Any intellectuals out there who didn't care for this?

another case of trying to catch a train but missing it because of worrying too much about the ticket. even though all those matters of taste are of concern for what they are, the object that i truly believe should be of our most deep concern is, like you said, the premise - the reason, the will of it - which, had it resonated in you, wouldn't had left you noticing so hard on the things that in comparison are simply superfluous.
it's like taking notice of the frame of the picture disregarding the picture itself.
why do we keep missing the point in everything? is art's language to blame? is the public to blame?
when gold was found for the first time did it shine the best it could or didn't man had do polish it? like gold our communication should be polished, our ability to perceive and look for the important things in every moment of life should be as important as our ability to express even our deepest feelings to whoever it may be.
So did Bela Tarr failed to communicate his deepest feelings in a way that appeals and touches you and most of mankind or are you and mankind so unaware of it's own potential and crucial deepness that whenever confronted with bursts of it, it cannot see it right under it's nose?
this is common practice in our society, and even though it might not appear like it to the naked eye, we got to where we are because some of us dwelved deep. maybe it's time for more of us to engage in that, for ourselves and for the world, past intelectualism, technicism and other perverted areas of thought that end up so easily closed in themselves like fierce masturbation.
subjectivity is not an end by itself it's just a characteristic of the way we express our deepest emotions, feelings and thoughts, like existing different timbres to express the same note and why some people cry when they're in pain and some people don't.

[deleted]

You've posed an absolutely terrible question, one which betrays any (true) intellectualism you assert to possess.
Firstly, you could have had me as an ally in your solipsist fantasy - I generally am little fan of "slow moving" films. However, I like, love & adore some or many.
This here is a RIPPER - excuse my intellectual hyperbole ;)

I was SOLD, bitch, from the opening frame and scene - despite falling asleep with my sweetheart after about an hour, I was rewarded when I finally re watched. The opening scene is as good as it gets; beautiful, hilarious and rings true despite a certain ridiculousness. ONE thought, (of a plethora, of course), an overly pragmatic one before I was somewhat hypnotised (into sleep maybe?), 'Maybe the kind of guy, personality, who ends up and stays a wino/ bum has a lot to do with how s/he/it is NOT malleable - would many humbly submit for services to spontaneous theatre? Why the hell not? It seems more interesting than dancing, even. We are such a rigid species...' What is the intellectual capacity of any given?
The rest of the film is eye and thought candy - what more did you want, Sr. smartie not? Not even that oblique, is it. Look, when a Director lingers a LONG time, s/he / it should be very careful and command the appropriate light and poignancy - B&W worked perfectly here - congratulations to the Directors who have THAT ability. It MUST be the light in this film, (beyond the great characters & ideas), that dissolve 'the length' you seem upset with. Overbearing? - in this world nothing more overbearing than presumed intelligence - and just because you say 'arrogant not humble', doesn't mean you are saying any damn thing at all!
Slow - yes, Boring - you decide, but a band of supposed intellectuals won't be chiming in with agreement, with you, here. Oh no, you are gonna have a bum fest with a bunch of super needy malfeasants, at best.
CHOMP AWAY!
Much love and condescension.

Intellectuals? Seems someone needs validation for their opinion real bad.

As for the movie... I think I see what Tarr was doing here (his quote included in Ebert´s review was helpful), but I don´t think he succeeded to a particularly great degree. It aims to be sort of a loose meditation that´s shakily grounded in any actual narrative, but instead of gracefully underdramatized, it often comes across as jarringly vague. Poorly written rather than conceptually arid as essentially nothing is illuminated of the mechanics of mob mentality, how evil works its way into human hearts as it were. Most importantly though, Werckmeister´s ultra-long takes - of which there´s certainly an overabundance - only occasionally achieve this time-and-space-transcending lingering poetic quality which generally characterizes similar scenes in Tarkovsky. Had this technique worked to perfection, all other quibbles could be forgotten about - but the lethargic camerawork dulled the senses more often than it inspired and technique seemed particularly unsuccessful in some key scenes such as the mob´s march up to that hospital ward or whatever it was. It was just mechanical instead of compelling, communicating no air of menace of danger. And the bust-up scene itself badly lacked the ferocity, the brutality it would´ve needed in order to work, to really emotionally engage.

But all these are, of course, one-time reflections on a film that by all appearences requires the viewer to be in a rather specific frame of mind in order to work. It´s very well possible that all this stuff about it mostly lacking the poetic qualities or the emotional pull, will change upon the second viewing. But, on the same token, it has to be said I ´have´ been impressed by more or less everything Tarkovsky the first time out with no problems. Either way, for the time being it gets a 6,5/10 rating from me.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

oh yay! at last. i'm not alone!

I take it, a 2 min scene of a couple of guys marching in silence isn't you're idea of action photography. I'm told that it works fine if you play the film at 2x speed.

As for myself, a lot depends on whether the film can deliver any meaningful message. If I'm not mistaken, Tarr just called the Soviet Union the 'Evil Empire'. Apparently, God made things right from the beginning, but somehow the Devil is leading humanity down the wrong path.

I'm not saying I'm a Marxist, but what do the forces of Good and Evil have to do with a politic ideology? Either socialism does or doesn't work. If you don't believe it does, why do you expect me to believe in the closet monster? And all these years I thought only idiots believed Ronald Regan's rhetoric.

[deleted]

I'm an intellectual, and I haven't managed to finish it yet. I'm working on it, though.

I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke.