Aurore Clément, playing a movie director wandering around Europe, showing off her latest picture, has a series of encounters with individuals.
I looked at this movie on Turner Classic Movies, and it was preceded by the hosts praising it because of the fact that nothing of interest happened in the first half hour. This showed, they claimed, the patience of Chantal Akerman as a film maker. This made me think of my effort last year, to read the written works of the Roman jurist and politician Cicero. I had gotten about a fifth of the way through his collected works, and had begun his writings on writing. In it, he claimed that it was a good idea to bore the readers at first, so that later, when the writing became interesting, they would become fascinated by the difference. Thinking about this, I wondered when the writing would become better, and was it worth it. I put the book down, picked up something else to read, and have no plans of going back to Cicero, despite his importance in the history of law.
Which is pretty much how I have come to feel about Akerman, after seeing five of her movies. She chronicles boredom and apathy. She uses interminable long takes, and here, all the shots are dully symmetric, and the performers very low in affect. Everyone starts out miserable and, despite occasional bouts of sex, remains so.
There are those who claim her work is key in the development of minimalism. I claim that a motion picture should incorporate motion, not just of the observable variety, but of the spiritual sort. There's none of that here, and the the effort to chronicle ennui is boring. If nothing happens, if the situation is dull, then who is to be interested in it, except people so desperate for novelty that they will tolerate boredom, thinking "Well, at least no one has tried this before!"
If that's your idea of a good time, I suggest you go watch paint dry. But wait until it's been on the walls for some time.
I looked at this movie on Turner Classic Movies, and it was preceded by the hosts praising it because of the fact that nothing of interest happened in the first half hour. This showed, they claimed, the patience of Chantal Akerman as a film maker. This made me think of my effort last year, to read the written works of the Roman jurist and politician Cicero. I had gotten about a fifth of the way through his collected works, and had begun his writings on writing. In it, he claimed that it was a good idea to bore the readers at first, so that later, when the writing became interesting, they would become fascinated by the difference. Thinking about this, I wondered when the writing would become better, and was it worth it. I put the book down, picked up something else to read, and have no plans of going back to Cicero, despite his importance in the history of law.
Which is pretty much how I have come to feel about Akerman, after seeing five of her movies. She chronicles boredom and apathy. She uses interminable long takes, and here, all the shots are dully symmetric, and the performers very low in affect. Everyone starts out miserable and, despite occasional bouts of sex, remains so.
There are those who claim her work is key in the development of minimalism. I claim that a motion picture should incorporate motion, not just of the observable variety, but of the spiritual sort. There's none of that here, and the the effort to chronicle ennui is boring. If nothing happens, if the situation is dull, then who is to be interested in it, except people so desperate for novelty that they will tolerate boredom, thinking "Well, at least no one has tried this before!"
If that's your idea of a good time, I suggest you go watch paint dry. But wait until it's been on the walls for some time.