MovieChat Forums > Meek's Cutoff (2011) Discussion > Why This Is a Beautiful Failure.

Why This Is a Beautiful Failure.


As I began to watch Meek’s Cutoff, I knew this film was going to be slow. I knew if I liked it, I’d call it lingering and lyrical; if I disliked it, I’d call it drudging and boring.

It is both lingering/lyrical and drudging/boring. And the explanation I find is that it is too long. It needs editing.

The film’s beauty is the cinematography, the composition, the framing. The landscapes, the colors, the near painting like shots.

Drudging/boring? As said, too long. Almost evrey scene begs for a cut. Example –a 20 or so second shot of the sun, high in the sky, a burning blistering star pound heat. Cut to a shot of a woman dried, parched baked. I both understand and feel the heat, her heat. But this takes the better part of a minute. EDIT! Cut it down for time – with the same impact. We the viewers are not that dense. (Are we?)

I watched so many beautifully constructed shots, wonderfully filmed … that seemed interminable. A few shots like this are fine. However, it was the entire film’s basis. Yes, establish the vast emptiness, the overhead heat. But be aware that drama, conflict, resolution are essential to narrative. Symbolism is wonderful and opens up so much rich discussion. But without some movement, other than an ongoing plod west, symbolism is hollow. Man vs. nature, manifest destiny, noble savage, the growing strong feminism, class structure … all very evocative. The last scene – go ahead and discuss it. But to what end. I appreciate open-endedness but here it all seems like it’s an empty bucket of lack of narrative. Which is fine. In a 30 minute short. Edit!! Reichardt's Cutoff, please.

reply

I think the point of the "interminability", as you put it, was to really drive home the sufferings of the pioneers. To hold the shot long enough for us to get the point is all good and well, but Reichardt's choices, I think, reinforce how inescapable their situation is. To tighten the film up would completely alter its tone, and, I think, it would NOT have the same impact. It's not about the viewer being dense or not. It's about putting you in a situation which, if you really think about it, is terrifying. For virtually all of us posting here, fresh water is as close as the nearest sink or drinking fountain. But in the world of MEEK'S CUTOFF, the idea of death by thirst (or exposure) is one that can't be shrugged off.

I don't think the film is strongly symbolic by nature (that one tree aside); I think it's a pretty uncompromising look at a way of travel that we tend to gloss over 165 years later. Editing it would, as I said, rob it of that very quality.

reply

I see your point, but you sort of admit that the film is slow but intentionally so, to make a point.

MY point is - film can use other devices to convey ... let's use your term ... inescapable. I am not a visually gifted auteur like Reichardt, but film can show the passage of time by ... a series of sunrises/sunsets, the tempus fugit of the hands of a clock moving like propeller, the flying leaves of pages of a calendar, the quick change of the seasons, the life and death of plants. Just my mundane examples there.

To choose a series long shots with little if anything happening gets tiresome. Yes, the shots are brilliantly constructed, framed, lighted, filmed, mise en scene, etc. But after a while, I longed for more to happen. A director does not have to take an hour to make you feel/think an hour has passed.

So, I half agree with you. But 1/2 don't. Reichardt "drives home," as you say, in a very repetitive, uneventful, mere sequences of time. She uses time to make her points. A simple progression of minutes. There is not impetus, no drama, no script to "speak" of (pun intended :-) I am not saying a gunfight, a flurry of arrows, a stampede ... but something, dammit anything to fill in the gaps. Otherwise, she just may have well set up a series of beautiful still photographs and done a slideshow. Beautiful, but not cinema.

reply

I see your point, and all I can say is that Meek's worked for me. I can see why it wouldn't for many, but I found myself compelled by the material. And there IS an impetus in the film--the search for water, and the capture of The Indian, who, as the friend I saw the film with pointed out, remains enigmatic, and the choice not to subtitle his speech gives the viewer even more food for thought, I think.

In terms of pacing and style I'd say it comes pretty close to Tarkovsky, although Tarkovsky tends to be a BIT more dialogue- and plot-driven. But the same meditative slowness (and the same viewer frustration) crops up there, too.

reply

OK! Imagine if everyone agreed on everything and every thread got only "+1" as replies! THAT would be boring. Tarkovsky? Yeah I see a little of him in Meek's. I thought of Herzog, especially Fata Morgana - more docu style, but slow sloooowww ... and lyrical. For me. Espressso please :-))

reply

I suppose it raises the question: if a film achieves its makers' objectives, is it then a success, regardless of how the viewer feels about it?

reply

As I said on another thread, I find her body of work as sadistic as it is beautiful. I agree therefore with both opinions here: i.e., that the film is needlessly tedious, but that the tedium has a point. Whether that point is tedium--and tedium in itself IS a valid, if extremely weird, point--or cinema verite, I don't know. I do know that the ending angered me, unlike the endings of Old Joy (which this film most closely resembles) or Wendy and Lucy.

reply

Does a film about tedium have to be a tedious film? In Meek's Cutoff universe, yes.

However, I think another director might have found less tedious ways to convey tedium, other symbols, cuts, angles. Repetition does not have to be tedious.

Yes, this film is nice to look at but hard to watch. And it ends before anything happens and after nothing happens.

And why is the poster for the the shot of the woman with the rifle? OK, women are empowered and I love it. I want an equal and someone that has points better then I do. Hitting people over the head with I AM WOMAN is ... tedious ....

I say this should have been a 20 minute short - about the time it took me to become ... tediumized ....







KIAI ... please.

reply

Does a film about tedium have to be a tedious film?

I say this should have been a 20 minute short - about the time it took me to become ... tediumized ....
Two very good points. I have seen 9-minute shorts that brilliantly convey the kinds of messages that Meek's Cutoff did. With at least as much character developmetn and cinematography.

That Reinhart managed to accomplish so little with 104 minutes of running time says to me she didn't have a well thought out vision of what she was actually trying to accomplish. Her goal was not to make money, obviously. She did get critical acclaim, but let's face it, the reviews for this film seem to revel in being non-mainstream and not much more.

I view Meek's Cutoff as a wasted opportunity to do something amazing.


WARNING!
Objects under T-shirt are larger than they appear!

reply

I understand what you are saying but for me, editing it down, cutting short some scenes might have been fine, but I think the overall effect of this directing was what he was going for. it evoked a feeling of things moving slower, a feeling of time, almost surreal. sure they could have done it more conventional and it would have been great. more like a normal western, it might have been better, certainly more entertaining. but this movie was just different. they went for a different feel, to sort of show you the drudgery, the boredom, the idea that no matter how many miles you might cover that day, there were STILL hundreds more to go, and this is going to take a LONG time to get where you want to go, that is if you even make it.I enjoyed it this way and I would also enjoy it if it had been speeded up and edited down. it's sort of a personal choice and I like both types of movies. the only thing that would spoil a good western for me would be tom cruise

reply

This film is not a failure in any way.

reply