Whats so great about following movies?

[theredcommando]

I have two candidates here.

Ingmar Bergman - Winter Light
Wong kar wai - Chungking Express

Both are well acknowledged directors and movies are award winning.
However, when I watched these, I found them boring. Further, there was nothing to take home, nothing affects your brain, nothing to think about.

There is no pace, stories are somewhat different, but content is more or less
monotonous. Acting and script is not great either.

Can somebody debate and explain what is great about these movies? I am open to discussion, but please try to put forward the specific points. I would love to revisit these movies and correct my understanding.

What is the world cinema that is really worth watching?
If you feel similar about some other movie, please be explicit and mention it here. However, request all to concentrate on single movie for significant time(at least 3 posts)

 

[hydra]

I have two candidates here.

Ingmar Bergman - Winter Light
...

I did see you post on easantosh's thread about Winter Light and did not want to comment.

Winter Light, Through a Glass Darkly and The Silence are my favourite Bergman movies. I like them more than The Seventh Seal.

Winter Light, I think is one movie that has explored the concept of faith and belief beautifully. I won't split hairs about the difference between faith and belief here, but when I mention faith below, I also mean faith and belief.

By faith, I don't mean just faith in a religion, but faith in anything. The movie uses the context of a priest doubting his faith, but the movie wants us to think about one's faith in anything.

The movie shows us the Priest doing what a priest does, by doubting whether what he's saying and doing is a sham. When he is torn with conflict inside himself, the words he uses to preach do not give him any solace. The words in Book that he follows and represents does not give him any solace. He can only cry helplessly and suffer. And he does this in between giving comfort to the people to his parish using the very words and concepts that he doubts. He himself sees the hypocrisy in his actions -- he knows the words are empty, but he says them because his office demands it. And this makes his dilemma worse.

As the movie progresses, as one event follows another, we see him seeing things and reacting to various events. We are made to think about how each event makes him think about the conflict in his mind. We wonder which direction his mind is tending to. Is his inner crisis deepening, or is his faith and belief returning?

In the end, after thinking of abandoning his sermon, he sees something. He sees somebody who has every right to have abandoned his faith, to have asked God where he was when he was needed, not having abandoned his faith. And instead of doing that, this person actively believes in God. And then the priest gives his sermon.

But are his words still empty? Has his faith been restored? The answers to these questions depends on the viewer. At this point the viewer's interaction with the movie will give him/her the answers. Or it will give him/her more questions to ponder on, and reflect on his/her on beliefs. The movie does not give any answers, but it gives a LOT of fodder for thought, and lets us make up our own answers. And then question them again.

Isn't this a beautiful thing? Movies like these are indeed art, that is as beautiful as the most beautiful objects. They make us think, and just like a mirror, they let us bounce ourselves off them. We see not just the movie, but we also see a bit of ourselves (and our own special 'happinesses' and 'sadnesses') in what we see in the movie.

There's a more modern (independent) movie, Higher Ground (2011), that explores the concept of faith very nicely. Highly recommended.

Disclaimer to everybody: I constantly shuttle between being an agnostic and an athiest myself. Please do not be offended by anything I've said above. I have my own pet beliefs and if you feel anything I've said goes against what you believe, please just dismiss me as a raving fool

 

[longshanks]

When you don't like something no matter how much others try to convince you with their own proper explanations and reasons it wont change your opinion most of the times, unless you are not sure about your feelings towards the same. At least this has been the case with me and i have absolutely not liked many movies which were praised by critiques as master pieces(movies from all around the globe).

It is OK to not like,that feeling is much better than fake liking for the sake of appearing special or superior by telling everyone that you really loved this cinema or music or art and found it to be a work of genius.

everyone has different tastes and the there are a lot of movies,art and music which you can try to find and understand what you like.

keep exploring, peace.

 

[sivasarjun]

Hydra has said it beautifully. Great works of art let us see ourselves better(or worse).
Bergman is one director who does it.

 

[theredcommando]

Please don't feel offended folks. This is my genuine attempt to understand the thinking of fellow viewers.

@hydra
Thanks for the explanation. The points you mentioned did not strike me that hard when I watched the movie. There was grim and sad atmosphere throughout the movie, which was hard hitting. Will give it another watch.
But for example, if you compare it with Children Of Heaven or Bicycle Thief, the way the director has chosen to show the feelings is amazing. It strikes the viewer immediately and viewer can connect immediately with the movie.

I am not opposing your viewpoint, but pace and script is not very captivating. May be Ingmar is more difficult to understand?

@longshanks
I agree with you partially. But at times, its possible to miss something or simply lacking maturity to understand it. Or you might have overlooked some aspect, so such discussions would help to at least pacify those feelings and disappointments.
And I absolutely agree with faking the liking.

 

[longshanks]

You said you like Majid Majidi, i've seen The Song of Sparrows and liked it a lot.

 

[hydra]

I do agree the tone of the movie is quite bleak and grim. And that does put off a lot of people. But then it is part of getting us to experience what the main character is going though.

I think we appreciate different things (in this case movies) mostly because of the sum of our life experiences at the time we are exposed to those "things". I don't think I would have appreciated Bergman if I had watched his movies say 15 years back. And that is perhaps true of all art. What we experience/enjoy of art has mostly to do with what we are. Which is probably why I don't necessarily like what the next person likes, and vice versa.

I have had my share of good and bad experiences in life, which have made me somewhat interested in the spiritual side (= true reality) of things. This makes me watch movies that show inner conflict, people going through tough life situations, and movies that show just plain old reality with great interest. Somebody else may have a different reason for appreciating the movies they like.

 

[esanthosh]

I was waiting for somebody to post a thoughtful, coherent post on one of the movies, so thanks hydra! Now that the three post limit is over, let me rant and ramble incoherently.

Liking or disliking a movie - I only have lot of questions

The question to ask when you like or dislike a movie is this - If you had not known about the director, if you did not know that this movie has world-wide critical acclaim, would you search for reasons to like it? Or would you have moved on?

Some of the best films of today were at the time of the release a critical and commercial failure. Some of them become cult classics, some of them get re-discovered. You might regularly see "this film was ahead of it's time" in some IMDB reviews. But, was it ahead of it's time or does it fit with the present day thought process better? Think about a film, any film, which has been universally panned as banal and shallow. If that film were to become part of the "1001 movies you must see before you die" in 2025, would your opinion of it today be any different?

In Intouchables, Driss' painting is sold for 11,000. Now, is that still art if someone knew the intention behind it? Is the buyer a fool or an ardent appreciator of art? That happens too with pretentious films.

Sometimes, culture or time period or environment may be the stumbling block. For instance, Who's Singin' Over There? (1980) - IMDb is hailed as the best Serbian film of 50 years (1947-1995). I did not see anything special in it. Hababam Sinifi is given high IMDB ratings due to huge number of 10s from Turks. I watched four films and I thought they were only about OK. Is the popular opinion right or mine?

Tarkovsky

Sometimes, you can "get" or understand the concepts behind the movie, the reason why people love it, why people rave about it, yet you personally may not like the movie. Does not mean anything. You can appreciate and respect some of the movies, but may not like them. Sometimes, you like certain aspects, the core idea of the film, but do not like the execution. Happens all the time.

A case in point is my recent experience with Tarkovsky films. His movies are deliberately slow, poetic in a sense, a beautiful mix of imagery and sound, spiritual and personal in nature. But, I understood more about Solayris by watching the interviews than when watching the movie. I frequently checked the time remaining for a less than 2 hour Tarkovsky movie much more than I did for a 3 hours Das Boot. The only way I could sit through it was to completely let go of my expectation of what a movie should be and observe with an empty mind prepared to take in anything that follows. With some movies, I was left with a meditative calmness (Stalker, The Mirror) for some unknown reason while I normally would be filled with thoughts and questions about the movie. But that did not prevent me from not liking Nostalghia or Offret - both of which were boring for me. I did not hate them. For instance, I loved the scene (Nostalghia) in the hotel room where you just see the rain pouring through the window and nothing else. I also liked the last scene in the film, which to me was a simple act on the surface, but had a powerful meaning underneath. But, on the whole, it did not appeal to me. I appreciate the fact that Tarkovsky made films with a unique language that combined art, poetry, visual artistry and sound. I respect Tarkovsky for making me change the way I thought of movies. But, I don't think I will remember his films as fondly as I do with Kurosawa and Bergman. May be I am not as appreciative of art or even less of a true movie fan. But, that's what I am.

Now, the question arises. Why did I like Stalker? Why did I like a personal movie like The Mirror? Why not Solayris? The answer always can be found within. To me, all I need is a thread to hold on to, a small question, a spark of interest to bind me to the movie. In other movies, Tarkovsky was talking in his own language, but it was largely a one sided conversation. I did not get 'hooks' to hold on and connect to the film. That may be my weakness or just the nature of AT's films. With Stalker, there was a goal - What was the Zone/Room and what it might represent - held up my interest. The Mirror was non-linear - connecting the dots made it interesting. A small puzzle is all that's needed. It need not be a plot element, may be a philosophical question, a psychological one - anything!

Even with the 7 hour+ SatanTango, I got one small hook - What would Irimias and Petrinas do when they come face to face with the villagers? That one question hooked me into 4 hours of SatanTango, even overlooking the 20 mins where the drunk Conductor rambled on and on about meeting Irimias and Petrina and all I wished for was one of the characters to hit him on the head with a bottle. No! Sadly that did not happen - the small, tight-knit community was used to it and they talked without being bothered :sad:

On Bergman...

By the time I was typing this, I already see three more replies. So, to answer your question, No! Bergman is one of the most interesting directors for me.

With Bergman, you should see Smiles of a Summer Night. Yep! He can make comedies as well. Rather than Winter Light, irrespective of whether he himself called it his best work, a better way to ease into Bergman is through Wild Stawberries and Virgin Spring. With Wild Strawberries, you have a plot, you have characters, but it's also far different from a normal film.

Personally, I found Winter Light to be dry though I "get" what it means. But, I think that is the whole point - it was not meant to be pleasant or easy (as explained in hydra's post). To put it in context, you need to watch the trilogy - Through a Glass Darkly, Winter Light and The Silence. When I watched Seventh Seal, I was fascinated by someone making a movie about faith (coming off Hollywood movies) and at that point in my life, Knight's doubts mirrored mine. Start with Seventh Seal, follow it up with the faith trilogy and see what you think of it. For a couple of days, all I thought about was the movies and the ideas/questions that it represented. The understanding expands as your own ideas / experience allow(s). I saw a gradual progression of ideas (about faith and the self) through each film. Let's see what you find...

Another useless thought

Since I have rambled on this long, let's close it with another useless thought. I have long been a fan of interpreting movies. From David Lynch (which is like solving a mystery - a detective) to Bergman, I have tried to 'figure' out movies - what they mean to me, what could the director be implying etc., With Tarkovsky and Tarr, I had a strange thought - why analyze? Am I trying to find the true intent of the film maker or am I going to reduce the movie to a rational, meaningful pattern that appeals to the brain? A 'smart' interpretation that makes me feel a little better about myself? What if I just let it go? What if Dogs are just dogs, cows are just cows, symbolism is non-existent, meta-physical deconstruct is just my overactive imagination in order to get something out of nothing?

PS: If you have read this post this far, you are ready for watching a Bela Tarr movie. It requires less patience and is more coherent

 

[hydra]

... completely let go of my expectation of what a movie should be and observe with an empty mind prepared to take in anything that follows....

This! This is exactly the way I think we should watch movies. This is something I've been trying to get my Dad to do, which he won't. If a movie doesn't grab him in the first 15 minutes, he switches it off. And this causes him to miss a lot of good movies.

This is also the reason I prefer to watch most movies (except the commercial hollywood movies) by myself.

 

[esanthosh]

You are a little better. I cannot watch any movie with others - even the mere presence becomes a 'noise'. I prefer to watch movies alone in a calm, quiet environment. I am lucky to be in such a neighbourhood.

PS: Thinking about it, you are never alone. There's always you!

 

[theredcommando]

I did not get 'hooks' to hold on and connect to the film.

+1 for that. I think this partly explains hydra's viewpoint also. That's the reason he was able to connect to it much better than me and appreciate its true value.

Also, one thing for sure, these directors don't struggle with the medium. They know exactly what they want to convey and they do that in their own manner. Movies are their medium which they have chosen, hence its flowing and lucid from their perspective, and if you are able to decipher it, you fall in love with it.

I think language has a major role to play here. Understanding intricacies of emotions and dialogs, culture is not possible unless you understand the language/translation well, or there are good subtitles.
For example, Udaan, a hindi movie appealed to me, but if it was in a different language, I don't think I could have appreciated it to same extent.

my overactive imagination in order to get something out of nothing?

I dont think that would be the case. Unless there is a good solid thought process behind, creating even 10 minutes of movie is not possible. Surely the director has something to say, which is not so easy to portray easily...

But I do think that, if directors are making it difficult to comprehend, just for the sake of complexity and critical acclaim, then thats not right. There are people who device their happiness by proving their superiority. But may be, if its conveyed in simpler manner then it does not make the intended impact?

In Omkara, Omkara shows lack of faith on Kareena and finally pays the price and destroys everything. This faith is surely different than faith in God(its more closer to trust than faith), however, all this is shown in very interesting way. I do agree that it lacks the coherency and focus.
But I would just like to point out that good movie need not be esoteric and obscure.

 

[esanthosh]

Interpretations are an interesting exercise, no doubt. And most times, they are far from meaningless. But, I was thinking of something else

One short film that I had in my mind when I was writing about interpretation was Un Chien Andalou - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which I watched a few months back. I vividly remember trying to make sense of it, putting together a "plot" even when I knew in advance that....

In spite of varying interpretations made since the film originated, Buuel made clear throughout his writings that, between Dal and himself, the only rule for the writing of the script was that "no idea or image that might lend itself to a rational explanation of any kind would be accepted." Moreover, he stated that, "Nothing, in the film, symbolizes anything. The only method of investigation of the symbols would be, perhaps, psychoanalysis."

Buuel also said that repeat scenes in Exterminating Angel were merely to increase running time (I am yet to watch that film though).

Mind is a powerful tool, but it needs a construct, a pattern - something it already knows how to decipher. Even if you do not understand something, you would try associating it with something you already know in order to translate it into an understanding. That is why sometimes, something without a structure scares our rational mind - a meaning, a thin thread to tie it all makes it easier to fit it into a known pattern (movies, stock market, God). But at other times, placebo effect is greater or our need / urge / ego to "see" something is greater. I just like to question my own beliefs and thoughts many times. Most times, the conflicts go unresolved resulting only in more confusion. But a paradox is better than putting too much stock in my own thought process.

Another seed for that thought came from this IMDB thread (You can skip the first two pages until you watch the movie). Quoting from Tarr's interview here

But you have to know also that we really just wanted to do a very simple, very pure film. Were just showing how [the world] will be over, the horse will be over, life will be over. Its very simple. Please just trust your eyes. [Those philosophical interpretations are] too muchdont be sophisticated, okay?!

Tarr says his job is to show us these characters and this world. After providing this, the interpretation of the film is no longer under his control. Thats what critics are for, he says. The interpretation is not my job, okay? Understanding film, which is very, very important [is the critics job].

 

[esanthosh]

I think language has a major role to play here. Understanding intricacies of emotions and dialogs, culture is not possible unless you understand the language/translation well, or there are good subtitles.

Not just language, but cultural and periodical perspective is necessary sometimes. I feel the same way about Tamil films, one of which I watched with subtitles. Regional, localized references and tone do not translate anywhere close to it's real meaning with subtitles.

A movie which uses pop culture references of the day will age faster. A movie which has an allegory to the events of that time (High Noon and HUAC for instance) would feel alien to those who don't live in or know about the time period. A movie which does bring fresh ideas to the table could get diluted as it's ideas get copied over and over again in numerous films down the years by the time we finally watch it.

But, a good movie transcends all these stumbling blocks. The language good and great films speak is often universal - one that appeals to the core human emotions. Some of the subtleties sure gets lost with translation in terms of both language and cultural differences. But you can still derive so much more out of a movie despite that.

But I do think that, if directors are making it difficult to comprehend, just for the sake of complexity and critical acclaim, then thats not right. There are people who device their happiness by proving their superiority. But may be, if its conveyed in simpler manner then it does not make the intended impact?

But I would just like to point out that good movie need not be esoteric and obscure.

Also, one thing for sure, these directors don't struggle with the medium. They know exactly what they want to convey and they do that in their own manner. Movies are their medium which they have chosen, hence its flowing and lucid from their perspective, and if you are able to decipher it, you fall in love with it.

In a way, you answered your own question. Take the post you are reading, for example. I could answer this in short sentences and fail to convey what I want to or worse, convey something entirely different. Also take into account that we do not know each other and words, unless in the hands of a good writer, is not capable of carrying across emotions. Unlike a Skype session, you may not know if I am in a joyous mood or sad, what I look like and whether I mean something in jest as you neither see my facial expressions nor hear the changes in the tone of my voice. I may be writing this in response to you, but it might be read by a few others who may have different kinds of thought processes.

With a simple message like this, which we do not stop to think about, lies a complex task of carrying my thoughts to the other end without disturbing the original intent. I agree that sometimes writers try to show off by using their power of vocabulary and complex sentence structures. But on the other hand, can I explain this post and the topic to a child (not the intelligent children of today, perhaps some ignorant child like myself) meaningfully? If I try to make it simpler, it may be understood by the child, but could become 'too simple' and scratching on the surface for others ("we are discussing movies" - for instance). Another question is - can I write this message in Hindi without destroying it's meaning? I simply cannot. With Tamil, I can try. My broken Hindi is good for understanding, but not fluent enough to convey this message.

So, may be some directors may not necessarily be making it complex by purpose, but that may be the best way they know to make the movie. Some of them are skilled enough to convey their thoughts to general audience and critics alike. Some may only want to address a particular group and do not want to dilute their message by oversimplifying.

There may also be another reason - You only see what you want to see. Take my previous post, read both Bela Tarr's interview and the IMDB thread. Based on which side you take, you can argue that Tarr actually meant it to be simple movie, but people are interpreting complex philosophical meanings ignoring what the creator himself says. You may on the other hand, think exactly along the lines of the poster(s) - that Tarr is Socrates like. If my intent is not to argue or to push my opinion on to you (but merely present a problem and let you draw your own conclusions), my job ends with presenting both links. Some directors may drop subtle hints to what they think too. You are free to come to your own conclusion based on your own thought process. This is the sort of film that appeal to me the most. You cannot go right or wrong in interpretation, because no matter what, it all comes down to finding out what's inside of you.

 

[sound1]

Sometimes, you can "get" or understand the concepts behind the movie, the reason why people love it, why people rave about it, yet you personally may not like the movie. Does not mean anything. You can appreciate and respect some of the movies, but may not like them. Sometimes, you like certain aspects, the core idea of the film, but do not like the execution. Happens all the time.

Sorry for going slightly OT but had to say it...

In my experience I like a movie if it deeply connects to my personal life at the time of watching. Effect is amplified if a character has a similar thinking as mine.
Case in point: Goodwill Hunting is (almost) an ordinary movie in every way you can think of. But I have watched it countless number of times, every time tears in my eyes. Same goes for movies Before Sunrise and Before Sunset (btw, I love the way how this movie ends ).

Above logic doesn't hold good for mainstream block busters like Inception. Everybody likes those, they are like iPhone that way

You cannot go right or wrong in interpretation, because no matter what, it all comes down to finding out what's inside of you.

I think that is why they are so special.

\rant

 

[theredcommando]

You cannot go right or wrong in interpretation, because no matter what, it all comes down to finding out what's inside of you.

Well, I would differ here to some extent.

Just leaving open for interpretation is not very good(especially if the subject is not complex). Director should be able to 'direct' something to the viewer. If director himself is not clear then he is escaping his duty I would say. After some contemplation at least, viewer should reach to end.

"no idea or image that might lend itself to a rational explanation of any kind would be accepted."

This means that they were just fooling the audience. Viewer is obviously expecting something out of movie, if director just says that he did not intend to show anything, its literally a fraud.

I found some explanation for esoteric movies. However, director should use that way only if required. In something like 'Memento' or 'Inception' or 'Source Code' or ' Shutter Island' complexity of plot was required. In 'Matrix' convoluting dialogs are rather necessity. But its not so true for other movies.

Slowing down the pace is sometimes required, so that viewer would get some time to think. At times, extended shots are indeed required to stress the point. But making use of them just as director signature is useless. Ram Gopal Varma went this way unnecessarily in many movies, which people did not like.

@esanthosh
No offence, but after reading your posts, indeed I feel like you are thinking too much Psychology, body proxemics, use of colors, sound, words, tone etc affect a lot. However, you are giving too much importance to it. Movie is a subtle medium, its easy for the director to get misinterpreted but similarly, its also possible to convey it properly. If viewer is confused, its the director's job to correct the understanding. Just at the hint of atheism, if you are seeing whole mirror which reflects all the debate between spirituality and science etc , then its because of your excellent thinking power not because director forced you to think that way

 

[esanthosh]

None taken. If you thought I was thinking, leave alone "over thinking", then you just over-estimated me. This is also me! That is also me!

 

[theredcommando]

I dont at all doubt your thinking ability. You express yourself brilliantly and have immense ability to explore 'how deep the rabbit hole goes'. I meant that you are too forgiving to the director. You feel the gap by your own thoughts, which might be non-existent in the original.

 

[esanthosh]

Um.. I'd say No to that. What I meant by the last post was that I typically do not wear the thinking hat at all times.

Within the wide, wide world of "World Movies", you have a movie like Intouchables (which I mentioned in the previous page) or a Hero or a City of God, which are different, but enjoyable at the same time. A Kim-Ki Duk movie like Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (2003) - IMDb has a plot, but also gives a little food for thought. For those movies, I enjoy the movie as-is.

If you watch Bergman chronologically, you might find that Winter Light is a step in progression, a phase where Bergman was turning away from conventional plot oriented films. If you watch a few of his films leading up-to and after WL, read about them, think about them, may be you'll find I am only filling in based on my experience with his earlier movies than otherwise

As for Tarkovsky, here's a post I wrote earlier. You should know that I am pretty bad at describing my thoughts on movies. I cannot for the life of me, write a long post on WL like hydra did or ajay124 does. Most of what I've used in Post #8 come from genuine thoughts invoked when watching those movies and nothing else.

You fill the gap by your own thoughts, which might be non-existent in the original

Then, you have just proved that I am not good at communicating . I don't usually think aloud and write it down. Today was an exception!

The point of Post #8, Part 1 was more about bandwagon effect and confirmation bias. Do we think about movies as "great" because somebody else told us? Or do we, on our own accord, form that opinion? If the basis for what is considered a "great movie" changes, will our opinion change too? I have observed that effect one too many times with IEMs in Head-fi. I was wondering if the same cognitive bias plays out in other hobbies too.

The whole point of Post #8 part 3 and it's expansion in Post #12 is just the opposite to what you mentioned - to guard against such a pit fall. I was ranting about the possibility that an over-thinker might see meaning where there's none. I was thinking about the fact that I was able to like SatanTango literally - without attributing any philosophical underpinnings for it. May be I wasn't clear enough in conveying my idea or the basis for it; perhaps I should learn to express better. But what good is trying to teach an old dog new tricks?

 

[theredcommando]

You might be thinking that you are over thinking when you are not over thinking and similarly you might be over thinking that you are thinking when you are actually over thinking. Or even worse, you might be over thinking that you are over thinking when you are only, thinking.

Now, this over thinking can only be cured when you think that you are over thinking when you should just be thinking. But if instead if you over think then you would always fail to understand the difference between thinking and over thinking.

 

[esanthosh]

That post, Sir! is equivalent to a pretentious load of crap that passes off as world class movie. I won't search for hidden meanings in it