Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
- rapta
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:04 pm
- Location: Hants, UK
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
I had asked Second Run about Son of the White Mare a few years ago but obviously haven't heard anything since then. Glad to see it's getting a release Stateside, but perhaps Second Run - or another UK label - could license this for release over here too? After all, Anime Ltd licensed Belladonna of Sadness and Powerhouse licensed The Last Movie (and I've got a hunch they might do the same for Private Property at some point) so it's certainly not unheard of for them to sublicense their restorations.
PS: Was hoping Eureka might upgrade Funeral Parade of Roses at some point but we're still waiting...
PS: Was hoping Eureka might upgrade Funeral Parade of Roses at some point but we're still waiting...
-
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:12 am
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
It sounds like there may be more Hungarian cinema to come from Arbelos too. Béla Tarr's entire catalog is in the process of restoration, so I wonder if they have some involvement given Sátántangó
- FrauBlucher
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
- Location: Greenwich Village
- Roscoe
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:40 pm
- Location: NYC
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
The note for SATANTANGO mentions that it opens in October, hopefully for more than a single NYFF screening. Looking forward to it!
-
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:12 am
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
Satantango will open in a week-long run at Film at Lincoln Center starting Oct. 18. I presume further screening locations will be announced in due course.
- FrauBlucher
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
- Location: Greenwich Village
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
I really hope Satantango gets a blu release sooner rather than later in the new year.
- FrauBlucher
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
- Location: Greenwich Village
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
Now there’s a trailer that accurately projects the tone of the film! Looks stunning.
- FrauBlucher
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
- Location: Greenwich Village
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
I have to say though, I hate the term “slow cinema”
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
Yeah it’s obnoxious because it ignores the content, takes a detail of technique and defines the film by it as if that is the primary content, which feels a bit derogatory. It’s like calling a Kubrick or Wes Anderson film “symmetric cinema.”
- FrauBlucher
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
- Location: Greenwich Village
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
That's exactly right. Contemplative Cinema would work much better
- whaleallright
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:56 am
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
I do think the term fairly describes a certain strain of festival cinema, the lesser examples of which (and there are plenty) seem slow for slow's sake. A sort of easy minimalism. Tarr is a major influence here (as are Akerman and Tsai etc.) but Tarr's films have so much going on aside from their slowness that it does seem an insult to place them in this (IMO useful) critical category.therewillbeblus wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:07 pmYeah it’s obnoxious because it ignores the content, takes a detail of technique and defines the film by it as if that is the primary content, which feels a bit derogatory. It’s like calling a Kubrick or Wes Anderson film “symmetric cinema.”
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
It sounds like films appear “slow for slow’s sake” if they don’t strike a subjective chord with you, which yeah same, but I don’t see how that makes the term to define them fair. It’s possible that these films you or I may see little value in have other attributes that may be invisible to some and still affect others, and I think there are plenty of people who also consider Tarr’s films “easy minimalism,” so applying this law, or objective branding, selectively based on subjective tastes feels like a solipsistic measurement (to be clear, I am not calling you solipsistic, and actually feel similarly to what you’ve said on a subjective level, but I’m commenting on the process itself of assigning value as dangerous to being pejorative by way of personal bias- something we all do on a smaller scale but becomes unfair when it comes to broad labeling). It’s absolutely “useful” though. My analogy to symmetry was part in jest, as patience and interest levels are universal subjective measurements amongst people, not OCD-like features. I definitely use the adjective “slow” to define the pacing of a film when recommending it (or warning) a friend based on their tastes and my knowledge of the variables affecting their interest level when watching movies. It’s useful for myself too going in and preparing for a certain style. I have no problem with one defining a film as slow as a primary descriptor when discussing it, but I do have a problem with grouping films together and categorizing them as slow cinema as an objective genre which robs them of value whether intentionally or not.whaleallright wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 3:13 amI do think the term fairly describes a certain strain of festival cinema, the lesser examples of which (and there are plenty) seem slow for slow's sake. A sort of easy minimalism. Tarr is a major influence here (as are Akerman and Tsai etc.) but Tarr's films have so much going on aside from their slowness that it does seem an insult to place them in this (IMO useful) critical category.therewillbeblus wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:07 pmYeah it’s obnoxious because it ignores the content, takes a detail of technique and defines the film by it as if that is the primary content, which feels a bit derogatory. It’s like calling a Kubrick or Wes Anderson film “symmetric cinema.”
- FrauBlucher
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
- Location: Greenwich Village
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
Do we know who or where that term came from? It sounds like whom ever came up with that descriptor was lazy and didn’t put any thought into naming it such.
To me the term has a pejorative connotation that could become an immediate turnoff to folks that don’t know what a Tarr film is all about and decide not to take in the experience based on the description
To me the term has a pejorative connotation that could become an immediate turnoff to folks that don’t know what a Tarr film is all about and decide not to take in the experience based on the description
- Big Ben
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
- Location: Great Falls, Montana
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
I've only ever really seen it used in a descriptive sense. Slow Cinema to me is just like any other descriptor and it's used to describe the films of filmmakers like Tsai Ming Liang or Apitchatpong Weerasethakul. I've only ever seen it used a pejorative in the "Damn bro this movie is slow" sense.
Wikipedia even has an article about it discussing it in some capacity. With sources!
Wikipedia even has an article about it discussing it in some capacity. With sources!
Last edited by Big Ben on Sat Sep 28, 2019 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Grand Wazoo
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:23 pm
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
I first came across the term when being used by Nadin Mai, who runs The Art of Slow Cinema and its streaming arm Tao Films. She always used it as a term of endearment and she's written extensively on Lav Diaz so her attraction to that style of filmmaking makes sense. I think her use is more as an aegis for anything more contemplative, and it becoming a genre term is an accidental byproduct of its proliferation.
- whaleallright
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:56 am
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
No one should take this or any other term of criticism as a "law" or "objective branding"!
All labels necessarily reduce a body of work to a common denominator; that shouldn't be taken as a way of disparaging them. Among the things that the films of Tsai, Diaz, Tarr, etc. have in common is that they are, by both objective measures (length of shots, movement of figures) and more subjective impressions (including, in many cases, minimal plots), "slow" by comparison to essentially all mainstream films. And there is (or was) a definite trend toward formal choices of this type within "art cinema" or "festival cinema" or whatever you wish to call it, starting in the 1970s (with Duras, Akerman, Angelopoulos, etc.) but most obvous from the mid-1990s onward. Labelling this distinctive, significant trend seems to me no more objectionable than the existence of categories like "neorealism" or "nouvelle vague" or "film noir" all of which have their detractors and certainly don't capture all the aspects of the films generally put into them -- and yet most film critics, historians, fans find them reasonably useful.
I think I was being too diplomatic above when I suggested that "slow cinema" might best pertain to less interesting/achieved works than Tarr's. I think it's just that the existence of the trend becomes more evident when you have a large body of fairly imitative films following from the obvious(?) masterworks. But the term seems to me a decent, non-exhaustive way of describing a trend that encompasses them all.
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
Surely it's derived from the slow food movement, where the word is anything but pejorative?FrauBlucher wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 12:19 pmDo we know who or where that term came from? It sounds like whom ever came up with that descriptor was lazy and didn’t put any thought into naming it such.
To me the term has a pejorative connotation that could become an immediate turnoff to folks that don’t know what a Tarr film is all about and decide not to take in the experience based on the description
- FrauBlucher
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
- Location: Greenwich Village
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
Is there a correlation, fast food fast movies
- dda1996a
- Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
Watching them exclusively, three times a day for a month (requiring you to watch the longer director's cut when it is an option) will probably be both bad for your brain, your body and whatever relationship you currently might have
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
Just as with all the related movements (slow fashion, slow medicine), 'slow' is used in the sense of artisanal, local, patient and individual, in opposition to mass-produced, mass-market standardised products. In the case of slow cinema, the equivalent of the McDonalds at the Spanish Steps is obviously the globalized Hollywood blockbuster.
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
I appreciate your defense, and will agree again that it's useful to group this movement in some capacity, but I have to disagree on the terminology because the movements you relate this to above encompass a variety of stylistic and thematic commonalities. The problem with the definition as "slow" cinema is that its vagueness insinuates that these films are nothing more than slow in its name, or that this style is the standout feature for their categorization, negating thematic significance. You already subjectively highlighted an outlier when you said:whaleallright wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2019 1:51 pmLabelling this distinctive, significant trend seems to me no more objectionable than the existence of categories like "neorealism" or "nouvelle vague" or "film noir" all of which have their detractors and certainly don't capture all the aspects of the films generally put into them -- and yet most film critics, historians, fans find them reasonably useful.
but then in your last post appeared to group Tarr's films back into this category. This is why I referred to the act of categorization as a law or objective branding (also probably not the right language to use, but my point was that, as you say, there is a lot more going on within them). Calling these films "spiritual" or "existential" would probably be too vague and assuming homogenous content, but it would be less superficial than "slow." The categories you listed have more opportunities to be umbrella terms: "Neorealism" and "nouvelle vague" are more than just real-location shooting, but serve as pledges for insight into the current needs and authenticity of humans and their socio-political relations between subject and systems in their respective time periods. "Fim noir" does much of the same, along with implementing the "German expressionism" in style, brooding fatalism in mood, and existential disorientation between person and environment as roles were disrupted following WWII, and so on and so forth. Now, as you also point out, there are many variations within these umbrella terms that make each film fit and stray from their genres/categorization, but part of the fun is that these categories have so much flexibility.whaleallright wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2019 1:51 pmTarr's films have so much going on aside from their slowness that it does seem an insult to place them in this (IMO useful) critical category.
The word "slow" does not indicate more than a slowness of pace as the signified from language. I do think part of this has to do with how the word is historically and culturally used. One hears the majority of people using "slow" (vs. "fast") as a derogatory term, and this surely plays into the criticism. I don't necessarily have a better idea to replace the word, and the problem is of a combination of loosely-defining 'genre' (which may actually be a good thing) and oversimplified semantics with negative connotations, but it still bothers me and I can't accept how the term, as it stands, can be bunched with the other three examples you highlighted above.
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
But as I pointed out, since the 1980s, there has been an entirely different, and positive, usage of the word 'slow' that has travelled from cuisine to a wide range of unrelated disciplines, including cinema, and this is what is being signified in the expression "slow cinema". And anyway, for the target audience of "slow cinema", fast is not necessarily a positive term. Would anybody describe Dreyer's, or Tarkovsky's, or Akerman's films as "fast"?
- therewillbeblus
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm
Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics
I can appreciate that this positivity is being signified by the expression for those who follow the movement, and for the record most of my own tastes subscribe to “slow” art so I can relate, but my concerns were directed at pigeonholing categorization rather than just expression, and the connotation as signified to the masses beyond a target audience of cinephiles who seek out these types of films. Perhaps I’m just not that familiar with people using the term positively, and have only heard it uttered to describe these types of films negatively, whether because they were repelled by this characteristic or dismissive of merits outside of it I don’t know. Still, I can understand its usefulness and certainly don’t consider it to be a negative connotation subjectively. It’s helpful to know the history of the movement from you and whaleallright to contextualize the category and/or expression.