|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on May 24, 2020 13:23:58 GMT
brilliant or boring?
An undisputed classic of world cinema, but also a film whose extremely measured pace I imagine would prove too much for some.
I've only seen it once a couple of years back. I more or less knew what I was getting into, but was surprised by how transfixed I was for the three and a half hour duration. A work of exacting precision and suffocating minimalism. A few moments even struck me as proto-Lynchian.
thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by rudeboy on May 28, 2020 5:18:48 GMT
I don’t think it’s brilliant but it’s very good, and certainly not boring, although on paper it probably should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Jun 19, 2020 1:31:51 GMT
I like it. I'd like to see more of Chantal Akerman's films but few have been released on dvd in the U K. I've seen a couple of others and they also moved at a sedate pace. I've seen a couple of her earlier works. I also really liked the non-narrative Hotel Monterey. |
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Jun 19, 2020 2:35:51 GMT
I've seen a couple of her earlier works. I also really liked the non-narrative Hotel Monterey. I'll try and see it but even shopping on international Amazon's it's difficult to find reasonable prices, I wish collective box-sets could be made available at a reasonable price for Chantal Akerman and Andre Belvaux. I consider it an absolute disgrace that they haven't been. We've only just seen Dutch directors this past year, whom Martin Scorsese started out with, and I've snapped up the films of Pim De La Parra to go with my Paul Verhoevens. Still so much great stuff unavailable on physical formats, and I doubt it's going to get better as streaming seems to be the preferred model. Unfortunately most streaming services cater to the masses/casual film goer so you can't get the "good stuff" legally without paying top $ for what few titles are available. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 30, 2020 9:28:53 GMT
I thought it was boring as sin and entirely predictable in terms of its narrative strategy. I'm typically someone who likes slow arthouse stuff, but slow arthouse stuff needs to be intellectually provocative or aesthetically creative: Jeanne Dielman is neither.
|
|
angel
Sophomore
@angel
Posts: 273
Likes: 142
 
|
Post by angel on Jul 27, 2020 21:08:01 GMT
I was crucified by boredom the first time i saw it, so much so I avoided Akerman for years after and it was only when I began to explore the rest of her filmography (tentatively given my experience with Jeanne Dielman) getting a fuller understanding of where she was coming from, I decided to give it another go, (I know, glutton for punishment), however this time, a completely different experience – I actually found it mesmeric, I couldn't take my eyes off the screen.
It's not the first time it's happened to me either, I remember my first Kar Wai Wong film was Happy Together which I found tedious beyond belief, but then roughly a year later not realising they were by the same director, I stumbled across In The Mode for Love and was completely blown away, so much so I immediately began searching for anything I could find by him which eventually brought me back to Happy Together, only this time I was watching with new eyes and it quickly became one of my favourites. Jeanne Dielman is definitely a film which rewards a second view, I know that may seem an unlikely prospect if, like me, you found it unwatchable the first time but you may find yourself surprised the second time around – I know I was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2020 8:27:24 GMT
I've seen this film a few times now and take something different from it each time. The film itself is wonderful and an extremely brave and powerful project.
The eye of Akerman is without fault as is the strong feminism message. I don't think it can be stated enough what a courageous film this was to make.
For any director to make a film like this, much less being woman and when it was made is staggering. I've always considered this one of the most groundbreaking films of all time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Dec 5, 2022 22:17:42 GMT
Named #1 film in the 2022 Sight and Sound Poll Will no doubt expose it to a much broader audience, but definitely jumping in at the deep end if this is your first exposure to classic world/arthouse cinema I might try and give it a rewatch over the upcoming break |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Feb 19, 2023 17:30:35 GMT
Boring. Fucking boring. With all the attempted empathy in the world, I can't imagine how someone could be transfixed or mesmerized by 3 hours of static wide shots of a person doing menial chores. Have they never done dishes or made dinner before? Maybe bougie arthouse critics at Sight & Sound (the best movie of all time?!), but I don't know about everyone else.
Sure, the tedium is intentional, but I've seen directors capture that feeling in a 5 minute montage. I don't need 3 hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Feb 19, 2023 23:17:40 GMT
brilliant or boring? An undisputed classic of world cinema, but also a film whose extremely measured pace I imagine would prove too much for some. I've only seen it once a couple of years back. I more or less knew what I was getting into, but was surprised by how transfixed I was for the three and a half hour duration. A work of exacting precision and suffocating minimalism. A few moments even struck me as proto-Lynchian. thoughts? A brilliant and uncomfortable movie which makes you feel like an uncomfortable passenger within its whole narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Feb 19, 2023 23:48:05 GMT
Boring. Fucking boring. With all the attempted empathy in the world, I can't imagine how someone could be transfixed or mesmerized by 3 hours of static wide shots of a person doing menial chores. Have they never done dishes or made dinner before? Maybe bougie arthouse critics at Sight & Sound (the best movie of all time?!), but I don't know about everyone else. Sure, the tedium is intentional, but I've seen directors capture that feeling in a 5 minute montage. I don't need 3 hours. Ouch! Fair enough, I understand it's not going to appeal to everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Feb 19, 2023 23:48:09 GMT
brilliant or boring? An undisputed classic of world cinema, but also a film whose extremely measured pace I imagine would prove too much for some. I've only seen it once a couple of years back. I more or less knew what I was getting into, but was surprised by how transfixed I was for the three and a half hour duration. A work of exacting precision and suffocating minimalism. A few moments even struck me as proto-Lynchian. thoughts? its directing specifically makes you feel caged in. |
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Feb 20, 2023 2:32:30 GMT
brilliant or boring? An undisputed classic of world cinema, but also a film whose extremely measured pace I imagine would prove too much for some. I've only seen it once a couple of years back. I more or less knew what I was getting into, but was surprised by how transfixed I was for the three and a half hour duration. A work of exacting precision and suffocating minimalism. A few moments even struck me as proto-Lynchian. thoughts? its directing specifically makes you feel caged in. Yes, it's very claustrophobic as it almost takes place entirely in the one location. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Feb 20, 2023 2:34:28 GMT
its directing specifically makes you feel caged in. Yes, it's very claustrophobic as it almost takes place entirely in the one location. do you like Akerman quite a bit as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Feb 20, 2023 2:38:50 GMT
Yes, it's very claustrophobic as it almost takes place entirely in the one location. do you like Akerman quite a bit as well. I like what I've seen, which admittedly isn't much La Chambre
Hotel Monterey
je tu il elle
Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles
News From HomeSomeone I plan to explore more |
|
