DID YOU READ

Interesting Talk About Boring Movies

Interesting Talk About Boring Movies (photo)

Posted by on

You might remember Dan Kois’ notorious piece in The New York Times Magazine about “cultural vegetables,” in which the author admitted to suffering “a kind of culture fatigue” when dealing with movies he found slow, or deliberate, or flat-out boring. I wrote my own response at the time; now, Times critics Manohla Dargis and A.O. Scott have weighed in with their own piece entitled “In Defense of Slow and Boring.” CRITIC FIGHT! (Say it like Cartman from “South Park.”)

As their title suggests, Dargis and Scott do not side with Kois on the issue of cultural vegetables. Dargis connects his use of the word “boring” with her use of the word “thinking,” as in any movie that requires you to think a little, that doesn’t deaden your senses into submission with an assault of noise and light, is labeled as boring. Here is more:

“So, is boring bad? Is thinking? In Chantal Akerman’s 1975 film ‘Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles’ there is a scene in which the title character, a housewife who turns tricks in her fastidiously neat home, makes a meatloaf in real time. It’s a tedious task that as neither a fan of meatloaf or cooking, I find difficult to watch. Which is the point: During the film’s 201 minutes Ms. Akerman puts you in that tomb of a home with Jeanne, makes you hear the wet squish-squish of the meat between her fingers, makes you feel the tedium of a colorless existence that you can’t literally share but become intimate with (you endure, like Jeanne) until the film’s punctuating shock of violence. It makes you think.”

This is not far from the argument I made in my own piece on cultural vegetables; while acknowledging that some deliberate films are tedious, I noted that in the worthwhile ones, form follows function. A quick cut montage of Jeanne Dielman making meatloaf set to the sound of Donna Summers’ “She Works Hard For the Money” might be entertaining (get on it, YouTube!), but it wouldn’t allow you to experience the soul-deadening desperation of the protagonist in the same way as that a lengthy real-time depiction of the meatloaf cooking.

Scott spends a lot of his section responding to critic Richard Schickel’s review of “The Tree of Life” (which, while far from mainstream, is hardly a cultural vegetable in my opinion; too many viscerally exciting visuals. Also, dinosaurs). But his conclusion raises an interesting question about the issue of cultural vegetables:

“Why is it, though, that ‘serious’ is a bad word in cultural conversations, or at least in discussions of film? Why is thinking about a movie an activity to be avoided, and a movie that seems to require thinking a source of suspicion? It seems unlikely, to say the least, that films like ‘Uncle Boonmee,’ ‘Meek’s Cutoff,’ ‘The Tree of Life’ or Jean-Luc Godard’s recently and belatedly opened ‘Film Socialisme’ will threaten the hegemony of the blockbusters, so why is so much energy expended in defending the prerogatives of entertainment from the supposed threat of seriousness? …I would like to think there is room in the cinematic diet for various flavors, including some that may seem, on first encounter, unfamiliar or even unpleasant.

On the one hand, I can understand the point of view of someone who reads Scott’s piece and is confused by his love of unpleasantness in cinema. After all, we judge most movies, even many smarter ones, by gauging their pleasantness: the cleverness of their dialogue, the rapidity of their pacing, the intensity of their scares or thrills. A movie that lacks those things is typically described as unsuccessful, so it sounds a little weird on the surface to recommend a movie on the basis that nothing happens and what little does happens, happens really slowly.

Scott’s question reminds me of issues I heard discussed during George W. Bush’s presidency, and the question of why many modern Americans seem to dismiss or even distrust intellectuals while preferring political leaders who position themselves as “average Joes” (here’s an example of the sort of article I’m talking about). Perhaps the two are connected. Maybe we distrust intellectual movies in the same way. Maybe dumb Hollywood entertainment feels more American somehow.

Or maybe there’s a much less nefarious conspiracy at work. Maybe it’s just a matter of brain chemistry. On a daily basis, we’re being more and more deeply conditioned to expect instant gratification. No need to watch three minutes of commercials during your favorite TV show; your DVR box will fast-forward through them. No need to watch the highlights of the NBA playoffs when you get home from a date; you can watch or listen to the game right on your phone (the date might not go so well, but some things are more important than romance). Some people I know are incapable of going to the bathroom without using the four or five free seconds of privacy to check their email. It’s not even a choice at this point for a lot of people. It’s a reflex. In a world so heavily committed to instant gratification a movie like Andy Warhol’s “Empire” — an eight hour shot of the Empire State Building — isn’t just a tough sell; it’s an impossible one. “Eight hours straight? Without checking my cell phone?”

To those that feel that way, let me suggest something: try it once. As my impossibly patient wife can attest, I’m on my own phone way too much (in my defense, I’m doing really well in fantasy baseball this year). Sometimes it can feel like an addiction: I have to stay connected, I need to make sure I don’t have any new emails. So I view cultural vegetables at a welcome escape from the intensity and insistence of modern technology. I look forward to turning off my cell phone and disconnecting myself from the grid, losing myself for a few hours and thinking about something other than when I can next check Twitter. In that way, these movies really can be cultural vegetables: something genuinely nourishing.

What’s your favorite “cultural vegetable?” Tell us in the comments below or on Twitter and Facebook!

Watch More
Brockmire-103-banner-4

Millennial Wisdom

Charles Speaks For Us All

Get to know Charles, the social media whiz of Brockmire.

Posted by on

He may be an unlikely radio producer Brockmire, but Charles is #1 when it comes to delivering quips that tie a nice little bow on the absurdity of any given situation.

Charles also perfectly captures the jaded outlook of Millennials. Or at least Millennials as mythologized by marketers and news idiots. You know who you are.

Played superbly by Tyrel Jackson Williams, Charles’s quippy nuggets target just about any subject matter, from entry-level jobs in social media (“I plan on getting some experience here, then moving to New York to finally start my life.”) to the ramifications of fictional celebrity hookups (“Drake and Taylor Swift are dating! Albums y’all!”). But where he really nails the whole Millennial POV thing is when he comments on America’s second favorite past-time after type II diabetes: baseball.

Here are a few pearls.

On Baseball’s Lasting Cultural Relevance

“Baseball’s one of those old-timey things you don’t need anymore. Like cursive. Or email.”

On The Dramatic Value Of Double-Headers

“The only thing dumber than playing two boring-ass baseball games in one day is putting a two-hour delay between the boring-ass games.”

On Sartorial Tradition

“Is dressing badly just a thing for baseball, because that would explain his jacket.”

On Baseball, In A Nutshell

“Baseball is a f-cked up sport, and I want you to know it.”


Learn more about Charles in the behind-the-scenes video below.

And if you were born before the late ’80s and want to know what the kids think about Baseball, watch Brockmire Wednesdays at 10P on IFC.

Watch More
Brockmire_101_tout_2

Crown Jules

Amanda Peet FTW on Brockmire

Amanda Peet brings it on Brockmire Wednesday at 10P on IFC.

Posted by on
GIFS via Giphy

On Brockmire, Jules is the unexpected yin to Jim Brockmire’s yang. Which is saying a lot, because Brockmire’s yang is way out there. Played by Amanda Peet, Jules is hard-drinking, truth-spewing, baseball-loving…everything Brockmire is, and perhaps what he never expected to encounter in another human.

“We’re the same level of functional alcoholic.”


But Jules takes that commonality and transforms it into something special: a new beginning. A new beginning for failing minor league baseball team “The Frackers”, who suddenly about-face into a winning streak; and a new beginning for Brockmire, whose life gets a jumpstart when Jules lures him back to baseball. As for herself, her unexpected connection with Brockmire gives her own life a surprising and much needed goose.

“You’re a Goddamn Disaster and you’re starting To look good to me.”

This palpable dynamic adds depth and complexity to the narrative and pushes the series far beyond expected comedy. See for yourself in this behind-the-scenes video (and brace yourself for a unforgettable description of Brockmire’s genitals)…

Want more about Amanda Peet? She’s all over the place, and has even penned a recent self-reflective piece in the New York Times.

And of course you can watch the Jim-Jules relationship hysterically unfold in new episodes of Brockmire, every Wednesday at 10PM on IFC.

Watch More
Brockmire-Sam-Adams-great-effing-beer

Draught Pick

Sam Adams “Keeps It Brockmire”

All New Brockmire airs Wednesdays at 10P on IFC.

Posted by on

From baseball to beer, Jim Brockmire calls ’em like he sees ’em.

via GIPHY

It’s no wonder at all, then, that Sam Adams would reach out to Brockmire to be their shockingly-honest (and inevitably short-term) new spokesperson. Unscripted and unrestrained, he’ll talk straight about Sam—and we’ll take his word. Check out this new testimonial for proof:

See more Brockmire Wednesdays at 10P on IFC, presented by Samuel Adams. Good f***** beer.

Watch More
Powered by ZergNet