What makes a film boring?

[Michael Kerpan]

I have always been perplexed by the dismissal of Citizen Kane as cold and/or boring. I first-saw this in my teens, when I neither knew of or cared about its critical status (and was oly a casual movie watcher) -- and I thought it was pretty mesmerizng

And I think that there is at least one more element to boringness beyond pacing -- something akin to "rhythm" in music (which is distinct from tempo).

[Yojimbo]

I have always been perplexed by the dismissal of Citizen Kane as cold and/or boring. I first-saw this in my teens, when I neither knew of or cared about its critical status (and was oly a casual movie watcher) -- and I thought it was pretty mesmerizng
.

Perhaps your more mature self wants to assert the perceptiveness of your teenage self's critical faculties?

'Coldness' in itself shouldn't necessarily be a failing: after all it could be deliberate, given the nature of its eponymous character.
But the employ of a multitude of revolutionary or infrequently used cinematic techniques in the construction of the film does tend to lead one to draw conclusions of his motivations, and main driving force when making the film.
There's no question but that the Hollywood establishment wanted Welles to fail with his first film; equally that Welles ego wouldn't allow his first film not to be a huge critical, if not popular success.
Whatever the actual truth of his studying of John Ford's 'Stagecoach', in preparation, its fair to assume that his preparation was at the very least meticulous, bordering on overkill

[HerrSchreck]

I've long given up arguing with people over Citizen Kane - I don't have a problem with people not personally liking it (I'm hardly about to dictate subjective reactions), but if they don't understand why it's so pivotal to film history that says more about their own lack of knowledge than any defects in the film itself. The arrogance behind a claim that the film is "crap" and "boring" is mildly amusing at first (so you're right and virtually every serious critic and film scholar going back nearly 70 years is wrong?), but outstays its welcome very quickly. It's a bit like people trying to argue that the earth is really 6,000 years old against all the evidence proffered by literally every relevant branch of science (certainly not just geology), and therefore not worth taking seriously on any level.

I don't know that establishing critical consensus about an artwork (aside from establishing for the benefit of someone who's not a big fan of the artwork that a lot of critics--and other people-- really think the artwork in question is great) can be compared to establishing scientific fact. One can be proven according to commonly agreed upon usages (i e 'we agree that Carbon 14 dating establishes the age of this object to within a margin of error of XYZ.. so with that agreeement behind us it can demonstrated that these stones, bones, and fossilized reptile eggs are hundreds of millions of years old', and if the interlocutor still disagrees this is something akin to denying, say, a simple mathematical equation like 4 + 4 = 8), whereas the other issue is taste-based, with variations in opinion even among those who admire the artwork.

I like Kane quite a bit, despite the fact that it's list of 'innovations' is a giant albatross. I find it a very passionately made film, not cold at all.

[Sloper]

I think it's that after watching it I realise that Wilder is holding up a man like de Mille as a great director at the expense of Stroheim.The Hollywood system is lauded and the dreamer laughed at.

At least, that's how it appears to me.

To me it appears to be complete opposite. The final scene, when Stroheim comes to 'direct' again, for me is the most scathing critique about how Hollywood crushes its real artists that I could imagine. Admittedly, de Mille is shown as doing only the unavoidable within the rules of the system and thus is not depicted as a 'monster'. But the hollowness of Hollywood is also shown in the character of the girl who wanted to be an actress and now is only allowed to work as a script-writer, too. The dreamers are shown as what they are: dreamers, but Wilder's sympathies are with them, I think; and a sense of tragedy.

Tojoed that's an interesting take on the film, but I basically agree with Tommaso. Bear in mind that Stroheim's character only ceased to be a director in order to devote himself to Norma; like Norma herself and, in a different way, Joe and Betty, he's figured as a talented person left out to dry by Hollywood, clinging to the old values rather than the tawdry ones that have come to dominate. De Mille himself expresses regret for the lost golden age, and reminisces about the young Norma as if to say that stars today don't quite measure up. For Wilder to pass any kind of judgement on either Stroheim or de Mille as directors would be at best presumptuous and at worst insulting, but in a way they're both playing affectionate semi-parodies of themselves - something I think both of them had done before in movies.

There's a famous story about Wilder going into Stroheim's dressing room when they were making Five Graves to Cairo, and saying 'Isn't it silly, little old me directing you when you were always ten years ahead of your time?' To which Stroheim curtly replied: 'Twenty!'

On the other hand, I loathe Singin' In the Rain, partly because of Gene Kelly's grin but mostly because of its extremely patronising attitude towards the silent era and its stars. The ending almost seems to imply that those who couldn't move on when sound came didn't deserve to. Despite its reputation, Sunset Boulevard is a much kinder film.

As to Kane, I think one of the reasons people tend not to love it in the way they do, say, Casablanca, is because there is so little love in it, so little romance in the usual sense of the word - just two unhappy marriages, and a disintegrating friendship with Leland. The romance (and David Hare mentioned this the other day in relation to Melville and Welles, which is an apt pairing in this case) is all in the creative process, the sheer joy of making something beautiful and - I think - profound. There is a great deal of humanity in there, but you have to dig quite deep to find it. That's why it's a classic instance of a film loved mostly by film buffs or film-makers. I genuinely think it's the best film I've ever seen, vying maybe with Birth of a Nation, Passion of Joan of Arc and Pather Panchali. I can't think of any others I could comfortably say are 'as good' as Kane. And I never felt its greatness had anything to do with innovation, more with the (as far as I know, almost unique) coming together of all aspects of the film-making process, with each contributor working at the top of his or her game.

[Yojimbo]

And I never felt its greatness had anything to do with innovation, more with the (as far as I know, almost unique) coming together of all aspects of the film-making process, with each contributor working at the top of his or her game.

I'm almost certain that I've read or heard Welles admit that he overdid the 'innovation', - although I don't think that was the exact word he used, - and if he got a chance to do it all over again there were many things he would want to improve on.
Although there's a huge majority of self-proclaimed and established experts who are happy to dub Kane the greatest ever, equally there's a sizeable minority who the majority are inclined to dub 'iconoclasts' and 'contrarians' for opposing the majority-held view

[tojoed]

Thanks, Sloper, for your thoughts. Your (and Tommaso's) take on Sunset Boulevard is the one I generally share when watching the film. It's just that afterwards, in mulling it over, I get that feeling of distaste.
I think it's that I dislike Billy Wilder's films (except Double Indemnity) and am sensitive to any possible slight on EVS, a hero of mine.
I do admit though that this is adolescent and unbecoming in a man of my age.
But there it is.

Oh, and I also loathe Singin' in the Rain for exactly the same reason as you.

[domino harvey]

On the other hand, I loathe Singin' In the Rain, partly because of Gene Kelly's grin but mostly because of its extremely patronising attitude towards the silent era and its stars. The ending almost seems to imply that those who couldn't move on when sound came didn't deserve to.

Singin' in the Rain is almost certainly a better film than any given silent picture

[tojoed]

Singin' in the Rain is almost certainly a better film than any given silent picture

That's fighting talk.

[domino harvey]

No more or less ridiculous than many of the other bold claims this thread suddenly houses

[swo17]

All films in which someone wears a fedora hat are inherently better than all films in which no one wears a fedora hat.

There, I've said it. :-"

[domino harvey]

Star-bellied Sneetches > Non-star-bellied Sneetches

[Sloper]

Thanks, Sloper, for your thoughts. Your (and Tommaso's) take on Sunset Boulevard is the one I generally share when watching the film. It's just that afterwards, in mulling it over, I get that feeling of distaste.
I think it's that I dislike Billy Wilder's films (except Double Indemnity) and am sensitive to any possible slight on EVS, a hero of mine.
I do admit though that this is adolescent and unbecoming in a man of my age.
But there it is.

It is almost unbearably sad to see the great man playing this role. Much as I love the film, and great as Stroheim's part is, it's pretty undignified work for someone of his stature. But I think Wilder was aware of that - the pain is as much in the writing as in Stroheim's tearful peformance.

Singin' in the Rain is almost certainly a better film than any given silent picture

No, any given silent picture is almost certainly a better film than Singin' In the Rain. Unless that silent picture is The Unbeliever, which despite Stroheim's presence is rubbish.

[fiddlesticks]

On the other hand, I loathe Singin' In the Rain, partly because of Gene Kelly's grin but mostly because of its extremely patronising attitude towards the silent era and its stars. The ending almost seems to imply that those who couldn't move on when sound came didn't deserve to.

Applying Swo's Rule:

Besides, as I've said here before, you can't judge a film unless you've seen it from start to finish. [...] I'd say there is an obligation to at the very least watch [a film] all the way through if you want to have and share an opinion about it.

Never having been able to make it all the way through, I have no opinion on Singin' in the Rain.

[Titus]

I'm almost certain that I've read or heard Welles admit that he overdid the 'innovation', - although I don't think that was the exact word he used, - and if he got a chance to do it all over again there were many things he would want to improve on.
Although there's a huge majority of self-proclaimed and established experts who are happy to dub Kane the greatest ever, equally there's a sizeable minority who the majority are inclined to dub 'iconoclasts' and 'contrarians' for opposing the majority-held view

Welles also at one point said that The Trial was his best picture, so I'm not sure he's an unassailable commentator on his own work. I wouldn't be surprised if he did say something to that effect, given the stylistic restraint in some of his later work like Chimes at Midnight and The Immortal Story, but that's more a reflection of his changing creative sensibilities than it is an indictment of Kane.

And Sloper, your words on Kane are a lovely crystallization of it's greatness, I think. They, along with your enthusiasm for Griffith and Miller's Crossing, just about redeem your aversion to Ford. I think that another reason the film may strike some as 'cold' is that we're never fully invited into Kane's personal character, he remains an enigma, a riddle that Rosebud fails to completely solve. It also demands to be seen as a masterpiece in every shot, contrasted with the technical subtlety of, say, The Rules of the Game, in which Renoir allows the film's greatness to reveal itself gradually and quietly. This 'loudness' may turn some off, but I'm in agreement with your view regarding the sheer creative joy that drips off of every camera movement, and I never think the formal fireworks ever obstruct the subject of the picture (in fact, they seem somewhat fitting given the exhibitionist nature of Kane himself), and they make the moments when the film calms down to have more impact (sort of the inverse of the tendency for some filmmakers to utilize abrupt camera movements in very stylistically conservative films to create a unique effect).

[knives]

Welles also at one point said that The Trial was his best picture, so I'm not sure he's an unassailable commentator on his own work.

I have to say I agree with Welles on that, but Chimes at Midnight is a close second, so Citizen Kane, which I love to the heavens and stars, is not so black and white as the best. That's for an other thread though.

As for the actual topic, there is no way to make a mathematical proof for boringness. It just relies on a mixture of expectations, what the viewer enjoys, and what the viewer believes boredom feels like. We'll never figure anything beyond what those tastes and types are, but if Jung could do it with something as wide as personality I figure the forum could slap together some graph on boredom.

[Yojimbo]

I'm almost certain that I've read or heard Welles admit that he overdid the 'innovation', - although I don't think that was the exact word he used, - and if he got a chance to do it all over again there were many things he would want to improve on.
Although there's a huge majority of self-proclaimed and established experts who are happy to dub Kane the greatest ever, equally there's a sizeable minority who the majority are inclined to dub 'iconoclasts' and 'contrarians' for opposing the majority-held view

Welles also at one point said that The Trial was his best picture, so I'm not sure he's an unassailable commentator on his own work. I wouldn't be surprised if he did say something to that effect, given the stylistic restraint in some of his later work like Chimes at Midnight and The Immortal Story, but that's more a reflection of his changing creative sensibilities than it is an indictment of Kane.

Thats a fair point, although I think thats more a reflection of his penchant for fibbing; but my recollection about 'Kane' was that he genuinely felt that too much of it was showing off, rather than concentrating on the story itself,

[Person]

A boring audience makes a film boring.

[HerrSchreck]

A boring audience makes a film boring.

Did Barmy hijack Gordon's username?

[MichaelB]

[Reliakor]

A failure of the filmmaker to maintain an active and imaginative manipulation of the viewer. This includes lapsing into a barren allusiveness, a lazy utilization of static shots and inactivity within frames or scene-to-scene in a misguided attempt to impel the viewer to effectively concoct something of interest that doesn't exist within the body of the work itself, inept narrative development and storytelling (when applicable), an incapability or unwillingness of sustain a thoroughgoing authorial control over a film's structure, coherence, meanings, sensations. Anything with perceived gravitas (be it via theme, mood, tone, pace or lack thereof) and the appropriate context to initiate the common species of vapid "intellectual" discourse. I thus largely condemn very different films like 2001 (the visuals are impressive and I do find the HAL sequence engaging) and The Boondock Saints.

[mfunk9786]

Make it stop My eyes are bleeding

[Drucker]

No way brah, Boondock Saints is amazing.

[Lighthouse]

An easy question to answer.
A film that bores me is automatically a bad film, a film that entertains me is automatically a good film. A very good or brilliant film has not only to be entertaining ( the minimum demand I have on a film) but also fascinating in certain degrees.

As there isn't any objective criteria for a good film, it is logical that there isn't also any criteria for a boring film. So the answer is simply everyone has to decide for himself. (One person's meat is another one's poison )

Ok, I haven't read the whole thread, and I hope that this my answer was already brought up before.

[Perkins Cobb]

My name is Luke Cooper. I love cinema. My favorite movies are Citizen Kane and The Boondock Saints.

[D_B]

To suggest there is only one thing that makes a film boring is really rather boring.

Lots of things cause me to disengage with what's on screen, including:

- exasperation
- things that do not emotionally resonate with me - like people hitting each other in action movies
- stupid or simplistic things that are presented as being profound
- long-windedness
- repetitiveness
- over or under explicitness
- lack of clear point (ambiguity is fine as long as it is compellingly done).
- fear of confronting raw emotion (especially a problem with young filmmakers)
- too much raw emotion (aka melodrama - especially a problem with an earlier age of filmmaking)
- clumsy execution of the basics (if you have seen any student films you'd know what I mean).
- Coarse, obvious humor

So many other things, I'm sure, if I sat and really thought about it.
-