is because people wanna pat themselves on the back for getting through it. I only made it about 1/3 of the way before giving up. In reference to some of the other posts I've seen, I watched (the original) 'Solaris' and 'Stalker,' and enjoyed both. I guess I can't claim to speak intelligently about it, having only watched 1/3, but it seems to be about slow death, and not in a good or interesting way.
shareI get where you come from... I had the same feeling all the way up to the middle section... But from there on, I was glued to my screen. So I'm split here...
shareIf you would have actually seen the whole movie, you would know that this is NOT the reason it's so highly rated.
It's because it is so incredibly good!
Try again, watch it in episodes of for instance 2,5 hours, and you'll find yourself voting the higher numbers because you truly loved the movie!
"The willow sees the heron's image upside down" from 'Sans Soleil'
[deleted]
Well, of course the film is not for everyone...I you've patiently sat through it without prejudices then that's all that could be asked of you.
However, perhaps you'll like the film more in say 5-10 years from now when you're older, you've watched more movies and are more accustomed to this style of filmmaking.
This is not meant paternalizing in any way, just a hope that you'll get back to this movie someday and love it :)
Rgds, Titus
"The willow sees the heron's image upside down" from 'Sans Soleil'
[deleted]
Agree with titusbeertsen. At times you need to learn to appreciate a certain kind of movie and the approach the director is trying to take, especially at those that fall primarily in the art category.
I saw for example that you have "Last Year at Marienbad" in your top 250 movies, Zorgly, though that one for sure is something that can drive you crazy if you aren't open for it. Or, say, Lynch's "Inland Empire". Try that one to watch something which doesn't really seem to make much sense if you analyze it. At certain films you need to find a way to approach them for yourself - if you don't find a way they stay completely devoid of meaning for you. If you find a key for yourself (even if it's not the one the director might have intended) you find ways to get something out of films that don't click for you immediately.
In "Satantango" for example you have quite a lot of time to think about what you're watching and how you're supposed to be watching it. With the fourth part (the story of the little girl) things started to really do it for me and the film got very inspiring. Tarr finds a very unique way to tell a tale and suck the audience in, but only if you let him.
Art's Top 100 Movies: http://www.imdb.com/list/e-VkvtHDDNQ/ - recommendations welcome!
[deleted]
Our local badass not for profit theater showed a retrospective of Tarr film. they showed Satantango last. This was the best position. It allowed us to investigate his other fillms, get a feel for how he does things, so we could make an informed decision to commit our time to Satatango.
I loved the film, not because I got thru it, but I loved it because it was good and I was prepared. I admit it is challenging me to put the pieces together, but was I did understand will live with me for a long time. Werckmeister and Damnation and Turin Horse are by far and away my favorites over Satantango.
Dictated, but not read.
[deleted]
I've watched the entire movie. I'm 48 years old. I've seen over 6,000 movies in my life, including 800 of the 1001 Movies and more than half of the TSPDT list. I have no problems with long, slow movies, provided they have a point to their length.
Having established all that, I agree with the OP. Some people want to think that they haven't wasted 7.5 hours of their life - time that could have instead been spent watching Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Godfather, and City Lights back to back to back to back. In order to make themselves feel better, they make Satantango out to be more than it really is, which is simply a director's exercise in making a long movie.
That is established right at the beginning with a 10 minute scene of cows meandering through the village, which is almost immediately followed by a man counting out every single bill in a four inch high stack of money.
"My name is Paikea Apirana, and I come from a long line of chiefs stretching all the way back to the Whale Rider."
Thanks for your valuable opinion, I was already considering watching the movie until I came across your post. The cows scene you describe clearly shows the movie is loaded with pointless scenes. Some people might argue the cows have some "symbolic" meaning or that the length of the scene is unquestionably necessary to the plot and development of the film but I think that's just stupid. I fell in the same game when some IMDb users claimed Begotten was a terrific piece of art. I watched and I couldn't pass the first 20 minutes. What a horrible a boring experience.
"Hamburgers, the cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast."
Let me begin by saying that I respect and understand your opinion. It's a pity we should still begin by establishing that we are adults (as if younger people couldn't understand or appreciate art when they see it), and that we watch and love a lot of (almost objectively) good movies.
The way I remember the first scene was that I loved it, primarily because of the beauty of it, the depth of the shot, the way the camera moved, following the action, even when some buildings blocked the view, and the way the animals moved, seemingly unguided by human touch.
It also sets the stage very nicely. It shows you around the village, introduces you to the decay, the mud, the filth of it. It makes you wonder who would want to live there, and how animal life can exist there. As to the meaning of it, I have no idea. Maybe the cows leaving the stables and the square were foreboding the exodus of the human population from the village.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on the money counting scene though. All in all I think that most of the long scenes (together with the repetitive sounds and music) helped in creating a kind of hypnotizing atmosphere, almost trance-inducing, which worked for me. I especially liked the dance scene in the bar, the walking scenes of Irimiás, Petrina and the other young fellow through the street as the wind blew from behind them. I guess the movie was more about setting a mood than telling a fantastic story. It was different, and beautiful to look at, something to praise especially since the things that were shown were almost all dirty, ugly, ramshackle and ruinous.
If this was just a director's exercise in making a long movie, at least I think he passed.
Enough said!
This is definitely one of the more obnoxious boards on IMDB. This film, like all of Tarr's work, is so utterly, unfathomably pretentious that only the most pretentious, self-aggrandizing pseudo-intellectuals could lay down such shamelessly effusive praise for it.
It's the Emperor's New Clothes. People just want to seem like they "get it", so they pretend to see what others don't.
And yet again, have you ever considered that maybe, just MAYBE, some of us appreciate it for what it is?
Look at just the small things. The plot is very Pulp Fiction-y, it's got some humour in parts, it sets a mood unlike anything I've ever seen, the length adds to it and doesn't detract from it, etc.
Writer for WhatCulture.com
I'm not sure if I should watch this or not. I'm interested in seeing it, but if I'm going to dedicate 8 hours to something, it has to be really, really good. A mediocre 2 hour movie is ok because it doesn't take that much investment. 8 hours, I need it to be a masterpiece. And I can't usually just watch part of a movie, even if it's bad I just have to finish.
I watched The Best of Youth a few months ago, that's about 6 hours, and it was just good enough to justify my watching (about an 8 out of 10 film). So this movie has to be about a 9 or better.
Obviously I won't know how good it is unless I do watch it, but I'm just pointing out the conflict I'm facing...the reviews are mostly positive but there are some people with negative opinions who seem to voice the things that worry me about possibly watching this.
Is this a movie you can split up the viewings at all, or does it need to be watched pretty much within a close time period?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Is anyone else disturbed how quickly its rating has been dropping on site lately?
Of course IMDb ratings are meaningless, but one of the things that I DID like about the IMDb ratings was that this 7 1/2 hour slow-as-dirt arthouse film had an 8.3 on here. Hopefully it doesn't go below 8.
Writer for WhatCulture.com
Top 100 is here: http://www.imdb.com/list/mduBIpnlpTA/
It seems like it only goes up. Now it's 8.6. Yay!
share