The Hell?
While waiting for The War Tapes to begin, we were subjected to a preview trailer for some film called Cavite. The scenes were interspersed with quotations from reviews, one of which described it as a "taut, stylish, minimalist thriller," which left me wondering:
How in the hell do you make a minimalist movie??
I've heard of a couple that would seem to qualify — supposedly Yoko Ono made one that is a very long time of a single shot of the Statue of Liberty or something, and then, near the end, a flock of birds passes by. That, all right, would count as minimalist. But here's a very simple test: if reviewers like it, then it's a film qua film, not film qua æsthetic, and therefore it can't possibly be anything like "minimalist" unless the word has been appropriated (because it sounds so hip!) and then, to have a useful application, so contextualized as to have lost any resemblance with its ordinary meaning.
Just one more sign of ArtThink's dissociation from reality, I suppose.
UPDATE: I Googled "minimalism in film" to see what came up. There was a lot of nothing, but a couple of things did turn up that are worth noting.
"Minimalism" does not mean "inexpensive." Attack of the Killer Tomatos was inexpensive. I wouldn't call it minimalist, though, not by a long shot. Minimalism is an æsthetic style, not a financial condition.
I would suggest that "minimalist" films are those in which the story is told, in detail, visually rather than audially. But this means more than just little or no talking: it means that everything and nothing does the acting; that is, the props and setting are as much characters as the actors are, and the actors are as much a part of the scene as the props and setting are. As an example, I would suggest Kubrick's 2001, or the original (1972) Solaris. Contrast them with, say, the 1923 silent Hunchback of Notre Dame, or pretty much any silent film of which I can think.
How in the hell do you make a minimalist movie??
I've heard of a couple that would seem to qualify — supposedly Yoko Ono made one that is a very long time of a single shot of the Statue of Liberty or something, and then, near the end, a flock of birds passes by. That, all right, would count as minimalist. But here's a very simple test: if reviewers like it, then it's a film qua film, not film qua æsthetic, and therefore it can't possibly be anything like "minimalist" unless the word has been appropriated (because it sounds so hip!) and then, to have a useful application, so contextualized as to have lost any resemblance with its ordinary meaning.
Just one more sign of ArtThink's dissociation from reality, I suppose.
UPDATE: I Googled "minimalism in film" to see what came up. There was a lot of nothing, but a couple of things did turn up that are worth noting.
"Minimalism" does not mean "inexpensive." Attack of the Killer Tomatos was inexpensive. I wouldn't call it minimalist, though, not by a long shot. Minimalism is an æsthetic style, not a financial condition.
I would suggest that "minimalist" films are those in which the story is told, in detail, visually rather than audially. But this means more than just little or no talking: it means that everything and nothing does the acting; that is, the props and setting are as much characters as the actors are, and the actors are as much a part of the scene as the props and setting are. As an example, I would suggest Kubrick's 2001, or the original (1972) Solaris. Contrast them with, say, the 1923 silent Hunchback of Notre Dame, or pretty much any silent film of which I can think.
posted by Dr. Bubbles at 20:46
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home