criterionforum.org

What makes a film boring?

Boring people. Just kiddin'

moviscop wrote:Oh, and the blood thing, your avatar is a vampire, that was a joke as well.

Well that explains it. It's been my avatar so long I tend to forget it's there.

moviscop wrote:Please except my apology if you were offended in any way by what I posted

No apology need be offered because, in point of fact, I was not offended personally, tho' I rather took issue with the kind of thing you seemed to be going in for. But nevermind. Perhaps I came off more strongly than was warranted, and agree to putting the thing behind us.

HerrSchreck wrote:Proof that ignoring a thread comes at your own peril! Ah Joyce...

My feeling precisely, so at the risk of boring Domino or others, a few thoughts. First of all, there must have been someone who was NOT 'in the know' when the book first appeared, and before we got the 'Skeleton Key' and other works trying to sort it out, had to mole his or her way through its 628 pages without any help. If people had thought then, "well, this is completely incomprehensible, I can't see anything I could make sense of", the book probably would have never got the reputation it has now (even though "Ulysses" was an acclaimed work in 1939 already).
Personally I came to FW by some of the writings of German author Arno Schmidt, who - totally wrong in my view - claimed that he had understood the book and knew what it was all about. So at least I thought, okay, if the guy claims he's found the key to the book, I might see for myself. I soon discarded Schmidt's theories about the book being about Joyce's problems with his brother (although these are also in the book), but once I got a little into it, I began to enjoy it in my own way and perhaps in a different way than Joyce intended (although I believe one of the points is that Joyce wanted people to understand the book in their own way, as a 'funferall").
I think there are many passages in FW in which the text comments on itself and its way of construction, moments where you get an opaque idea of what is going on or at least what it is all about. Also, not all chapters of the book are equally 'dense'; whole bits of chapter 7, for instance, are relatively close to standard English, whereas other parts are so intricately layered that even if you have already formed an idea about the themes, characters etc. they remain almost completely obscure.
Perhaps the whole approach of trying to read it as normal, linear kind of narrative is what creates the problem, the urgent need to understand what Joyce purposefully created to be incomprehensible. As Sausage has said, the thing that attracts me about FW is the 'music' of it, and in a way it's perhaps easier to understand if you see it as a piece of music. Just as you cannot explain the exact 'meaning' of a symphony (and noone would think of this apart if it comes to Richard-Strauss-style program music), you cannot explain the 'meaning' of FW; but you can of course find recurring themes, motifs, developments in music and in FW. And just as with good music, FW can be enormously pleasant and moving. I never laughed as much while reading a book as when reading FW (not even Pynchon did that to me), and there's very little in all literature that moved me as deeply as some parts of FW. People tend to think that the book is at best an intellectual exercise, but what is seldom noticed are the deep emotional qualities it has. It reaches depths that are perhaps not approachable in normal language, and thus is enormously rewarding.
I can only say, try it in small bits, and you don't even have to read it whole, as each part represents the whole book like a holograph.

Concerning "What makes a film/art boring" and the "fear of intellectualism".

Highly affected by Phenomenology and Hermeneutic i am always wondering how people react to certain artworks in a kind of resistance (this thread and Mr. Schrecks "illustration" is a good example). On the one hand i truley love the fact that with cinema you can argue and discuss as only possible with sports bcause of its massappeal - everyone can have his point and throw in his two cents which is wonderfull and gives the seventh art a democratic approach. What i find irritating is when people come up with arguments that plainly refuse a certain artwork (for example Joyce or Godard) because of its supposed "(over)-intellectual" aura. And to say that a certain "story" is boring just because of its lack of narrative is, imo, itself boring because judging a story/film/image/sound etcetera by this is truely a thing of the past where an artworks quality was inextricably connected to its handcraft. Why not give, as Mr. Saussage suggests, Joyce a chance? Why refuse to read it because you might not be able to get the whole thing? From my standpoint no one should fear or refuse a work of art because of such an "aura"! To quote from Hans Georg Gadamars "Die Aktualität des Schönen": "Wer ein Kunstwerk geschaffen hat, steht in Wahrheit vor dem Gebilde seiner Hände nicht anders als jeder andere." And to bring up Malrauxs "Le musée imaginaire" i believe that in the world of today (at least the first) almost anybody is able to "get into certain" art because of her/his unconcious "knowledge/feel-imaginaire" for history/art that is comming from so different influences such as socialisation, education etcetera. It might takes more from you to get into Joyce than in another author (i only read half of ULYSSES…) but at least its up to you and your free decision because an artwork is never more than an "offer" and it always needs a "recepient" to make it come to life - as Heidegger points out in "Der Ursprung des Kunstwerks": "Beethovens Quartette liegen in den Lagerräumen des Verlagshauses wie die Kartoffeln im Keller."

I salute Mr. Saussage for trying to keep this board and its discussions on a certain level and open to many posters (which suits me - others will disagree which i can understand but i think in the last months there were certain "phenomenons" of egocentrism that had a not too good influence on the forum…) - Big Up!

OK, how about a movie like Warhol's "Sleep" (1963) which is just a guy sleeping for 5 hours? Can we all at least agree that this film is 'boring'?

A film like Sleep isn't meant to be interesting in and of itself, it's the discussion that it generates afterwards where its value is found, as a concept.

domino harvey wrote:A film like Sleep isn't meant to be interesting in and of itself, it's the discussion that it generates afterwards where its value is found, as a concept.

But, that is irrelevant to the film itself at least within the context of this thread.

Did you find the actual film boring?

OK, how about a movie like Warhol's "Sleep"

I wish I could see it, but I believe that many people who like it would claim it is not "boring." Or that what's good about it is the "concept," but rather it's use of time, light, and space - just like his other films. Again I haven't seen it, but I've yet to see a Warhol that's actually "boring" (well, OK, with the possible exception of Imitation of Christ).

aox wrote:OK, how about a movie like Warhol's "Sleep" (1963) which is just a guy sleeping for 5 hours? Can we all at least agree that this film is 'boring'?

I think the problem lies in that 'just'. If you're approaching a film from a narrowly narrative standpoint, then that's all that happens, but this is not a narrative film. (I haven't seen it, however: this opinion is based on viewing other of Warhol's 'single-shot' silent works) Nobody asks where the plot development is in Warhol's screenprints.

And while we're at it, Free Radicals is just a scratched piece of film, Mothlight is just some dead insects and the Mona Lisa is just some chick in a landscape. Nothing happens.

zedz wrote:And while we're at it, Free Radicals is just a scratched piece of film, Mothlight is just some dead insects and the Mona Lisa is just some chick in a landscape. Nothing happens.

False analogy.

aox wrote:

zedz wrote:And while we're at it, Free Radicals is just a scratched piece of film, Mothlight is just some dead insects and the Mona Lisa is just some chick in a landscape. Nothing happens.

False analogy.

In what way? Why can't Sleep be viewed in the context of the fine art tradition from which Warhol was operating? That's certainly a more appropriate context in which to consider it than the existing film traditions (narrative and experimental) that he chose to ignore.

Empire has much more in common with the Campbell's soup can than it does with King Kong, and Warhol generally pursued ideas across media (e.g. silkscreen portraits / screen tests).

I never said it was bad. I never said it wasn't art. I never said it isn't an impetus or a catalyst for debate. I never said it can't make one think. I never said it was unimportant. I never said Warhol wasn't a genius.

Now...

Did you find it boring? Did you truthfully sit and watch it from start to finish?

aox wrote:Did you find it boring? Did you truthfully sit and watch it from start to finish?

See above. I haven't seen it. The hour I've seen of Empire (on disc) was mesmerising - not at all boring. The 'action' in these films and experiences is not on the macro level of plot, but on the micro level of light and grain.

And listening to Tony Conrad and friend playing the same note for over an hour on violins is one of the most thrilling live music experiences I've ever had. You have to tailor your participation in these experiences to what's appropriate. Simple 'nothing happens' = 'boring' equations completely miss the point, but if that's where you're coming from, of course you'll find these things boring.

As an experiment intended to stimulate discussion, Sleep is not boring. As a narrative-- well, it isn't one, so to judge it with the same criteria as narrative films is meaningless. You're either engaged on an theoretical level with the concepts at play or you're not, but anyone looking for a story in footage of looped sleep footage is missing the point.

zedz wrote:Simple 'nothing happens' = 'boring' equations completely miss the point, but if that's where you're coming from, of course you'll find these things boring.

Absolutely, zedz.

aox wrote:OK, how about a movie like Warhol's "Sleep" (1963) which is just a guy sleeping for 5 hours? Can we all at least agree that this film is 'boring'?

No. Basically, Warhol's silent films of this ilk propose an anti-narrative in which visual interest issues from any object looked at long enough. His directorial stance is one of total indifference, 'photographing what happens' and challenging us to locate anything other than the surface of the text. His films are relentlessly literal, and couldn’t be more disinterested in commonly held artistic conceptions of depth or dramatic consequence. So, any possibility of textual engagement is shifted onto our practice of perception, and that's why one needs to be as open and patient as possible when approaching the films. Yes, it's 'a guy sleeping for five hours', but never 'just a guy sleeping for five hours'. There's a huge difference.

Henry Geldzahler (himself the subject of a Warhol 'epic') summed up the effect of Sleep in a brief piece in Film Culture back in 1964. This extract offers a far more eloquent rebuttal to aox than I can muster:

Andy Warhol’s eight-hour Sleep movie must be infuriating to the impatient or the nervous or to those so busy that they cannot allow the eye and the mind to adjust to a quieter, flowing sense of time. What appears boring is the elimination of incident, accident, story, sound, and the moving camera. As in Erik Satie’s Vexations, when the same twenty-second piece is repeated for eighteen hours we find that the more that is eliminated the greater concentration is possible on the spare remaining essentials. The slightest variation becomes an event, something on which we can focus our attention. As less and less happens on the screen, we become satisfied with almost nothing and find the slightest shift in the body of the sleeper or the least movement of the camera interesting enough. The movie is not so much about sleep as it is about our capacity to see possibilities of an aspect of film carried to its logical conclusion – reductio ad absurdum to some, indicating a new awareness to others.

aox wrote:OK, how about a movie like Warhol's "Sleep" (1963) which is just a guy sleeping for 5 hours? Can we all at least agree that this film is 'boring'?

No. Basically, Warhol's silent films of this ilk propose an anti-narrative in which visual interest issues from any object looked at long enough. His directorial stance is one of total indifference, 'photographing what happens' and challenging us to locate anything other than the surface of the text. His films are relentlessly literal, and couldn’t be more disinterested in commonly held artistic conceptions of depth or dramatic consequence. So, any possibility of textual engagement is shifted onto our practice of perception, and that's why one needs to be as open and patient as possible when approaching the films. Yes, it's 'a guy sleeping for five hours', but never 'just a guy sleeping for five hours'. There's a huge difference.

Henry Geldzahler (himself the subject of a Warhol 'epic') summed up the effect of Sleep in a brief piece in Film Culture back in 1964. This extract offers a far more eloquent rebuttal to aox than I can muster:

Andy Warhol’s eight-hour Sleep movie must be infuriating to the impatient or the nervous or to those so busy that they cannot allow the eye and the mind to adjust to a quieter, flowing sense of time. What appears boring is the elimination of incident, accident, story, sound, and the moving camera. As in Erik Satie’s Vexations, when the same twenty-second piece is repeated for eighteen hours we find that the more that is eliminated the greater concentration is possible on the spare remaining essentials. The slightest variation becomes an event, something on which we can focus our attention. As less and less happens on the screen, we become satisfied with almost nothing and find the slightest shift in the body of the sleeper or the least movement of the camera interesting enough. The movie is not so much about sleep as it is about our capacity to see possibilities of an aspect of film carried to its logical conclusion – reductio ad absurdum to some, indicating a new awareness to others.

Yes, Andy Warhol's Sleep could certainly be safely considered boring no matter how much sophistic analysis you want to heap on it. Because even if you can bang on for 10, 30 or 45 minutes or even 2 hours you're still going to have to wind down and then admit that "this sure as hell is boring and I could've watched three actual films instead of this bloated piece of installation art run amok.' Henry Geldzahler is merely spouting the usual pile of shit you find on placards by installation art pieces, texts that probably took far more time to fill than the 'content' of the art piece they purport to elucidate. What a film is or isn't 'about' in most instances will have very little to do with the actual reaction to the experience. "What Andy W. is trying to say...." will only take you so far after your third Red Bull is wearing off. Why not just stare at a wall or that awful painting your parents have in their living room or the tree outside? Less strain on the eyes. I know the method--for lack of a better word--is not to analyse but to let yourself go and float along with the for the most part still image. But after an hour or whatever amount of time what 'more' are you going to get from this? When the viewer runs against that dilemma i would suspect that boredom ensues. No?
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.

skuhn8 wrote:Yes, Andy Warhol's Sleep could certainly be safely considered boring no matter how much sophistic analysis you want to heap on it.

Sure, the subjects of Warhol's films are banal, boring, etc - but that doesn't mean that watching or experiencing them has to be boring. I was just trying to argue against the commonly held belief that something like Sleep merely induces boredom.

"this sure as hell is boring and I could've watched three actual films instead of this bloated piece of installation art run amok.'

I don't know, what exactly is an 'actual' film? One that is narrative-based? One that lasts no longer than two hours? One that isn't 'boring'?

What a film is or isn't 'about' in most instances will have very little to do with the actual reaction to the experience.

If I'm interpreting you correctly, I think it does come into play here. The work has 'no point', it isn't really 'about' anything, it's all surface. We have to create a reaction, create an experience. The text demands a different type of engagement - although Warhol couldn't have cared less whether anybody bothered or not!

"What Andy W. is trying to say...." will only take you so far after your third Red Bull is wearing off.

Andy W. is trying to say very little indeed, if anything at all, and surely one would be able to figure that out before cracking open the first can of Red Bull. What's important here is what one does with boredom over the course of the film's duration.

Why not just stare at a wall or that awful painting your parents have in their living room or the tree outside? Less strain on the eyes.

Well, yeah, one can always do that instead of doing other stuff I suppose. I'm pretty sure I've done things like that instead of watching actual films sometimes.

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.

When you say "this kind of art" plus putting art in ' - i guess you are separating!? Again, its art (without ') so its just an offer that you don't have to take. I liked the discussion about the meaning of the word "just" - because i think its important to understand certain meanings of adjectives like boring, frustrating etc.. For me these adjectives describe certain feelings that appear no less in life as fun, entertaining and joy therefor they have the same right to be in film and/or be conected with it in one way or the other.

accatone wrote:

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.

When you say "this kind of art" plus putting art in ' - i guess you are separating!? Again, its art (without ') so its just an offer that you don't have to take. I liked the discussion about the meaning of the word "just" - because i think its important to understand certain meanings of adjectives like boring, frustrating etc.. For me these adjectives describe certain feelings that appear no less in life as fun, entertaining and joy therefor they have the same right to be in film and/or be conected with it in one way or the other.

re: art (without 's)--agreed. But otherwise I'm missing your point. If you are contending that inducing boredom in a film (or other work of art) may be the intention, fine. Note to filmmaker: congratulations, you managed to bore your audience. And yes, this exists in life. [bracketed due to personal and thus subjective preference: part of my joy in cinema is getting away from the boredom in life].

Has anyone here sat through Sleep and not been bored? Is it possible to sit through the whole film and not be bored? Has anyone anywhere in the history of cinema since 1963 sat through it and not been bored? I'm sorry, but if someone says "yeah, I did it in one sitting and was [place appropriate adjective other than 'bored' here] throughout' I'm calling bullshit. I doubt Andy Warhol or any of his brethren WATCHED the whole thing. IMO it's a creation dropped before us to challenge our definitions of art and defy traditional viewing....and to actually sit down and watch it from beginning to end will--in the real world--induce boredom and prove to be a ridiculous and collosal waste of time.

My use of 'actual' to qualify other films is of course sloppy--but here I am implying anything on any film-filled medium that possesses content beyond a guy sleeping for eight hours. We can nitpick vocab all we want but: but Sleep is a boring film, whether by intention or not. Call it a Great Epic of a Boring Film, but it's still boring.

Sorry, I am officially being a dick.

skuhn8 wrote:IMO it's a creation dropped before us to challenge our definitions of art and defy traditional viewing

This is such bullshit. 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. Again, Warhol's films are "about" light and film space and time. Why should it matter, then, if the "subjects" seem banal or boring?

My use of 'actual' to qualify other films is of course sloppy--but here I am implying anything on any film-filled medium that possesses content beyond a guy sleeping for eight hours.

Aside for maybe foggy eyes, it doesn't sound like anyone here has even actually seen it. Clearly you haven't, as anyone could know having seen it or not that it's 5 hours, not 8.

skuhn8 wrote:Call it a Great Epic of a Boring Film, but it's still boring.

That's why i like to talk about words and their meaning(s) - because with deconstructing them you are able to find some kind of truth. I would not say a certain film is a "Great epic of a boring film" but it could be most definitely a "Great epic of boredom" and that is to me a big difference. A piece of art can never be immanently/ a priori boring - but of course the receptionist can find it boring.

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

mattkc wrote:

skuhn8 wrote:IMO it's a creation dropped before us to challenge our definitions of art and defy traditional viewing

This is such bullshit. 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. Again, Warhol's films are "about" light and film space and time. Why should it matter, then, if the "subjects" seem banal or boring?

My use of 'actual' to qualify other films is of course sloppy--but here I am implying anything on any film-filled medium that possesses content beyond a guy sleeping for eight hours.

Aside for maybe foggy eyes, it doesn't sound like anyone here has even actually seen it. Clearly you haven't, as anyone could know having seen it or not that it's 5 hours, not 8.

Sorry, slipped into internetlazyspeak. IMO stands for 'In my opinion'--feel free to translate as "I believe his intention was to..." so my statement is by definition not 'bullshit'. Chill. I don't take anything Warhol said seriously. I think he was prankster first class who found profit in squandering his talent.

And no I haven't seen the entire film. The subject of the film referred to it as being 8 hours...my bad [and his?]. I've seen a segment and feel confident that my not having seen it in its entirety does not necessarily preclude me from shitting on it. I thusly shat. But this retort is going off topic.

'The gaze': oh no.

accatone: I agree with your entire post except for the last sentence--or at least I think I disagree with that statement. I suppose the crux of this whole thread kind of hangs on how we stand on this question.

mattkc wrote:Why should it matter, then, if the "subjects" seem banal or boring?

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."

First off, I never said boring=bad, either.

This film has to exist. It is obvious and truly inevitable. But, I think the concept is much more important then the actual film. Regardless, none of these things has anything to do with the actual film itself. Watching a man sleep for 5 hours is boring. The next great step in art would be filming someone as they watch this film uninterrupted. That to me would be much more interesting and would spark just as much fierce debate, but I digress.

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.

Also, please don't assume that just because "nothing happens" I find this film boring. I have been to Peter Brotzmann Free-Jazz shows that I have found 'boring' and obviously, there is a lot going on (I do like the man's work and admire him).

skuhn8 wrote:Sorry, slipped into internetlazyspeak. IMO stands for 'In my opinion'--feel free to translate as "I believe his intention was to..." so my statement is by definition not 'bullshit'.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that if you put "IMO" in front of anything it blocks anyone from calling it bullshit. I'll keep this in mind from now on. The problem is your "IMO" isn't based on anything of substance. You seem to have just decided somewhere along the way that Warhol was a "prankster first class," based on shallow interpretations of his films or paintings, and (probably most of all) your judgment of him as a person.

starmanof51 wrote: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?

aox wrote:But, I think the concept is much more important then actual film. Regardless, none of these things has anything to do with the actual film itself. Watching a man sleep for 5 hours is boring.

You say it as if it's a fact. One person in this thread joked, "Why not just stare at... the tree outside?" Obviously everyone sees and thinks differently, but in my experience, looking at a tree can be a far more ecstatic and great experience than all the cinema combined. If you think that any film, regardless of the film itself, that consists of very long takes of a person sleeping, then, "IMO," you're just being close-minded and not looking at and thinking about the object (the film) itself.