MovieChat Forums > A londoni férfi (2008) Discussion > Great photography does not make a movie

Great photography does not make a movie

posted 13 years ago by pgoochuk
13 replies | jump to latest

If you want to see great photography, go to an art gallery.

A movie has to be entertaining, or else it fails as an instance of that medium.

I think this film was trying to be a bit like some of David Lynch's early work, in particular Eraserhead (the endlessly ticking clock for example), but, again, in my view it failed, as there is nothing of substance here. Even Eraserhead managed to entertain.

Some good ideas here, but it just overdoes it with the glacial pace. The complete absence of any humour, and minimal dialogue doesn't help.

Great music though, fits the film well but I just couldn't sit through it.

[–] ilpohirvonen 13 years ago

Film is a very subjective form or art and I guess some like Bela Tarr and the others don't. But to claim that the film tries to be like Lynch's early work is nonsense. Strong parallels between Andrei Tarkovsky and Bela Tarr can be drawn, and the influence of German expressionism and Robert Bresson can be seen in his films, but I don't really see any Lynch there.

I don't get why film should be "entertaining". Or perhaps people just have different kind of ideas of what is entertaining. To me reading Dostoevsky, going to an art gallery or to the theater or to the movies is entertaining. By which I mean I've enjoyed doing what I did. I can honestly say that the time flew by watching The Man from London, as it did watching the seven hour long epic Satantango.

The greatest entertainment is art. And I did find humour from the film. Bela Tarr's sense of humour is very absurd and Kafkaesque. I really don't see how you think there was nothing in this film but great cinematography. I found it to be a masterpiece for its style, content and philosophy. But if you think films have to be "entertaining" why did you even bother to watch a film by Bela Tarr, beats me.

I see no reason why film should be more "entertaining" than literature, visual art or theater. It's probably because of mindless Hollywood popcorn flicks that have made us think that way. Everyone would find it ridiculous to blame Picasso for painting the most boring painting. Just felt like writing, nothing personal, I just dislike how film industry has turned into an extension of pop corn.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] peter-schramm 13 years ago

Take comfort Freku you are way ahead of other people and I like the direction you are going.

Like you I don't think a film has to be entertaining in the ususual sense of the word for it be enjoyable and there can be aspects to a film that some people will never get. It takes all sorts to make a world.

[–] JackBluegrass 11 years ago

But if you think films have to be "entertaining" why did you even bother to watch a film by Bela Tarr, beats me.

In another message board here discussing filming techniques, tracking shots for creative purpose used by many directors around the world are discussed. Bela Tarr's name was given. I've been interested in such shots from the earliest movies where German techniques excelled and American films failed at it.

The Man.... employs endless tracking simply to show [long] passage of time. That's not cinematographic genius, but is a means to fill a dead screen. The rest of the cinematography is magnificent. How does tracking here add anything to Tarr's direction and to the story?

If this represents Tarr's work, it's my last film of his.

[–] bubba_blais 12 years ago

"A movie has to be entertaining, or else it fails as an instance of that medium."

NO. not true.

[–] Revolutionow 12 years ago

Film is, first and foremost, a visual medium.

ce n'est pas une image juste, c'est juste une image

[–] PsychoDingo 12 years ago

that begs the question: what is entertainment?

She gave me a smile so sweet you could have poured it on your pancakes.

[–] t_oskay 11 years ago

I agree with you partly but entertaining is a wrong choice of word for a such discussion. I agree with you, visual artistry is not enough for making a good film.

For me a film shouldn't be boring. "Entertaining" is not the opposite of "boring".
When we watch a good drama we don't get bored but neither entertained. The point is that a film should prompt a certain level of interest in order to remain "watchable".

But this one is execcively boring for me. While I watching this it never prompted any interest on me.

I always call "The Lives of the Others" as a great film in all aspects of cinema. It is a great exaple how a film should be. Acting, photography, atmosphere, story... Everything in that film is great. But Man from London just try to be a unique film through its long shots and black-white photography which may be seen in many so-called art films. And shooting in foggy and desolate areas is not an original way to give the sense of a stressful mood, there are many films like it, some call it art, but I don't.

[–] JackBluegrass 11 years ago

Tracking shots in feature films can be creative and dynamic.

In The Man from London, tracking shots are lazy.

[–] chicago85 8 years ago

Sometimes they can be funny. People were begging Spike Lee to give up his little trolley. He would put people on it and have it towed down a sidewalk towards a camera for instance. You were supposed to think they were walking.

I especially remember Wesley Snipes being towed down a sidewalk in Jungle Fever instead of walking.

I don't know everything. Neither does anyone else

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] estocade 9 years ago

There are various perspectives on what a film should be, for some entertainment, for some an experience. For some both. I think it is our fast paced culture to blame for our impatience with such filmmakers as bella tarr, tarkovsky, bresson and likes. Fear of death, of rejection, of pain, even of fear are the causes.

[–] JackBluegrass 8 years ago

I'd add Terrence Malick to your list of great filmmakers who are often disliked for their filming style.

As to Bella Tarr, some of his tracking shots go on forever. It's as if he's saying to his audience: Look how clever I am! Audiences know "clever" when they see it.

E pluribus unum