MovieChat Forums > Loong Boonmee raleuk chat (2010) Discussion > why so damn slow?

why so damn slow?

posted 13 years ago by MLin109
27 replies | jump to latest

I tried watching this today with great expectations but found myself nodding off at the end of the cave sequence. I couldn't stand the slow pacing the entire film which is almost never an issue for me. I normally have no problem with slower paced films but i found my self watching each shot for about ten seconds longer than i needed to. did we need to see Boonmee's doctor work on his liver and go through his whole routine without one shot break or any dialogue? do we need to see the princess be carried from one side of the frame to the other very slowly? for anyone who has seen "funny games" the whole movie reminded me of the scene where we watch naomi watts take 2 minutes to stand up and move across the room. whenever a character left the frame we were left staring at the same shot for an addition ten seconds. it was like they didn't have enough footage when they got in the editing room so they made each shot as long as possible. in addition to the pacing, the camera almost never moves within the first hour. this wouldn't be a big deal but When mixed with the slow pacing it made most of the movie extremely boring for me. since i didn't finish it i cant comment on the second half of the film. When looking on this board i see a lot of people saying that this was part of the movie's style. can someone help me understand the purpose of the slow pacing? i want to like this film and will probably watch it again and finish it but why make it so slow? what is the director trying to do with such slow pacing? It just seemed like he lingered on every single shot in the film for too long. With the reviews it's getting and how it did at Cannes i know that there must be some artistic reason behind everything i didn't like but what is it?

[–] noob-669-125338 13 years ago

For me, films like this do not move too slow...most movies move too fast. I loved the pacing of "Uncle Boonmee", just being able to fully absorb an image before it leaves, to let it sink in and appreciate just what is on screen. Its a personal opinion, yes, but that's how I've always felt.

[–] phelpsg1 13 years ago

First of all, this wasn't his doctor and it wasn't his liver. It was something to do with his kidneys (primitive dialysis of some sort?) and it was done by his nephew Tong, and then by his sister-in-law and by his wife's ghost. There's an almost hypnotic quality to the quasi-documentary style in which this scene is presented: the removal of the bandages, the fiddling with the tubes, the recording in the log book. Oddly, this seemed (to me, anyhow) interesting rather than tedious.

My partner (he was a film major is college) is a big fan of some of these films where not much happens. Thanks to Netflix, we watch a lot of Kiarostami, Bahrani, Tarkovsky, etc., and I often do find them rather boring.

But Uncle Boonmee turned out to be actually quite interesting (though I confess to a couple of yawns during the cave sequence). The reason may be the way surprises keep coming up. Every now and then, I found myself saying "Hey, wait a minute! What did I just see?".

[–] tootsongsan 13 years ago

Being Thai-American, I highly anticipated seeing this movie for over a year after hearing it was praised at Cannes last year. Well, I just watched this on DVD and I too was very disappointed. I thought it was extremely slow and boring. It made "Tree of Life" seem like an action flick. At least with ToL, the slow pacing was offset by the stunning visuals and cinematography. This movie had a very low budget look to it. For example, I could tell that some of the nighttime scenes were filmed during the day with a filter over the lens to simulate nightfall. Anyways, I (regretfully) don't recommend this film.

[–] Krustallos 13 years ago

You guys wouldn't be too good at meditation, would you?

I think that's the sort of speed the director was aiming at.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MLin109 12 years ago

In response to easypz,

I understand slowness is part of style, but that doesn't mean you can't criticize it. Just because something is deliberate, doesn't mean it wasn't a poor stylistic decision. Obviously slow movies are slow on purpose, otherwise they wouldn't be slow. Baz Lurhman uses extremely fast paces cuts as his style, but its still F*%king unbearable and makes romeo and juliet unwatchable at times.

[–] LordKao 12 years ago

MLin109,

Contemplative films can be faulted for their slow pace, but I wouldn't criticise this film on such grounds. Counterpoised to the long takes of not much happening are urgent currents running through it that materialise in its formal innovations, sound design, narrative flights of fancy and visual texture. The film’s measured pacing is part of a whole tapestry of cinematic affects. What I’m saying here is that the argument for or against the slowness of a film needs to be related to the whole of the film and even to what’s outside the film.

[–] boonjj 12 years ago

this film, overall, was definetely to slow for me

the first hour or so i thought were fine, but it was around the Princess scene were i felt it started to drag a bit, then parts of the cave scene, then the shower scene was just ridiculous.

nothing wrong with a slow film and absorbing the pictures but it has to be executed correctly and i felt it got too slow towards the 2nd half of the film and for no real effect.

just how i felt about it. but i do wonder if there are any fans of the shower scene, because that was just ridiculous to me.

[–] Revolutionow 13 years ago

The slow pace allows you to meditate on the images and mine the material for meaning. If you find no meaning, then I guess it's not for you.

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

[–] bradme 13 years ago

I found the images beautiful, and yet, during much of the film, it is way too slow. The dinner scene at the beginning just lingers far too long with uninteresting dialogue. There are moments like the princess at the lake, or even the opening scene, where the beauty of the images work and make up for the slowness, and yet there are scenes like the dinner or the dialysis that are just too long for their own good while offering few interesting visuals. The dialogue also lacks anything capturing. It brings up interesting concepts, and yet still feels bland and boring. It's a shame really, because I was really excited for this. Beautiful cinematography, terrible dialogue and pacing.

The meditation point is a very good one, and yet there are moments where the camera lingers where I have nothing to ponder about, or absorb. He's out in the fields with his workers, or the five of them are sitting at a table saying nothing. When I'm looking at a waterfall, a running bull, or a couple embracing, I can appreciate the beauty. When I'm watching a man get his Kidney's washed out I get bored.

[–] PsychoDingo 12 years ago

The meditation point is a very good one, and yet there are moments where the camera lingers where I have nothing to ponder about, or absorb.

The point of meditation is not to ponder, but to clear your mind of all thought.

[–] Coolestmovies 12 years ago

The point of meditation is not to ponder, but to clear your mind of all thought.

Then you can't watch a movie and meditate.

Yet that's what this movie, its director, and even those who "get it" are asking us to do.

There's an inherent contradiction which explains why so many people find Apichatpong Weerasethakul's movies so difficult to get through: watching someone ELSE meditate isn't terribly interesting.

[–] PsychoDingo 12 years ago

When someone suggests meditating to a movie, I assume they are saying to chill out, turn the focus away from analysis and intellectualism, and go with the flow. I don't figure they are actually referring to meditation in the literal, textbook sense.

The word "meditate" is somewhat like the word "pretentious" in that both words seem to be misused more often than not, but generally people understand what is being communicated, despite the improper usage.

The ironic thing is that coconuts are, in fact, migratory.

[–] Roonil_Wazlib_97 12 years ago

The slow pace allows you to meditate on the images and mine the material for meaning. If you find no meaning, then I guess it's not for you.

That's a great way to put it. What I'm curious to know is what meaning did you and all the others who could appreciate the film find in there? I could do with some examples. I would appreciate if you could walk me through some of the meaningful stuff you found, if any, because to me, this didn't seem to be a film where the director uses images/scenes for symbolism, metaphors or meaning. It seemed to me more like experimental cinema that has no purpose other than experimenting for the sake of experimenting with ideas like:
- "Film random stuff, holding your camera for longest possible time" (eg: the shower scene, the scenes of people sitting, watching TV,...)
- "Occasionally discuss a number of random, unrelated ideas about death and reincarnation" (eg: after death, you can become a ghost, you can be reincarnated into something else, or you can choose while living to mate with a monkey ghost, thus becoming one; also in the lake, you can encounter magical talking catfish that love sex with humans)
- "Include weird things for the heck of it, without comment" (eg: Tong and Jen go to a karaoke cafe but their doubles sit watching TV).

That said, I didn't completely dislike the film, but I would only hesitently reccomend it. I might give it a 5.5/10 . These ideas about death and reincarnations of one's soul, even though random and inconsistent, still have a certain beauty and a mythical quality. This, along with the love and attatchment that's evident between the members of Boonmee's family, are in my opinion the film's (only) qualities.

Last watched:
Le Cercle Rouge (The Red Circle) (8/10)
Annie Hall (7/10)

[–] Revolutionow 12 years ago

One of the most insightful posts around: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1588895/board/thread/175895270?d=178709915 &p=1#178709915

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

[–] trippplethreat333 13 years ago

I typically enjoy, even love, minimalistic, slow films. This was not the case here. The cave scene was excellently done, but most of the film was not. Most of it was the wrong kind of slow, and meant, and did nothing. That's what bothered me. "UBWCRHPL" plodded along, with no real purpose. After his death, there was nothing. That was painful, and that weak statement at the end with Tong and Jen stood for nothing. I really wanted to love this. Also, a lot of the issue may be the culture. I am completely unfamiliar with Thai culture, and couldn't really relate to much of the film. There were some universal themes, but many themes and motifs were specifically related to Thai culture. Most films, even American films, have universal themes. "Boonmee" on the surface does, but deals with death in such an unfamiliar and unrealizable way. So, part of me not enjoying it was my total ignorance of Thai culture.

Just my feelings.

[–] jamesajunior 13 years ago

I hate to say it, but I felt nearly identical to you when I watched this. I love intellectual films, and to me action films are predictable and unrealistic for the most part, that was why I watched this film, because of the multiple layers of meaning it had. Whenever I watch a film, and they stick to a scene where there is nothing happening, I start to look around the screen for something I am not seeing/interpreting, thinking that the film's director wouldn't waste so much time on a scene unless there was a reason for it. Many films get me to start thinking the scene is pointless, but then reveal something. This film had many times where it just seemed like they were killing time. Why do we have to watch the nephew take a full shower? Is this a porno? We get it, he is taking a shower, I thought I might have noticed some scars on his body near where the catheter Boonmee had was, so I thought maybe there was something to it, but who knows. Even if there was, watching a dude scrub his sack didn't convey any secondary meaning, unless people in Thailand traditionally scrub their genitals in front of a spectator, I'll have to look into that. Maybe Boonmee was a champion sack scrubber in a former life and he trained the nephew in the fine art before he died, and the nephew was just flaunting his sack scrubbing prowess? Maybe I'm way off, but slow pace is fine, and "fully absorbing, digesting, and ultimately excreting every possible pixel of every possible clip before going onto the next one" is fine, but even when I account for all that, there is still about 30 minutes of dead weight ready for the knife if you ask me, but I am sure nobody will :)

[–] Eightythreeyearoldguy 13 years ago

It wasn't easy for me to get into this on the first viewing, but I slowly recognized it as a meditation, and that watching a scene at a time helped me see a development.

This isn't a film for everyone and I might be making a mistake in showing it to my movie group which is composed of senior citizens like myself, mostly female. Again, I might be surprised.

Life, every now and then, behaves as though it had seen too many bad movies

[–] fe_faqet 12 years ago

How the hell can you call this meditation?! This has nothing to do with meditaion. Do you even know what meditation is?

[–] Eightythreeyearoldguy 12 years ago

Maybe it's not a meditation for you, but for me, it was, and yes, I do know what meditation is.

Life, every now and then, behaves as though it had seen too many bad movies

[–] Genesis1975 13 years ago

Devastatingly slow. Don't know what to say, I'm 13 minutes in and I'm bored as can be.

[–] Revolutionow 13 years ago

Maybe try giving it your full attention instead of simultaneously surfing the internet.

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

[–] Genesis1975 13 years ago

I did, I came on here to see if it was worth continuing. I can't do it though, too slow - and I don't mind a slow film, but this is something that's simply not for me.

[–] Revolutionow 13 years ago

It certainly isn't for everyone. Maybe try to revisit it in a few years. You might have a different perspective on it. Or maybe you won't. There's no shame in admitting that something doesn't agree with your sensibilities.

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

[–] omoxus 12 years ago

I expected too much as well. How in the world did this win?

Im the Alpha and the Omoxus. The Omoxus and the Omega