Bondo's 200X

[Verite]

Boredom during a film with conventional (don't mean it as a pejorative) storytelling that I don't like (e.g., Friday Night Lights, the movie) is mostly easier for me to take than boredom during an arthouse flick that I don't like (e.g., I Can No Longer Hear the Guitar) though.  I found that Garrel insufferable.

[sdedalus]

I don't know that I can draw a general distinction like that.  Boring I don't like is boring I don't like.

[Verite]

In my experience there are degrees of boredom as there are for appreciation.

[sdedalus]

Sure, but there are boring mainstream movies I like less than boring art movies I don't like, and vice versa.

[Verite]

I unintentionally left out "mostly."

[sdedalus]

Ah, gotcha.

[Bondo]

Silent Light

After all the discussion about slow films and such...Silent Light is my favorite film of the marathon so far. I was watching this streaming in HD and man does it look amazing. The opening scene of a starry night fading into sunrise really sets the tone. It has long shots that let you really breathe in the environment and with a few exceptions, it does not seem overdone.

One benefit here is that I feel a personal connection to the setting. I am one generation removed from a farming family in rural Minnesota. This sort of midwestern germanic setting is like going home, and it certainly made me miss it. This helps me understand the emotions, restrained as they are in the stoic nature of the culture. The basic story is a man emotionally torn between his wife/family and the mistress he has fallen in love with. It may not be complicated but it is powerful and emotional. One benefit is that all the characters are likable even as they take actions that are not.

A few complaints that keep it from truly exceptional. The acting (mostly non-professionals apparently) is kind of flat (though it is harder to tell in a foreign language) and the ending is a bit baffling. However, these were not nearly enough to derail my enjoyment.

Rating: 4/5

[smirnoff]

The film doesn't try to draw you attention here or there, or seek to engage you.

Far from your second clause following from the first, I believe it is contradictory.  Films that force the audience to partake in the process of creating meaning by not explaining everything on a surface or story level are necessarily films that are heavily invested in engaging the audience.

If you choose to not engage, that is not because the film, or filmmaker, is indifferent to your entertainment.

Entertainment is just a word for "stuff you like".  I think the films being maligned here are vastly more entertaining than most every other film of this past decade.

In this case (and speaking only for myself), not "watchable" implies a passive approach.  What you see exists to be observed rather than watched. The film doesn't try to draw you attention here or there, or seek to engage you.

For the most part, I don't believe that there is such a thing as a passive approach in directing.  The director chooses what information you see or don't see even in these obliquely told "stories."

It is indifferent. It's going to do what it wants, how it wants, and isn't obliged to entertain (some may say pander to) its audience. If you do like the film, that's merely an unintended consequence that happens to be positive.

Not taking the audience into account isn't mutually inclusive with the director not wanting the viewer to be entertained.  That can be the case sometimes, obviously.  The director who makes films in such a style know that there will be people that find that approach entertaining, engrossing, etc.  In that case, entertainment is not an unintended result.

True true true, all true enough. Like you say sdadalus, there's stuff you like and stuff you don't. I guess I made unwatchable sound like a definable quality a film can possess. I suppose what I was actually describing was what an "unwatchable" movie feels like.

[Bondo]

Wendy and Lucy

This seems a very fitting movie for the times. While it takes place before the global recession and looks more at the plight of small towns in post-industrial America, the backdrop works now even more. It kind of highlights the lack of opportunity and support faced by American youth. Wendy's decision making certainly isn't flawless, and like another journey to Alaska in Into the Wild, there is perhaps a little youthful ignorance in not having sufficient backup plans. In some way it seems to suggest you have to lose everything, kind of hit bottom, before having the freedom to succeed.

While this is a nice little film, I can't say it jumps out to a special level.

Rating: 3/5

[Bill Thompson]

While this is a nice little film, I can't say it jumps out to a special level.

The acting of Michelle Williams says otherwise.