MovieChat Forums > Die große Stille (2005) Discussion > Wasted potential.

Wasted potential.

posted 17 years ago by Capo-idFilm
27 replies | jump to latest

Like the monks themselves, Gröning goes about his business in a very humble, almost silent fashion, with no music, no voice-over, almost no interviews. It's an interesting premise because the subject matter is so unique, but it's a complete waste of an opportunity; to be frank, it is one of the most annoying, dumbfounding and frustrating documentaries made. In fact, it lacks the required insight to be classed as a documentary, and certainly isn't expressive enough to be a feature in its own right - it captures various activities without any insight as to why they go about what they do, why it is that these men have chosen a life of complete seclusion; it only serves to mystify these monks further, instead of de-mystifying them, so that anybody coming into the documentary not knowing who they are or what they do leaves the theatre having endured three hours of point-and-shoot filming of various religious rituals which aren't given any context at all. It defeats its own purpose: Gröning apparently waited close to two decades to get permission to film there, and the final product falls way short of revealing anything interesting about a potentially fascinating subject. The time-lapse shots, of the entire vicinity in the snowy mountains, are effective in their tranquility, but are completely undercut by inconsistent transitions (the film has no rhythm at all) and lazily assembled intertitles, quotations from the Bible. These quotations have some sort of obscure connection to the footage surrounding them, a bit like the Victorian quotations preceding each chapter in Fowles' "The French Lieutenant's Woman"; but while Fowles did immense research in assembling an eclectic, convincing range of quotes from all kinds of different sources, Gröning uses two or three and peppers them throughout his documentary as if to hammer the same point home time and time again, to the effect that, by the end of the film, you know what each intertitle says in French and German before the English subtitles come up translate it for us.

[–] rad_d_2000 17 years ago

Interesting comments, I will (hopefully!!!) be getting this monday, and will post after watching it.

[–] adboy68 17 years ago

I went to this film on the recommendation from an article written in the newspaper that I work for.

I left the film with more question than it answered. For example, what is the cook making for dinner? When do the monks shower? What is the reasoning behind being there?

The film's timing is uneven, at best, and makes the three hours almost unendurable once the supertitles show the same quote for the fifth time.

A little more time in the editing room, as well as a closer look at some of the topics which are skimmed over would have made this a classic.

As it stands, it is a beautifully shot and intelligent film that inspires a nap afterwards.

[–] thewesternforce 17 years ago

I expected more from the film, I think it would've been better with a little bit of narrative, such as a day in the life of a monk, inner workings of the community, stories/testimonials of the monks and more insight into the experiences of the new monks as they are accepted into the community. They should've shown more scenes as of the ones where they sliding down the snow and chatting outside. I also cannot believe that they didn't show a single Mass, since it's such an important part of any Catholic order, I'm glad at least they showed the Eucharistic procession, which was the highlight of the film for me.
It was probably just too secular a view of the community.

[–] thefryingpanman 17 years ago

I think you might be missing the point. the film is about time, space and silence. Groening filmed under the conditions of no artificial lights, no commentary and no additional music as well as no crew. He lived amongst the monks for 7 months obesrving their lifestyle. To me, as an artist, the film asked massive questions about my life. the quotes are akin to those in silent movies - depicting conversation. Perhaps Groning uses them to depict the interaction between these men and God - after all he is the reason they are there. Their life is a response to what he has said in the Bible, and the film acts, therefore, as a conversation. This is NOT documentary, it is a tender portrait.

I left incredibly challenged about how I live and how I see the world. How often do you spend time considering the qualities of light, or the changing of the seasons? Take away all our modern 'entertainment', and that is what you are left with. I suggest it may well be even more spectaculor than other things you but into. Groning has given you chance to observe near silence for three hours, and consider the benefits. I found this fascinating. Try it. See what you begin to notice. You may well discover why Groning uses so many long shots of the surroundings and of the light coming in through windows.

It will not be any where near as good on a small screen - the context of the cinema is vital to its interpretation.

[–] robhumanick 17 years ago

"the film has no rhythm at all"

That quote is the thread that undoes your entire post, from my own experience's perspective (I'm not saying you're wrong, but I will say I'm sorry you can't share my own perspective). Everything you found to be missing I found in vast quantity, implicit in everything the film showed. If this doesn't make my top ten of the year, 2007 is official the greatest year cinema has ever seen in my book.

http://projectionbooth.blogspot.com
At least I won't have to lie to you anymore.

[–] frankenbenz 16 years ago

i couldn't agree with you more. 2007 was a great year, making it almost impossible for me to emphatically endorse any one of my top 5 as THE best film of the year. the great silence is close to cracking my top 10, but i'm not quite sure it made the cut.

[–] liamfoley-1 17 years ago

Saw this film at our arthouse cinema last night.

Very disappointed, exactly along the lines of the first poster.

The filmmaker seemed more concerned with arty shots than telling a story.

It was relaxing though - I was asleep within about a minute!

[–] hakeem-8 16 years ago

The filmmaker seemed more concerned with arty shots than telling a story.

I think the question rather is - does he HAVE TO tell a story? I think this would have been a rather insignificant mediocre movie had he retreated into just telling a story and having lots of interviews, etc.

Rather, the way he did it was unique and truly remarkable. Making a movie like this takes skill and talent, making lots of interviews with monks and telling a story does not.

I think the people who are complaining on this board have just been spoiled by contemporary popular strictly-for-entertainment style of cinema.

[–] jlstill 16 years ago

I have to agree with the arty shots comment. It wasn't that the natural beauty and slow pace wasn't appreciated, but there were several shots where the camera film was artificially aged and made granular, supposedly to represent the agelessness of the imagery. But it was totally unnecessary, considering that the whole film itself, by its very nature, does that throughout. It was distracting from the fly-on-the-wall perspective that I loved in this film, and only served to keep reminding me that I was watching a movie. If nothing else, I feel the filmmaker actually got too involved in telling a story with his artistic close-ups of dripping water, whipping snowflakes, etc., rather than allow us to simply observe and appreciate the noble and timeless life of these monks.

[–] Projectedlight 16 years ago

I think the point of the different film stocks and bleaching dispersed thoughout was to help add to the rhythm of the piece, and in my mind it worked brilliantly.

[–] GSmith9072 16 years ago

I totally agree about the granular shots. They totally threw me off and I believe they may have been partially reponsible on how the film affected me. While I appreciated the film and found a lot of good in it, I just wasn't really as absorbed with it as I felt I could have been. It got better toward the middle. And well, even though I believe I'm someone who is far to absorbed in popular media, I do consider things like the changing of the seasons. I found it odd that a lot of the imagery depressed me, but that's just my observation and not a fault of the film. I don't think the film had to conform to any kind of traditional narrative as some of the posters here are implying. It was a documentary of life, more that for supplying information.

I hate most people

[–] bre_anna 16 years ago

Hakeem -8 you are exactly right. One doesn't see a film like this for "story" lines or "facts". The point of this film is for the viewer to actively engage in what is being shown. It actually surprises me that anyone would make a comment like this. The contemplative essence of the film is blindingly obvious. The film explores the inner essence of nature, faith and humanity, how can these abstracts be related in "facts" or "story line"? To those who felt bored by this you might prefer Terminator, Batman, or Disneyland. You know...dude, like...stuff you can follow, y'know?

[–] joshlore-1 16 years ago

The fact that you were asleep within about a minute completely disinvests your whole argument.

[–] GamblinMike 16 years ago

If there are any flaws in this film they are not the obvious complaints from people. The unexplanatory rhythm of the film serves it right. By avoiding cinema verite cliches it actually embodies truthfully the concept, it places you inside the monastery and and stripping down all narrative styles we are accostumed, Phillip Gronnig puts you in the "right here, right now". And since the Cartusian monastic life is very harmonic the film blossoms from it artistically.

[–] deeveed 16 years ago

I agree and I, for one, as a viewer, was constantly comparing my life with that of the monks as the film went on its journey of displaying an order's way of living life in strict daily contemplation and work. I remember a while back when thoughts of a priesthood came during a one-night stay at a seminary. But of course, "many are called and few are chosen" and it was not to be. I am not so spiritually strong and powerful as those monks. It takes something within oneself to "heed the call". Perhaps they should be so lucky?? There's something to be said for those who choose that way of life. They are humanity's sentinels to our spiritual and covert inner life. Groning's work shines a light into those hidden crevices.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]