecting cineMAH here… I was expecting a fun movie. I really should have known better this time, but unfortunately, I didn’t. The only redeeming thing about this movie is the poster which almost won an award last week.

M… Night… Shyamalan. Why do you have to be so modest? You should talk up your films more. After a masterpiece such as The Village, people will love to hear how you tore down the aristocracy at Disney, and risked your career on a fairy tale. It was promising at first. You can direct well, but you can’t keep the story straight. Your films have holes galore and fall apart very quickly. Stop trying to impress us with the plot. That’s not the most important thing in a film. Lady in a the Water is a prime example of all of these faults.But don’t worry! You career will be fine. After the success of The Sixth Sense, you will be able to make films for the rest of your life. No matter what horrible piece of trash you manage to think of, you can find money to get it made. Even if it is as senseless as Lady in a the Water.

LCD’s Response -

I don’t know why you bother either. You lost me with the first sentence of your first review. You loved Lost in Translation? The only thing Sofia Coppola is a perfect fit for these days is directing an epic film of me having the shits. Marie Antoinette was just two hours of random scenes? So it was just like Lost in Translation, which apparently you love? I’m sure it sucked, I’m just not sure why you’d be surprised. Sofia Coppola stepped in shit when she made The Virgin Suicides and has sucked ever since. She was even in The Phantom Menace for christ’s sweet sake! Spike Jonze was smart enough to divorce her and I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before daddy Francis Ford disowns her. You should abandon her too Cinesthete, unless you’re really a glutton for punishment.

Sadly, I can’t really disagree with anything else on your list since I either agree with you (Superman Returns and The Hills Have Eyes) or I was smart enough to stay the hell away from them (everything else).

2006 comes to a close, and Reelfriction is born again. What a better way to celebrate the two events then having a three part Head2head summarizing the years past films! The Reelfriction “Filmies” will be given out for several different categories, best and worst. LCD and I could not agree on the winners, so we each have our own. This three part event will culminate with a Head2head Top 5 of the year, so stay tuned!Enough about the rules. 2006 brought the promise of some great films. Unfortunately, most of them I didn’t see. I was quite busy, and since Reel Friction’s “web-hosting” company had gone the way of the dodo, there was no need (however much I wanted to), to keep up with great new cinema.

So many of you may say to yourself, “What of this film?” or “What of that film?” “Why aren’t they on his list?” Well, suffice it to say that I probably did not catch them yet. Either that, or I totally disagree with you. To find out which, just leave a comment below! And without further adieu, the Filmie goes to…

• Best - The Host - An old fashioned giant monster film with a modern twist. The poster shows a tiny glimpse of the creature, and that’s all that’s needed to show how good this movie might be. If its anything like Joon-ho Bong’s earlier films, we won’t be disappointed. Also, I love the exclamation points.
• Worst - Snakes on a Plane - First you see the tag line. Horrible. Then, you notice the lack of snakes. When your eye wanders over to the woman on the bottom, you wonder what in the word she is doing. Is that a karate stance? Then what’s with Samuel L. Jackson’s hand grabbing her? How unnatural does that look? Then you see the pilot getting ready to grab the woman and finally, you decide that maybe this film is not for you.

• Best - Brick - I had never heard anything about this film, and then I saw the trailer. It quickly went to the top of my must-see list. It shows how a great trailer can highlight a film without giving away anything of what makes the movie worth seeing.
• Worst - Bee Movie - Umm… what is this? Is this supposed to be for an animated film? This trailer is out a year before the film and it doesn’t make any sense. Its surprisingly unfunny even though it has Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock in it. Dreamworks is just preying on the mindless with this one.

• Best - Borat - In a year that had Jet Li’s final martial arts epic and Jackie Chan’s final Police Story film, I still had to go with the naked fight in Borat. I can’t believe the guts of those two actors to do that scene in their hotel room, let alone all through the hotel. When they burst in on that convention, I nearly died.
• Worst - Fearless - Jet Li’s final martial arts epic showed none of the flair that we see in Tai-chi Master or Once Upon a time in China. The final fight in the film is atrocious. It is anti-Jet Li. All we get to see is him puking all over himself. Where’s Yuen Wo Ping when you need him?

• Best - Brick, The Kingpin - He’s old… like 24. I won’t give anything way from this film. All I’ll say is that he is quite an interesting character. He’s not your standard run of the mill evil villain. Just look at where his office is.
• Worst - Slither, Grant Grant - Alien slugs invade his head and turn him into some sort of zombie. Not only that, but for some reason he starts turning into a big mess of tentacles and slime. It doesn’t make much sense, it’s not that scary, and it’s really not that funny either. What makes it worse is that it could have been good. Its a great big missed opportunity for a fun horror villain.

• Best - Sympathy for Lady Vengeance, Geum-ja Lee - Can Geam-Ja really be seen as a hero? She can just as easily be seen as a more heinous villain than those she does battle with. Hero or not, that is what makes this character, and film, so interesting.
• Worst - Superman Returns, Superman - How many times can we see this invincible alien save helpless humans? He’s predictable, and invincible. He’s never going to die, so where’s the danger? And don’t give me that “burden of power” stuff. Spiderman does it much better.

• Best - The Fountain, Hugh Jackman - He takes three completely different roles and plays them to stellar heights in this wonderful film. If you want to see range, check this one out. Hugh Jackman shows enough talent to make up for every other movie he’s ever been in.
• Worst - Lady in the Water, M. Night Shyamalan - I respect him for doing what he loves no matter how many people tell him to stay behind the camera. Still, it pains me to watch his films, and when I see him appear it pains me even more.

• Best - Children of Men, Alfonso Cuarón - Although the picture fell short of being great, the directing was masterful. The film looked incredible, and Caurón kept the pace moving and the tension high without letting the film fall into horrible action movie mode. One amazing shot towards the end of the film has the camara follow Clive Owen through a battle in a war-ravaged city for a good two minutes. A shot I will never forget.
• Worst - Slither, James Gunn - Following in the footsteps of Fred Dekker and David Cronenberg, James Gunn tries to throw his hat into the ring on the subject of zombie slug thing movies. Its pretty hard to mess up a premise with fun written all over it, but somehow this movie falls flat. No charm, no style. Nothing.

• Best - Brick, Rian Johnson - The bread and butter of any film noir is its screenplay. Not only does Brick have a great story, but the dialog is in a world of its own. Its amazing to hear and it takes the viewer to a place that no other film has been before. The most original movie of the year, and the screenplay is its best part.
• Worst - Lady in the Water, M. Night Shyamalan - This film has a great opening scene but it just goes downhill from there. The trademark Shyamalan twists are there, and they are making less and less sense. The story is full of holes and all the characters buy into things much too quickly. Shyamalan writes his scripts with the idea of inserting his big surprises, and that makes them suffer tremendously.

Congratulations to all winners! Please come back next week for the Reelfriction Filmies Top 5 Best of the Worst!

LCD’s Response -

Jesus Christ TC. I know you’re afraid of arousing my ire over the internet and all but seriously, how can you only put one choice down from a movie I bothered to see? I’ll answer my own question: because you’re an idiot who watches sucky movies and I would expect nothing less (more?) from you. At least we agreed on Superman sucking as a hero. As to the rest, I’ll just say that your lists are probably inverted.