What makes a film boring?

[Michael Kerpan]

Swo -- you make movie watching sound like a duty or a chore. Some of us look to movies for enjoyment (of various different sorts). I feel no obligation whatsoever to any film. (If I was a paid reviewer -- or a credentialed film scholar -- I would hopefully have a different attitude). I actively look for films to love. If a film strikes me as sufficiently unpromising (for any number of reasons), I feel no obligation to watch it to the end (unless I am stuck in a theater with my family). I would never (barring extraordinary circumstances) re-watch a film I found hopeless.

[Yojimbo]

I think pacing is probably the most important element to get right: lingering too long over a scene, or succession of scenes, in a manner which leads to the discerning cineaste being infuriated or distracted is the biggest crime in my book.

[Michael Kerpan]

I think pacing is probably the most important element to get right: lingering too long over a scene, or succession of scenes, in a manner which leads to the discerning cineaste being infuriated or distracted is the biggest crime in my book.

That's why boringness (of this sort) is especially subjective -- because what you might consider efficient pacing, someone else might find rushed.

I love some "slow" films -- and loathe others.

[Yojimbo]

I think pacing is probably the most important element to get right: lingering too long over a scene, or succession of scenes, in a manner which leads to the discerning cineaste being infuriated or distracted is the biggest crime in my book.

That's why boringness (of this sort) is especially subjective -- because what you might consider efficient pacing, someone else might find rushed.

I love some "slow" films -- and loathe others.

by definition it is, Michael, as is the definition of a boring film.
(I could take the long lingering shots in 'Satantango', for instance)
Of course its a function of one's mood at any given time, but with pacing also, and there's probably some degree of overlap in the two terms is the preciousness of a film or its director

[domino harvey]

Swo -- you make movie watching sound like a duty or a chore. Some of us look to movies for enjoyment (of various different sorts). I feel no obligation whatsoever to any film. (If I was a paid reviewer -- or a credentialed film scholar -- I would hopefully have a different attitude). I actively look for films to love. If a film strikes me as sufficiently unpromising (for any number of reasons), I feel no obligation to watch it to the end (unless I am stuck in a theater with my family). I would never (barring extraordinary circumstances) re-watch a film I found hopeless.

As a credentialed film scholar, allow me to dispel the notion that I can't be watching a film out of duty and still get enjoyment out of it.

[Michael Kerpan]

As a credentialed film scholar, allow me to dispel the notion that I can't be watching a film out of duty and still get enjoyment out of it.

Never suggested scholars could not -- only that they may sometimes HAVE to watch things "out of duty" that they might prefer to not watch. While duffers like myself can feel free to blow such films off. ;~}

[swo17]

Swo -- you make movie watching sound like a duty or a chore. Some of us look to movies for enjoyment (of various different sorts). I feel no obligation whatsoever to any film. (If I was a paid reviewer -- or a credentialed film scholar -- I would hopefully have a different attitude). I actively look for films to love. If a film strikes me as sufficiently unpromising (for any number of reasons), I feel no obligation to watch it to the end (unless I am stuck in a theater with my family). I would never (barring extraordinary circumstances) re-watch a film I found hopeless.

I too look for enjoyment in films. But I'm willing to accept that I might find it in a film I have already seen and didn't "get," a film that doesn't look like my thing, or a film that I am currently having a difficult time slogging through. Though of course, if I didn't like a film the first time, it's going to take a preponderance of evidence in the other direction to get me to give it another chance. Perhaps I do subject myself to too many stinkers, but I've found enough hidden gold doing this that I'm not about to change my ways.

Besides, as I've said here before, you can't judge a film unless you've seen it from start to finish. Some films are made great by their endings, in spite of everything that's come before. And some of them only seal their terribleness in the final reel. Even in those cases, I probably get enough perverse enjoyment from my hatred of them to justify the whole exercise. Also, there is no obligation to watch or to like any film, but I'd say there is an obligation to at the very least watch one all the way through if you want to have and share an opinion about it.

[Mr Sausage]

Swo -- you make movie watching sound like a duty or a chore. Some of us look to movies for enjoyment (of various different sorts). I feel no obligation whatsoever to any film. (If I was a paid reviewer -- or a credentialed film scholar -- I would hopefully have a different attitude). I actively look for films to love. If a film strikes me as sufficiently unpromising (for any number of reasons), I feel no obligation to watch it to the end (unless I am stuck in a theater with my family). I would never (barring extraordinary circumstances) re-watch a film I found hopeless.

As a credentialed film scholar, allow me to dispel the notion that I can't be watching a film out of duty and still get enjoyment out of it.

Some people are making films sound like a simple passtime, and work of any sort an automatic chore. Putting work into watching a movie doesn't make the experience unenjoyable. If anything, the rewards are much greater if you put effort into it instead of being a passive receptacle. I assume that's part of why we're all posting on a site like this and watching movies from Criterion: we're not adverse to putting time, effort, and knowledge into something we love, and we realize the rewards that come from doing so.

[Michael Kerpan]

I never suggested that putting a bit (or a lot) of work into movie watching was incompatible with enjoyment -- but working to "appreciate" a film I find unappealing (no matter how many people say that it is a "must-see) is not anything I feel like doing.

[Tommaso]

I totally agree with Mr.Sausage's words. I must admit that from time to time I like to be a passive receptacle, often with films that I know and have found entertaining in whatever way ("The Thief of Bagdad" comes to my mind immediately, Korda/Powell version), and that I can watch again and again for simple entertainment. I don't want to say that this film is nothing else and hasn't got a lot of intrinsic values, quite on the contrary of course, but the reason I've seen it more often than many or most other films is simply that I can enjoy it on a very basic emotional level. A feel-good movie without any dumbness.

And then there's my favourite example for the 'opposite side': Dreyer's "Gertrud". I tried it several times, and have actually managed ONCE to sit through it without a break or without fast-forwarding. <already ducking>. I still think it's a chore, but in the most interesting way possible. I admire Dreyer's stamina, his mastery and his unrelenting consequence and determination. And the more I learn about this film (or re-watch it), the more I admire it. So, while I think it's one of the most demanding films ever made, and one that requires the most active viewer participation imaginable, it's precisely this special quality that makes it so memorable and so intriguing; I'd certainly put in a list of the best twenty films of all time.

But I still find it boring; so: how much must or can we abstract from our gut reactions? I'm with Michael Kerpan when he says that he watches films with the intention to love them. But on the other hand, I feel the obligation to re-watch and try to understand a film I find boring which has some obvious features that take it 'out of the common'. Perhaps I'm always on the lookout for some revelation, and on an intellectual, or better, 'spiritual' basis, this surely has happened with "Gertrud" for me. Perhaps it's not always possible to unite all those various approaches and responses. But I would never blame Dreyer or anyone else for this impossibility which is entirely my own problem. Similarly, if I had followed my first reaction to MoC's Naruse films (boring) I would have missed something very fascinating and 'different'. The only problem is that you're much less inclined to give a film a second try if that film or its director doesn't already have its very outspoken supporters here or elsewhere. And I suppose the bad sales of the MoC Naruse box has something to do with some such initial reaction to something different and expectation-defying.

[colinr0380]

Perhaps this is too naive and over generous an approach but I can often find something of worth in a film, even if its just a moment or a performance inside a film that I may not feel works well as a whole (Usually if I dislike a film it is more because I have a problem with its message. Air Force One, Oklahoma! and Ma Femme Est Une Actrice all top my 'most hated' list, but not because I find them 'boring') And I say this as someone who has just worked their way through M. Night Shyamalan's oeuvre again! (what is it with this director's fear of nature and particularly of water? - not just the (dumb) way the aliens are disposed of in Signs or the swimming pool in Lady In The Water but also our developing superhero in Unbreakable finding out that his only Kyptonite-type weakness is uncontrollable choking on water)

I feel that different films require different faculties, attention spans (i.e. those films that actively don't want you to think about the plot but just watch the pretty pictures and explosions. It might be obvious that they do not work intellectually when placed next to Solaris say, but do they succeed within their own parameters? My big issue with Michael Bay, and most modern action directors if I'm honest, is that I feel they lack the ability of creating coherent action sequences - nothing on the skill level of Towering Inferno or Mad Max 2, where the viewer is skillfully made aware of the positioning of all the various characters within the drama and when the chase or the explosions come the audience's familiarity with the layout makes them even more engaged with the characters than watching nameless, faceless extras dying in over-edited, hard-to-make-out action scenes) and perspectives from the viewer and in a way it is up to the viewer to adapt and be as open as possible to any kinds of experiences. It might seem like 'work' to do so but I often find that gives the best results. (But then I also always watch a film to the end and rewatch films I find flawed just as often as 'comfort' films)

[MichaelB]

As a credentialed film scholar, allow me to dispel the notion that I can't be watching a film out of duty and still get enjoyment out of it.

And as a paid reviewer, I get far more pleasure out of the films I watch for filthy lucre than otherwise - though I'm in the fortunate position of having a certain amount of say about what I watch. I rarely turn down commissions, but my various editors have a pretty good idea of my taste by now. On the other hand, I'd probably want to kill myself after a few weeks in a job where I had to watch and review more or less everything.

I never suggested that putting a bit (or a lot) of work into movie watching was incompatible with enjoyment -- but working to "appreciate" a film I find unappealing (no matter how many people say that it is a "must-see) is not anything I feel like doing.

I generally agree with this, but if I'm writing about something by a major director and I have the chance to swot up on what is clearly a major film that I haven't seen for a long time, I'll do it (and him/her) the courtesy of rewatching it - even if I don't change my mind. And sometimes I do: I found Miklós Jancsó's Red Psalm almost unwatchably tedious in the 1980s - a crap 16mm print and less than felicitous projection didn't help, but being a total Jancsó virgin diving right into the deep end (albeit in all innocence) wasn't a good idea either. But now I think it's one of the greatest films of its decade.

[Michael Kerpan]

If a film I initially don't care for (whether due to "boringness" or any other reason) keeps sneaking into my brain -- in one way or another -- I am much more likely to re-visit it (viz. my initial HHH film -- Goodbye South Goodbye). If the film leaves no positive "mental residue" at all, not much chance of any re-visitation (at least not for a very long time).

[swo17]

I like the idea of "mental residue." Often a film that I thought I hated starts creeping up and growing in my mind into something else entirely. I love it when that happens.

And as a paid reviewer, I get far more pleasure out of the films I watch for filthy lucre than otherwise - though I'm in the fortunate position of having a certain amount of say about what I watch. I rarely turn down commissions, but my various editors have a pretty good idea of my taste by now. On the other hand, I'd probably want to kill myself after a few weeks in a job where I had to watch and review more or less everything.

It should probably speak to my opinion about all of this that during the time I was paid to review films in college, I was low enough on the totem pole, and reputed enough for my lampooning skills that I was assigned almost exclusively terrible films.

[Sloper]

I feel that different films require different faculties, attention spans (i.e. those films that actively don't want you to think about the plot but just watch the pretty pictures and explosions. It might be obvious that they do not work intellectually when placed next to Solaris say, but do they succeed within their own parameters? My big issue with Michael Bay, and most modern action directors if I'm honest, is that I feel they lack the ability of creating coherent action sequences - nothing on the skill level of Towering Inferno or Mad Max 2, where the viewer is skillfully made aware of the positioning of all the various characters within the drama and when the chase or the explosions come the audience's familiarity with the layout makes them even more engaged with the characters than watching nameless, faceless extras dying in over-edited, hard-to-make-out action scenes)

That's very true about modern-day action films: the principle on which, say, the climax of Rear Window operates - namely that the struggle by the window is more tense and realistic if you watch it in close-up, and can't make out what's going on - now often works to produce action scenes that are simply incoherent. But I suppose these films have their parameters too, in that they're designed specifically to be watched from behind a crate of popcorn and a vat of Coke, in the company of like-minded people. It's tempting to say that they're just designed for people with short attention spans, but it might be more accurate to say that they're for people who want to pay more attention to other things, and for whom the film is little more than an accompaniment - people in movies always seem to treat the opera like this!

To me that's what this debate comes down to: the purpose served by the entertainment in question. I'm a total bore to watch films with, because, to be painfully honest, I'd generally rather interact with the film than with the person. (This is why my girlfriend and I tend only to watch crap films together - Michael Bay is a favourite...) I'm essentially a nerd who's tended to lead a fairly solitary life, and I'd imagine that's true of most (not all) people who like to engage with and 'put effort into' watching 'arthouse' (hate that word) films. If you want social lubricant, Roland Emmerich is where it's at. Gertrud is a film you watch alone.

Tommaso, I know what you mean about The Thief of Bagdad - my somewhat less respectable equivalent is Miller's Crossing, which if you hypnotised me I'd probably say is my favourite film. There are lots of films I admire more, but that one just makes me extremely happy under any circumstances. It's the one I'd marry, if forced to choose. Things like Ordet, Broken Blossoms, Nosferatu, The Passenger, I keep watching over and over again despite secretly finding them quite boring, less because I expect to like them more as time goes on, and more because I admire the people who made them, and want to understand their other films better. It's that insatiable desire to 'know more' about these things, which I feel is the main identifying mark of the nerd/scholar/sociopath; it's what keeps me watching even when I'm clawing my eyes out with boredom.

[Michael Kerpan]

I like the idea of "mental residue." Often a film that I thought I hated starts creeping up and growing in my mind into something else entirely. I love it when that happens.

The opposite of this is some unobjectionable film that starts evaporating from one's brain with unusual rapidity (or, worse yet, starts looking worse and worse the more one thinks back on it).

I find it hard to imagine Naruse's films as boring. I never found Naruse's films boring when I first encountered theim back in 200-2001 (when first totally besotted by Ozu) -- but I _was_ disappointed they weren't more Ozu-like. ;~}

[swo17]

Tommaso, I know what you mean about The Thief of Bagdad - my somewhat less respectable equivalent is Miller's Crossing, which if you hypnotised me I'd probably say is my favourite film. There are lots of films I admire more, but that one just makes me extremely happy under any circumstances. It's the one I'd marry, if forced to choose.

Sorry, but she's already taken...with me!

[MichaelB]

It should probably speak to my opinion about all of this that during the time I was paid to review films in college, I was low enough on the totem pole, and reputed enough for my lampooning skills that I was assigned almost exclusively terrible films.

The problem with writing for Sight & Sound is that the style guide explicitly discourages knocking copy - you're welcome to slag a film off, but it has to be evidence-backed: mere mockery won't suffice. I ran the usual beginner's gauntlet of covering total shit at first, though I still did my homework - for instance, tracking down the full version of Jaume Balagueró's Darkness so I could compare it with the butchered abomination released in Britain and the US, or reading John Braine's novel The Jealous God before watching the extremely lightweight 2005 film adaptation. I'm very glad I did, as the book was excellent, and graphically highlighted the film's many, many shortcomings.

[swo17]

Yes, but what sort of homework would you have suggested for this, this, or this? Or this? Or this? Man, did I wrong someone in a past life or what?

[domino harvey]

Saving Silverman was one of the first DVDs I ever rented. That was when the novelty of the medium was still fresh, so I sat through the commentary even though I disliked the film-- which is why I can tell you that people often tell the director that their favorite scene is the part where a raccoon attacks Steve Zahn, and the director begrudgingly found he must agree with the consensus

[knives]

Yes, but what sort of homework would you have suggested for this, this, or this? Or this? Or this? Man, did I wrong someone in a past life or what?

Research which alcohol gets you drunk quicker.

[Yojimbo]

I like the idea of "mental residue." Often a film that I thought I hated starts creeping up and growing in my mind into something else entirely. I love it when that happens.

The opposite of this is some unobjectionable film that starts evaporating from one's brain with unusual rapidity (or, worse yet, starts looking worse and worse the more one thinks back on it).

I find it hard to imagine Naruse's films as boring. I never found Naruse's films boring when I first encountered theim back in 200-2001 (when first totally besotted by Ozu) -- but I _was_ disappointed they weren't more Ozu-like. ;~}

The thing for me with Naruse, and you might recall our conversation on 'Repast', is that I'm not always in the right frame of mind to watch him: in fact thats still the only film of his I've seen.
For far too many times he keeps getting pushed back in the queue.
In fact I just picked up that Imamura set from customs today and I suspect the entire set will leapfrog Naruse in the queue!

[Mr Sausage]

I like the idea of "mental residue." Often a film that I thought I hated starts creeping up and growing in my mind into something else entirely. I love it when that happens.

Ever had the opposite: a film you thought you really liked but, the more you think about it, you actually hate?

[fiddlesticks]

I like the idea of "mental residue." Often a film that I thought I hated starts creeping up and growing in my mind into something else entirely. I love it when that happens.

Ever had the opposite: a film you thought you really liked but, the more you think about it, you actually hate?

Victor/Victoria

[kaujot]

Pan's Labyrinth.