Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

Milestone, Flicker Alley, Oscilloscope, Cinema Guild...they're all here.
Message
Author
User avatar
rapta
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:04 pm
Location: Hants, UK

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#76 Post by rapta » Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:46 am

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...

Calvin
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:12 am

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#77 Post by Calvin » Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:09 am

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


User avatar
Roscoe
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:40 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#79 Post by Roscoe » Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:21 pm

The note for SATANTANGO mentions that it opens in October, hopefully for more than a single NYFF screening. Looking forward to it!

Calvin
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:12 am

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#80 Post by Calvin » Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:15 am

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.

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#81 Post by FrauBlucher » Fri Sep 06, 2019 4:36 pm

I really hope Satantango gets a blu release sooner rather than later in the new year.

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#82 Post by FrauBlucher » Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:29 pm


User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#83 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:51 pm

Now there’s a trailer that accurately projects the tone of the film! Looks stunning.

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#84 Post by FrauBlucher » Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:54 pm

I have to say though, I hate the term “slow cinema”

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#85 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:07 pm

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.”

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#86 Post by FrauBlucher » Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:20 pm

That's exactly right. Contemplative Cinema would work much better

User avatar
whaleallright
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:56 am

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#87 Post by whaleallright » Sat Sep 28, 2019 3:13 am

therewillbeblus wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:07 pm
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.”
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.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#88 Post by therewillbeblus » Sat Sep 28, 2019 11:59 am

whaleallright wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 3:13 am
therewillbeblus wrote:
Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:07 pm
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.”
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.
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.

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#89 Post by FrauBlucher » Sat Sep 28, 2019 12:19 pm

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

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#90 Post by Big Ben » Sat Sep 28, 2019 12:40 pm

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!
Last edited by Big Ben on Sat Sep 28, 2019 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Grand Wazoo
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:23 pm

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#91 Post by Grand Wazoo » Sat Sep 28, 2019 1:13 pm

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.

User avatar
whaleallright
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:56 am

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#92 Post by whaleallright » Sun Sep 29, 2019 1:51 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 11:59 am
applying this law, or objective branding
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.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#93 Post by zedz » Sun Sep 29, 2019 2:36 pm

FrauBlucher wrote:
Sat Sep 28, 2019 12:19 pm
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
Surely it's derived from the slow food movement, where the word is anything but pejorative?

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#94 Post by FrauBlucher » Sun Sep 29, 2019 2:43 pm

Is there a correlation, fast food fast movies :-k

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#95 Post by Gregory » Sun Sep 29, 2019 3:06 pm

Guy Ritchie

dda1996a
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#96 Post by dda1996a » Sun Sep 29, 2019 4:08 pm

FrauBlucher wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 2:43 pm
Is there a correlation, fast food fast movies :-k
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

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#97 Post by zedz » Sun Sep 29, 2019 4:25 pm

FrauBlucher wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 2:43 pm
Is there a correlation, fast food fast movies :-k
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.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#98 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun Sep 29, 2019 4:48 pm

whaleallright wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 1:51 pm
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 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 pm
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.
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.

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.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#99 Post by zedz » Sun Sep 29, 2019 6:20 pm

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"?

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Arbelos / Cinelicious Pics

#100 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun Sep 29, 2019 7:13 pm

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.

Post Reply