What makes a film boring?

[foggy eyes]

BTW, I don't mean to sound like a dick and certainly am not intending to 'attack' anyone, especially you fog. I will confess that part of my diatribe stems from a passionate hatred of this kind of 'art', which in my opinion is specifically designed to frustrate and separate.

Sorry, skuhn, I think I missed this earlier - and no worries. I think the question of why Sleep is so long is an interesting one, and would suggest that the excess of duration is again tied to Warhol's indifferent stance. He takes the notion of 'non-interference' beloved by neorealism or direct cinema to its limit. Quite simply, he's experimenting, and pushing things as far as they can go. His art is designed to challenge, but I disagree that it necessarily frustrates.

Sleep is a boring film, whether by intention or not. Call it a Great Epic of a Boring Film, but it's still boring.

This is why I think it's problematic to just draw a line under 'boring' and be done with it. The subject may be boring, but as mattkc says, the play of light, attention to space, and sensation of temporality really isn't.

Look, the film is not just of any guy sleeping, but Warhol's LOVER. You can't take the things that Warhol said about his own work too seriously. It wasn't some joke on cinema or the art world, it was a film made over the course of many months documenting John Giorno asleep, capturing Warhol's gaze.

Yes, whereas Blow Job does focus on just 'any guy' (an unknown/aspiring actor who dropped into the factory), there is an intimacy at work in Sleep that shouldn't be taken lightly.

Aside for maybe foggy eyes, it doesn't sound like anyone here has even actually seen it.

Unfortunately not, but I would jump at the opportunity if it arose! The hour-long extract of Empire on the Raro set is the closest I've been able to get, so consider it speculation on my part as well.

As for Empire, I find it fascinating that the idea that 'the slightest variation becomes an event' is heightened by the (dreadful) state of the archive print, as the movement of grain, flaring, noise and staining almost fully engulfs the subject. The extent of material deterioration draws attention to the ontology of the apparatus, bringing the film much closer to structuralist ideas. The stability of the image (the concrete position of the building) becomes compellingly vulnerable, and the 'activity' of surface materiality becomes the focus of our attention. Whether anybody would want to watch this for eight hours is another question, but it sure as hell isn't 'boring' to me.

Regardless of the outcome or anything you can derive from the film, this actual film is a boring. I am not saying it is bad. The two are not synonymous.

What I'm saying is that whereas the immediate subject of the film may be classified as boring, the experience of watching it may well not be, due to the other factors at play. If one is not bored by a film, it's difficult to call it boring, right?

[accatone]

I suppose the crux of this whole thread kind of hangs on how we stand on this question.

Yes - you are absolutly right and with your wonderfull "breakdown/crux" we may have come to the most essential point of the disccusion and at least for me to a general point that i am somtimes missin' on this forum. However, i am not adding much to this place so i am in no position to complain - and don't have to because this is good forum =D>

[Mr Sausage]

The word boring does not belong to an object, film, human but the one who is claiming the other to be so.

Don't be ridiculous. If you really believed in such monstrous solipsism you wouldn't bother arguing on an internet forum since none of us would exist.

[aox]

Regardless of the outcome or anything you can derive from the film, this actual film is a boring. I am not saying it is bad. The two are not synonymous.

What I'm saying is that whereas the immediate subject of the film may be classified as boring, the experience of watching it may well not be, due to the other factors at play. If one is not bored by a film, it's difficult to call it boring, right?

I guess so. I can't disagree. I guess we would have to have all 6billion people sit through this film and in order to call it boring, 100% would have to agree. Despite the impossibility of this, obviously there is going to be one person within the world's population that finds this film exhilarating. (I wonder if Warhol himself sat through this start to finish in pause without interruption. And sober)

This thread appears to have no answer and it is subjectively up to the individual. Therefore, there is no such thing as a boring movie.

[mattkc]

This thread appears to have no answer and it is subjectively up to the individual. Therefore, there is no such thing as a boring movie.

You just figured that out?

[aox]

This thread appears to have no answer and it is subjectively up to the individual. Therefore, there is no such thing as a boring movie.

You just figured that out?

Yes, you got me. I just figured that out.

[accatone]

The word boring does not belong to an object, film, human but the one who is claiming the other to be so.

Don't be ridiculous. If you really believed in such monstrous solipsism you wouldn't bother arguing on an internet forum since none of us would exist.

I do not know what your conclusion is on my quote? It must be my language barriere because what i was trying to say has nothing to do with Solipsism.

[mattkc]

Yes, you got me. I just figured that out.

Well, excuse me. Not to drag this on, but I only asked because before you seemed to be claiming that Sleep was a boring movie, that seemed to be your whole point.

[Mr Sausage]

The word boring does not belong to an object, film, human but the one who is claiming the other to be so.

Don't be ridiculous. If you really believed in such monstrous solipsism you wouldn't bother arguing on an internet forum since none of us would exist.

I do not know what your conclusion is on my quote? It must be my language barriere because what i was trying to say has nothing to do with Solipsism.

What you're implying is that a word--and by extension all words that, like "boring," lable or describe an object or thing or state--does not in fact describe those things at all but rather the person using them. Thus we are unable to talk about anything other than ourselves, which amounts to saying that nothing but ourselves exists (to ourselves), which is solipsism.

I understand you probably meant that a word such as "boring" is a subjective rather than objective catagory and says more about the sayer than the thing in question, but you should be careful with such ideas since they lead very easily into a solipsism like the one outlined above.

[starmanof51]

Because that may lead to the film eliciting boredom, and the whole point of the thread is to look for causes of that.

As in, "What makes a film boring? One cause could be the seeming banality of its subjects."

What does this tell us besides what we could have already inferred? A lot of movie fans get bored with banal subjects, huh? And who the f*** cares?

Nice to meet you, too!

It may be obvious, but that means you can't just put it aside. If a director attempts to do something worth observing or otherwise creative with light or space, but lack of engagement with the subject somehow inhibits me (or you, or whoever) from observing the effect he was attempting, or from hanging around long enough to get the full effect of what the director was going for, then banality of subject matter is relevant. Unless you as the director simply don't care how or if your film art is responded to, which may well be the case with Warhol, in which case there's nothing to talk about.

Feeling "bored" may also carry a level of message editing - you could tell me "Sleep" is about light and space, and I might say "OK - light, space, check. I think I've extracted everything this is worth to me about light and space (because I'm bored with the subject) and I think I'm going to just punt on the last 4H50M." I might be the lesser for it, or have fatally missed the correct context of the piece, but my reaction to the subject leads to a time/value estimation that causes me to bail. I get bored by previews for heaven's sake. This may all be very obvious to you, but that's exactly why you can't simply dismiss "banal subjects" from a discussion of "what is boring", director's intention be damned.

[accatone]

What you're implying is that a word--and by extension all words that, like "boring," lable or describe an object or thing or state--does not in fact describe those things at all but rather the person using them. Thus we are unable to talk about anything other than ourselves, which amounts to saying that nothing but ourselves exists (to ourselves), which is solipsism.

I understand you probably meant that a word such as "boring" is a subjective rather than objective catagory and says more about the sayer than the thing in question, but you should be careful with such ideas since they lead very easily into a solipsism like the one outlined above.

Sorry but you have to be careful with your statements expecially when you try to make broad philosophical statements e.g. saying someone is solipistic (?) based on a discussion on asthetics whereas i was talking about hermeneutics which is in no way "dangerous/be carful" but a pretty common way in talking about art/phenomenons. If you allege me that i was talking (by extension) about "all words" i must have doubts in your way of "exhaulting/extension" your thoughts! I take the blame anyway because its very difficult for me to talk about linguistics in a foreign language but i truthfully think that you are mixing up things.

[Mr Sausage]

Sorry but you have to be careful with your statements expecially when you try to make broad philosophical statements e.g. saying someone is solipistic (?)

Calling someone's argument solipsistic is not a broad philosophical statement, it's a narrow statement about philosophy.

...based on a discussion on asthetics whereas i was talking about hermeneutics which is in no way "dangerous/be carful" but a pretty common way in talking about art/phenomenons. If you allege me that i was talking (by extension) about "all words" i must have doubts in your way of "exhaulting/extension" your thoughts! I take the blame anyway because its very difficult for me to talk about linguistics in a foreign language but i truthfully think that you are mixing up things.

Then why don't you tell me what you meant by saying only boring people call things boring. Also I'm curious as to how your theory of language use can apply to one word only, and a rather common one at that, to the point where I'm wrongheaded for making any further use of it.

[zedz]

It's all about semantics, but semantics are crucial.

"Boring" as a quality is inherently subjective, since the adjective is derived from the progressive participle of a transitive verb. "It bores" isn't a sentence; the thing in question has to bore somebody. The adjectival form simply obscures the missing element (who is bored?) by making it grammatically inessential.

This seemed to be the working assumption in most of the previous discussion in this thread (most of which was argued along the lines of "I find this kind of film boring because. . .", not "the following films are inherently boring", which would be a worthless and unprovable statement). What I objected to in the post about Sleep was the assertion that the film was objectively, uncontroversially 'boring' ("Can we all at least agree that this film is 'boring'?") simply on the basis of its length and lack of narrative development ("just a guy sleeping for 5 hours"). Semantics again.

Since I haven't seen the film, I have no idea whether I'd be bored by it or not, but I don't think sweeping generalisations about non-mainstream forms of cinema based on an IMDB synopsis (by somebody who also seems not to have seen the film in question - though I don't doubt he'd be bored by it) should go unchallenged.

[mattkc]

If a director attempts to do something worth observing or otherwise creative with light or space, but lack of engagement with the subject somehow inhibits me (or you, or whoever) from observing the effect he was attempting, or from hanging around long enough to get the full effect of what the director was going for, then banality of subject matter is relevant.

This has to do with the viewer though, not the film - I just want that to be clear. Saying that the subject of a film is banal tells you nothing about the film, just as calling it boring doesn't. Also, I think it deserves to be said that at least one aspect of art viewing in general it seems to me is to get outside of oneself, to think and see and hear in a different way, in a way that's related to how the artist has constructed a work (though certainly not limited to just that). Finding something boring that is otherwise great because the banality of it's subject doesn't appeal to you seems like the opposite of that.

I might say "OK - light, space, check. I think I've extracted everything this is worth to me about light and space (because I'm bored with the subject) and I think I'm going to just punt on the last 4H50M."

That's fine. Personally I would never bail out on a film that I thought was great. But whatever.

Sorry that I came across so aggressively.

[accatone]

Then why don't you tell me what you meant by saying only boring people call things boring. Also I'm curious as to how your theory of language use can apply to one word only, and a rather common one at that, to the point where I'm wrongheaded for making any further use of it.

If you would have read the rest of the thread/post it should have been clear that i was not talking about "boring people" but that the "viewer" needs to define something as boring (eg. "boring" belongs to the viewer) and that it is not the artwork that is "somehow" airing boredom!

What you did was trying to give me a lesson in a typical and stupid internet way and trying to separate (your theory of language and solipsism) whereas the actual discussion went on quite cool! Herr Bratwurst, you are airing boredem! i am outta here!

[Mr Sausage]

Then why don't you tell me what you meant by saying only boring people call things boring. Also I'm curious as to how your theory of language use can apply to one word only, and a rather common one at that, to the point where I'm wrongheaded for making any further use of it.

If you would have read the rest of the thread/post it should have been clear that i was not talking about "boring people" but that the "viewer" needs to define something as boring (eg. "boring" belongs to the viewer) and that it is not the artwork that is "somehow" airing boredom!

You said a work of art cannot be "a priori" boring. Ok, so it is empirically boring. This does not make it impossible for the word to describe inherant qualities. Nevertheless, if the word "boring" cannot belong to the object, only the person, again, is this not heading beyond the realm of mere subjectivity? For what words are we drawing lines here? And at which point does a word stop having a referent, or a signifier a sign, and becomes a floating bit of reflexivity? Again, your point, if one sits down to work out the logistics of it, draws closer and closer to where words refer to nothing but the person who uses them, which is to say they can have no existence outside of him and no reality to anyone else. Seems pretty solipsistic to me. You may complain: "I did not say that," or, "that's taking it too far." Is it? Again, without drawing for us any understandable limits, solipsism is the ineluctable outcome of putting these kinds of thoughts about words into general practise.

On the other hand, all knowledge is learned: so how much does the word really "belong" to me anyway?

What you did was trying to give me a lesson in a typical and stupid internet way and trying to separate (your theory of language and solipsism) whereas the actual discussion went on quite cool! Herr Bratwurst, you are airing boredem! i am outta here!

As opposed to the 'classy' internet way you've net martyred yourself? No need to be thin skinned. I called you out on your idea, which, far from being a "stupid" thing to do anywhere, is conductive to good thought. Rather than taking it poorly, you can do something you have not yet done: make a counter argument for your idea rather than complaining about my impersonal attack on it.

[accatone]

Ok, so it is empirically boring.

A work of art is for itself nothing but its physical material - yes, thats my point of view and this has nothing to do with solipsism, esoterics or whatever you claim this view to be! It is in philosophical terms one of the oldest ways to look at things and try to understand them. I quoted two commonly known Philosophers in my previous posts to make my point clear so if you want to argue/discuss with me about these things, please refer to what i actually said and do not come up and treat me like a 20somthing movie nerd copying Wikipedia knowledge to this thread, ok?

This does not make it impossible for the word to describe inherant qualities.

Yes, a word can describe an object, there we have something in common… but again, the word itself is just a combination of lines and circles and outspoken not a cent more worth than a birds song!

which is to say they can have no existence outside of him and no reality to anyone else.

Yes and No. They have no existence in terms of meaning but just of their physical presence (even tonal as i said before, its difficult - because a word like "boring" can not be compared to a birds song because its loaded with so many meanings coming from someones historical/cultural background…you may try to teach a parrot the word "boring" and wonder in what way the parrot will use it…). They come to existance when people use them to describe things, eg bring things to life - objectifying things if you want.

Seems pretty solipsistic to me.

You were right - this is a narrow statement - sorry, but this is a language problem on my side - because i did not grow up with your language or studied it not well enough, the difference of "broad" and "narrow" do not existe in my consciousness - therefor are of no "quality" for me! If i would not speak at all and could not read - this whole forum would look like a funny puzzle to me…

On the other hand, all knowledge is learned: so how much does the word really "belong" to me anyway?

You are right - language problem again - of course a word does not "Belong" to anyone - sorry!

As opposed to the 'classy' internet way you've net martyred yourself?

I am not too much into internet conversation/language as well / it might be again a language problem…I can tell you one thing: even though i have to use your language almost 50% of my working day i find it really difficult to work out certain philosophical points and ideas in english so as i did before i take the blame because i did not take enough time to translate my thoughts into your language. Plus, i do not have the time to work out my post in a perfect way - blame me again! That i am not able to see the other/you/all virtuals makes the thing not much easier. What i really dislike is when virtuals come up - pull the trigger and cheap shoot arguments and generalisations that belong, for me, to "wikipedia internet nerds" that hope to sharpen their profile with these actions. I do NOT think that this appears to you - for me, you are Herr SAUSAGE with a Dracula image attached - which is in hermeneutical terms…almost nothing

[Mr Sausage]

please refer to what i actually said and do not come up and treat me like a 20somthing movie nerd copying Wikipedia knowledge to this thread, ok?

I don't believe I've treated you in any such manner. And I have referred numerous times to what you have written. Also the age or prevalence of a mode of thought hardly matters; anyone is free to question its assumptions/ideas.

pull the trigger and cheap shoot arguments and generalisations that belong, for me, to "wikipedia internet nerds" that hope to sharpen their profile with these actions.

I can't quite tell if you're saying this is me or if you're saying this is not me. If you are calling me this, I have to point out the irony of calling me a "cheap shot" making "generalizations" with what is a very generalized cheap-shot character libel on your part. If you're not calling me this, then nevermind.

[swo17]

Just my $.02 but the important thing is 1) discovering that a film is highly regarded, 2) coming to understand why it is highly regarded, and then 3) making up your own mind. There is no requirement that you love, say, 2001 to be a cineaste, but if your reason for not liking it is that it was kind of boring and you fell asleep near the end, then you are wrong.

[jsteffe]

Just my $.02 but the important thing is 1) discovering that a film is highly regarded, 2) coming to understand why it is highly regarded, and then 3) making up your own mind. There is no requirement that you love, say, 2001 to be a cineaste, but if your reason for not liking it is that it was kind of boring and you fell asleep near the end, then you are wrong.

I think finding a film boring can be a valid complaint. It it could mean the film lacks enough interesting elements to keep you engaged. I'm sure we can all name plenty of examples in that category. (For me, Enchanted April comes immediately to mind.) But I also think think it's healthy to stretch one's attention span and to be a little patient before dismissing a film altogether. Some artists use deliberately boredom in a creative way, and anyway boredom is also part of life.

[swo17]

Just my $.02 but the important thing is 1) discovering that a film is highly regarded, 2) coming to understand why it is highly regarded, and then 3) making up your own mind. There is no requirement that you love, say, 2001 to be a cineaste, but if your reason for not liking it is that it was kind of boring and you fell asleep near the end, then you are wrong.

I think finding a film boring can be a valid complaint. It it could mean the film lacks enough interesting elements to keep you engaged. I'm sure we can all name plenty of examples in that category. (For me, Enchanted April comes immediately to mind.) But I also think think it's healthy to stretch one's attention span and to be a little patient before dismissing a film altogether. Some artists use deliberately boredom in a creative way, and anyway boredom is also part of life.

Without rehashing too much of an argument that's already been had, this was just the first example that came to my mind. The problem isn't necessarily someone finding a canonical film boring, but rather dismissing such a film without having looked into why some consider it to be great, or without really giving it a fair shot (watching it intently from start to finish, perhaps even multiple times).

[HerrSchreck]

Just my $.02 but the important thing is 1) discovering that a film is highly regarded, 2) coming to understand why it is highly regarded, and then 3) making up your own mind. There is no requirement that you love, say, 2001 to be a cineaste, but if your reason for not liking it is that it was kind of boring and you fell asleep near the end, then you are wrong.

I think finding a film boring can be a valid complaint. It it could mean the film lacks enough interesting elements to keep you engaged. I'm sure we can all name plenty of examples in that category. (For me, Enchanted April comes immediately to mind.) But I also think think it's healthy to stretch one's attention span and to be a little patient before dismissing a film altogether. Some artists use deliberately boredom in a creative way, and anyway boredom is also part of life.

Without rehashing too much of an argument that's already been had, this was just the first example that came to my mind. The problem isn't necessarily someone finding a canonical film boring, but rather dismissing such a film without having looked into why some consider it to be great, or without really giving it a fair shot (watching it intently from start to finish, perhaps even multiple times).

I agree with JSteffe: think finding a finding a film boring is an absolutely valid complaint. In fact, Not Being Boring is one of the most critical hurdles a film has to leap to be successful with an audience imho. This goes for melodrama, high art films, silent films, documentaries, films about the mundane, Bressonian/Antonionian films about the disposition of-- and lives soaked to the bone with-- ennui, films that are contemplative, breathtakingly subtle, incredibly complex, films about the life cycle of tree moss, films you have to watch to receive your license in this or that heavy industry.

The first thing a film must do is engage your attention. Then it must subsequently hold that attention. Failure at either of these two critical junctures results in a viewing experience that is only partially-informed in narrative terms... meaning you're not 100% sure what the heck is going on onscreem.. leading to a wandering mind & lethargy and sometimes even sleep in the dark of the cinema.

Saying that a film is boring is no less a valid complaint than saying "it had bad acting" or "it had a bad story" or "it was funny but it was supposed to be serious": generalized to be sure, but not at all invalid.

[swo17]

Yes, but there are two types of boring--a "high" boring, felt by someone who understands what a film is trying to do but just doesn't care, and a "low" boring, expressed by someone who isn't even willing to try to engage with a film, whether because of one's mood on that particular day, or just a general aversion to things that challenge them.

It's worth noting that many of my currently favorite things are those that I initially found boring (the second kind), didn't "get," didn't know what to make of, or plain outright thought that I hated at first. I think these are merely signs that my brain has encountered something wholly new and that it needs some time to learn how to process it.

[HerrSchreck]

Yes, but there are two types of boring--a "high" boring, felt by someone who understands what a film is trying to do but just doesn't care, and a "low" boring, expressed by someone who isn't even willing to try to engage with a film, whether because of one's mood on that particular day, or just a general aversion to things that challenge them.

Well then I think rather than two kinds of "boring" you're describing two types of viewers-- a receptive and a nonreceptive person. A person who is in no condition to go watch a film because of attention deficit problems (i e stuck in the living room of someone watching something they dont want to see, went to the cinema after work when in reality they should be home sleeping, etc) is someone whose critique in general is going to be problematic-- not just his potential use of the word "boring", but anything at all.

Certainly, since an artwork's aesthetic substance is based on interpretation, and it changes not only from person to person but within the same person from viewing to viewing, responses can and will be in flux, sometimes ramping up in appreciation, sometimes sliding down in a "what was I thinking" mode. And none of these dispositions are ever final. How many times do you hear on this board "I used to love that film/band/painter, but I can't get with it anymore."

None of this means that your present self is canceled out or invalidated by the possibility of future flux of response viz an artwork. What your feelings are for this moment in this time are every bit as valid as those tomorrow or next week.. because they too can and will turn out to be transitory and overridden. As long as you're being honest about your feelings at any given moment, your response-- be it to call a film 'boring' or whatnot-- is perfectly valid.

[swo17]

I see your point and I agree that any honest response to a film (or other medium) can be valid. I guess I'm just trying to say that too many people do themselves the disservice of writing off something before knowing entirely what it is they are writing off. The mere act of viewing a film and your reaction to it is just one aspect of film appreciation. For some films, that is all there really is to it, but other ones demand that the viewer bring something to the experience as well--some knowledge of film theory and techniques, historical context, critical writings on the film, background on the production, other works of the director, one's own life experience even. Granted, these are all just aids, and they only really work if they improve your response in some respect when you just sit down and watch the thing again. But when these aids do work, it can really be worth the effort, as you allow yourself to appreciate or even come to love something new. More passive viewers close themselves off from this. And they also sound ignorant when they post their "reviews" on Netflix's website or the IMDb.