Are we capable of watching slow movies anymore?

[Rum]

Have been watching an enchanting film tonight called 'Resistance' on TV. It's about an alternative history where Germany invades England. The story takes place in a remote Welsh valley where a war weary commandant tries to hide his unit from the battles going on around the big cities as he does his duty as an occupying force.

The film is slow and the plot takes time to develop. It is interesting, charming..and slow. I am struggling to not be impatient desire enjoying it. It is on pause for that very reason.

I wonder if films that don't have edits every two seconds are watchable to those of us who have got used to the instant fixes of Hollywood blockbusters and ultra mental butterfly attention spans that we are developing as Internet users.

[HomerJay]

I've just been to see Skyfall, one of the kids fell asleep but the rest of us managed to watch it.

[amused]

I'm re-reading Robert McKee's Story which is a book that gives advice to storytellers and screenwriters in particular. Early in the book he describes the different types of films that you can write, and cautions that as you move away from the classical form, the audience shrinks. Because of simple financial constraints, as the audience shrinks so must the budget. So no, slow building movies aren't doomed but if the 'market' perceives a smaller audience then the budget for those stories will be smaller to match.

Which doesn't really answer your question.... I do like 'ride' movies that start fast and get faster. If I was properly warned that a movie was a slow starter, I'd give it a chance. But advertising a movie like that - 'it's a slow starter' would be suicide.

[Randydeluxe]

I rather like films that give me the opportunity to look around, listen to the score, and consider what's going on.

[klr]

Almost everyone wants action, action and more action, and plot and pacing can go to hell.

Not for me though. For the most part, I hate movies that are fast-paced. I'm more and more drawn to low-budget and low-profile films that play out at their own pace.

There's a comment at the start of a BBC review of 2001 (posted in 2001 appropriately enough) that is apposite:

It's a film title that inspires the word classic when raised in any film debate. Yet the appeal of this film diminishes with time as its almost comatose pacing threatens to alienate it from a modern audience.

Today's viewer increasingly demands answers and action and this muddled film provides neither.

...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2000/09/18/2001_review.shtml

Naturally, I question the "muddled" bit, but the observation about modern audience preference rings true, and it's only got worse in the last few years.

It's not just movies. The same is true of TV. One of the reasons why The Sopranos is one of my favourite TV series is that it was so realistic in terms of how it portrayed the pace and events of life.

[amused]

Well, obviously anyone who likes a slow movie is gay.

[klr]

Well, obviously anyone who likes a slow movie is gay.

Actually, I have a brother who is gay, and he is not into crash-bang-wallop movies either. But I know many other guys who are similarly inclined. Maybe we're all just getting old ...

Oh, and I don't know if I could stomach the likes of Babette's Feast (pardon the pun). I do have limits to my patience.

[Red Celt]

Have been watching an enchanting film tonight called 'Resistance' on TV. It's about an alternative history where Germany invades England. The story takes place in a remote Welsh valley where a war weary commandant tries to hide his unit from the battles going on around the big cities as he does his duty as an occupying force.

I can't see why he would be hiding his unit. If England was invaded, Wales would be cushty. Unless the UK was invaded, rather than England.

300 years after the Act of Union...

[hadespussercats]

Well, obviously anyone who likes a slow movie is gay.

Actually, I have a brother who is gay, and he is not into crash-bang-wallop movies either. But I know many other guys who are similarly inclined. Maybe we're all just getting old ...

Oh, and I don't know if I could stomach the likes of Babette's Feast (pardon the pun). I do have limits to my patience.

I lurve Babette's Feast. I think it's a beautiful film.

I don't mind slow if the shots are pretty, and/or the story's compelling. I think stories have their pace, and any story that is moving too slow for itself is going to be dull.

A lot of people like Thin Red Line. I thought its pacing (among other things) was pompously slow. I got bored and fell asleep. But objectively speaking, it probably moved faster than Babette's Feast-- I just don't think it did enough to fill the slow space.

[amused]

...

A lot of people like Thin Red Line. I thought its pacing (among other things) was pompously slow. I got bored and fell asleep. But objectively speaking, it probably moved faster than Babette's Feast-- I just don't think it did enough to fill the slow space.

I despise Thin Red Line and hence anything Terrence Malick.

[hadespussercats]

...

A lot of people like Thin Red Line. I thought its pacing (among other things) was pompously slow. I got bored and fell asleep. But objectively speaking, it probably moved faster than Babette's Feast-- I just don't think it did enough to fill the slow space.

I despise Thin Red Line and hence anything Terrence Malick.

Well, the trailer for Tree of Life almost made me hurl. So, yeah, I think I agree with you!

[klr]

Well, obviously anyone who likes a slow movie is gay.

Actually, I have a brother who is gay, and he is not into crash-bang-wallop movies either. But I know many other guys who are similarly inclined. Maybe we're all just getting old ...

Oh, and I don't know if I could stomach the likes of Babette's Feast (pardon the pun). I do have limits to my patience.

I lurve Babette's Feast. I think it's a beautiful film.

I don't mind slow if the shots are pretty, and/or the story's compelling. I think stories have their pace, and any story that is moving too slow for itself is going to be dull.

A lot of people like Thin Red Line. I thought it's pacing (among other things) was pompously slow. I got bored and fell asleep. But objectively speaking, it probably moved faster than Babette's Feast-- I just don't think it did enough to fill the slow space.

Oh, I don't really dislike Babebtte's Feast - I just couldn't resist a good pun . I've watched movies that were even slower-paced.

Re Thin Red Line: Not my favourite movie either, but not really because of the slow pace. I think most of the best war movies are slow-paced, punctuated by the required bursts of action. It's not the violence that is important, but how it affects people. You need time to play that out properly IMHO.

[rasetsu]

I'm re-reading Robert McKee's Story which is a book that gives advice to storytellers and screenwriters in particular. Early in the book he describes the different types of films that you can write, and cautions that as you move away from the classical form, the audience shrinks. Because of simple financial constraints, as the audience shrinks so must the budget. So no, slow building movies aren't doomed but if the 'market' perceives a smaller audience then the budget for those stories will be smaller to match.

This is only true ceteris paribus, but that's the catch — not all things are equal. In particular, blockbuster action pictures with headline stars, a lot of location shooting, CGI and other special effects, stunt work and elaborate sets, films requiring a lot of pre-production or post-production work, these are the most expensive to produce. Whereas slower pictures usually have less extravagant budgets, more mundane sets, fewer angles, less location shooting, less special effects, and those that they do use are less expensive because lower production values don't turn off the target audience. So yes, with offbeat or slower, more dramatic pieces, there will be a smaller draw, but also a smaller budget. The thing that is killing the slow picture is not lack of interest from movie goers, nor inability to realize an ROI — what's killing these pictures is the unwillingness of studios to invest in them. It's gotten to where a studio demands a guaranteed payoff, because the costs of production are so high for the so-called popular movies. And the production costs are so high because they can't afford not to produce a blockbuster, because of the high production costs. It's a vicious cycle. That's why more sequels have been filmed in the last 20 years than in all film history prior to that. The studios see them as a surefire way to guarantee an ROI. So we get these massively overproduced big budget sequels, and maybe an independent film or two. And because the market is saturated with the former, the latter has to try to offer something that appeals, at least minimally, to that demographic, or the little picture will get no press, no advertising, and no audience. So these several hundred million dollar suck fests are basically killing the art form, all in the name of pleasing the capital investors.


Anyway, I love nothing more than sitting down to a night of Foyle's War, Masterpiece Theater, Korean drama, BBC reruns, foreign film, or other "slow" fare. It's what I grew up with, so I don't see any downside to a slow picture or drama. It's just how I'm built. (e.g. Last night, for background noise, I first put on Marvel Avengers; after a few chapters I switched to Jane Eyre; later I rewatched the Big Lebowski, or parts of it.) I can't speak to the larger demographic, but I have no reluctance to watch slow fare. (Though Kurosawa's Ran tries my patience. I don't mind slow so much as I mind dull or poorly scripted/paced/done.) Think of some major hits over the years. Breakfast Club. The Big Chill. On Golden Pond. CE3K. Alien. These aren't mile a minute chest thumpers. Yet they were all blockbuster films. Even a big budget film can be slow and still be popular. It's a polarizing film, but District 9 wasn't one long chase scene either. And foreign horror, particularly Asian horror, is all about pacing and buildup. I've watched plenty of Asian horror movies where almost nothing happens in the first hour but back story. (Asian horror, prior to pinku and gore and gore/pinku was all about atmosphere and slowly building tension.) And I don't watch as much French cinema as I used to do, but it's not as money grubbing ham fisted plotting bullshit either, that I recall. And what little I watch of film in Hindi or Urdu, that's downright pastoral, as is a lot of Vietnamese cinema.

So no, I don't see a problem matching slow movies to viewers, I see a problem matching quality filmmaking to today's crassly consumerist and money driven film industry.

[Jason]

What makes a movie 'slow? Drawn out plot development? Little to no 'action' or 'sex'? Does it have to be 'cerebral' or 'artsy'?

[devogue]

Well, obviously anyone who likes a slow movie is gay.