ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ส.ค. 2024
- In its 2022 poll comprising over 1600 movie critics, Sight and Sound Magazine elected "Jeanne Dielman 23, Quai du Commerce 1080 Bruxelles" (even the title is boring) as the greatest film of all time. It jumped over 30 positions since last decade and surpassed "Citizen Kane" and "Vertigo". We know the reason wasn't cinema, but let's talk about it some other day.
It's about a widowed housewife doing household chores... in real time. If you absolutely adore potatoes and everything revolving around the act of consuming potatoes, you'll have a blast.
In this video essay I go through the "plot" of "Jeanne Dielman" to find the strengths and weaknesses of this grueling 1975 Belgian film by Chantal Akerman. The framing is truly terrific and it's interesting to see how the film manipulates your expectations concerning what a film is supposed to show you. You get so used to long repetitive household actions that you get startled when they go slightly wrong. A good 45-minute short film bloated to not-so-good 201 minutes.
To better illustrate how unsuccessful this overlong exercise is, we'll compare it to another example of slow cinema that's obsessed with long takes featuring everyday rituals: "The Turin Horse" by Hungarian director Béla Tarr. You'll find out why it succeeds where "Jeanne Dielman" fails.
00:00 Jeanne Dielman
07:09 The Turin Horse (Spoilers)
08:15 End of spoilers
09:18 Why Jeanne Dielman doesn't work
Scheming Weasel (faster version) by Kevin MacLeod incompetech.com
Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Unported - CC BY 3.0
Free Download / Stream: bit.ly/schemin...
Music promoted by Audio Library • Scheming Weasel (faste...
Investigations by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommon...
Source: incompetech.com...
Artist: incompetech.com/ - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
![[Official Music Video] ฝังใจ - BOW Maylada [Prod. By Tan LIPTA]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rSjk1jKWRN4/mqdefault.jpg)
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand "Jeanne Dielman 23, Quai du Commerce 1080 Bruxelles". The plot is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical matter of film studies and gender theory most of the themes and stylistic treatments will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Jeanne's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into her characterisation - her personal philosophy draws heavily from Second Wave Feminism literature, for instance. The true cinephiles understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of the scenography, to realize that it's not just boring - it says something deep about WOMAN'S LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike "Jeanne Dielman..." truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the drama in her sons existencial statement "I don't want daddy to thrust in you" which itself is a cryptic reference to Freud's theory of Oedipus complex. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Chantal Akerman's genius unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools... how I pity them. 😂 And yes by the way, I DO have a tattoo of Jeanne Dielman's address. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.
People with high IQs don't waste their time on garbage like gender theory.
This is the exact same thing I say to critics of Gigli.
Brilliant people like yourself endure struggles that the rest of us normies just can't comprehend, such as deciding which beret to wear with which turtleneck.
@RublevKovacs ugh, yikes, just admit you hate women incel
Funniest YT comment ever
I’m not someone who thinks this film is immune to criticism (no matter how artfully produced it may be, it is still fundamentally designed to be a test of patience) but it seems disingenuous to compare a film dealing with a slow-burn apocalypse to one which chronicles the daily life of an oppressed housewife. Jeanne Dielman having constant static shots and no diegetic music is exactly the point in affirming the character’s sense of imprisoning banality and having either of these elements would neither make Jeanne Dielman a better film nor would they even make sense.
Using essentially nothingness to express banality sounds like an exercise in banality in and of itself, not to mention a fruitless endurance test. I can fully imagine the bored empty feeling I’d have after suffering through this celebrated pretension, without having to actually watch it. And I can be a feminist without proclaiming all feminist themed works superior to masterpieces of content, emotion, and invention. If it takes a marathon watch of house chores in excruciating detail to empathize with the existential crisis of someone trapped in a vacuum of meaningful human engagement, I think that shows a lack of imagination right there.
I understand everything you are saying. But why do people think this is the best film in the history of cinema? I haven’t heard a single significant director talk about it.
@@farihaahmed4790If your measurement of good film is if good filmmakers like it You need to watch more movies
@@aspvizn I'm sure you have watched more movies than scorsese, spike lee, Tarantino,Edger Wright, Ang lee and Steven Spielberg. Well sorry I haven’t.
This movie is such a thorough examination of imprisoning banality that it literally imprisons you in its banality!
While I'll admit to never wanting to watch it again, I appreciated this movie and noticed something you seem, surprisingly, to have missed. It's a really key moment, I think, where Akerman's 'show everything' rule is strategically broken - a bedroom sojourn with a grumpy looking client. We see them go into and come out of the room, but not what takes place inside. We've already seen her come out of the bedroom with another guy and it was fine. This time, however, she's noticeably flustered - the beginning of her clockwork routine breaking down. It seemed pretty obvious to me that she'd been brutalised by the client and is essentially post-traumatic from then on and that explains the murder, though it's not the same client.
I unsubbed from Mubi recently because I got sick of watching slow movies with nothing to say. Jeanne Dielmann has plenty to say and a story that pays off. You just have to pay attention, which is a big part of the point of the best slow movies.
you're not even worth engaging
I haven't gotten around to watching the film yet, but your comment confirms what I suspected--that it's a very good film with a lot of subtlety and unconventional pacing, but what the heck is it doing in the all-time #1 spot?
@@melanie62954 Yup, there MovieWise is spot on. There's no way this film deserves that position.
The standard explanation is that she had had her first orgasm (the director said as much IINM) sexual frigidity had been a kind of protection for her (feminist theory of the time) giving her some measure of control in an otherwise constrained existence... the loss of that was a loss of control and the murder was a way of trying to regain control.
@@melanie62954 It's a very good, thought provoking art film from the mid 1970s and in no way the best of all time.
Absolutely mesmerizing film. Film making at its absolutely best.
Accidentally stumbled across this video, and it made me go watch The Turin Horse. I have not yet seen Jeanne Dielman, but I'm not sure if i'd had a better or worse experience watching that.
Hahahaha, I know what you mean.
this movie is genuienely one of my favorite movies. and no, I don't think you need a "high iq" to understand or appreciate it, because it's actually pretty simple. it invites the viewers to do the simplest task they can ever do, to look into this woman's life. of course there are feminist themes in the film (and interestingly enough most of the negative views in the comments are evidently from men, but that's besides the point), however, I don't think that this is why it is so impactful. there is something so satisfying about how the plot unfolds in this movie. I'm not going to argue that the impact comes from its apparent and prolonged dormacy, though I think this is a valid argument. in fact, i genuinely enjoyed every second of the film. there is beauty and humility in following someone go about their day (in an artistic sense of course. stalking people is bad). and because the whole movie is an evidence for normalcy, the anxiety of everyday predicaments (like what to make for dinner, for example) is heightened and actually felt, which is soo rare to see in film and actually difficult to convey. not to mention, the explosive (but quiet) ending. if this movie is boring, then damn, maybe I love boring things.
Yes it is pretty simple and it's just horrid pretentious drudgery that's all
It's hilarious how people are telling themselves this circular logic that it's a wonderful movie and the only way you can't like it is because you didn't understand it lmao
I understand why people get annoyed because it feels like Jeanne Dielman steals something: your time (3 hours) and your attention. And even then, she just expects us to watch, without giving us anything in return. But this is whole point (a rather boring point but that is the POINT). House wives (particularly from 1930s-1980s) were often neglected by society and family, a sort of banal imprisonment and isolation. This movie is supposed to take time, so for a moment we sit with the perpetually mundane reality of an unappreciated middle-aged single mother (a very common reality even in 21st century). She is bored with her chores. We are bored. The audience and Jaenne are forced to share an invisible prison cell which neither of us want to be in, but at least we as the audience know can switch off the film...
With single moms, their children are their joy but her relationship with her son is strained. He's quiet and would rather read or listen to the radio than interact with his mom. She's trying to talk to him but he shuts her out. Just before the 3rd day before the radio is turned on, you see the divide in the room as both characters are on opposite side of the frame
Crap Your whole premise of "housewives" being banal is a lie. It's leftwing propaganda. It's designed to tear family life apart. Every job can have repetitive nature to it...EVERY JOB.
I would agree with your point if even Chantal Akerman's attempts at comedy weren't just as boring as this. (On the other hand, I've heard she makes good documentaries. Alas I've never seen any)
But isn't that called the mimetic fallacy - that in order to tell a story about boredom, you have to be boring?
@@douglassun8456 it's one way to go about it - not the most engaging, sure, but once in a lifetime, say, I can stomach 4hrs boring movie. The experience was interesting, though I didn't binge Ackerman's whole filmography after that.
Would love to see a "Best Directed Terrible Movies" list from you!
That’s actually a great idea
@@Moviewise in a way, I think studying a well-directed bad movie would be an excellent way to articulate why direction is important by isolating the variable imo.
@@CreationBrosZone-km5bethat has a 67 % on rotten tomatoes
To me this film is just another example of slow cinema. There are many directors out there that are widely recognized in the cinematic community for being great and their films are like hers. Examples include Nuri Ceylan Bilge, Robert Bresson or Lav Diaz. I don’t think slow cinema is bad but it’s different. It’s just a different form of cinema even though it’s boring.
indeed, one of the earliest, pioneering examples of that style of cinema
Yah, agree. This film openly challenges you to evaluate a movie with a completely different film language, the tedium and slowness being just one of those methods. It's probably too over-intellectual for its own good, but I found it entertaining in an odd way. Would not recommend to anybody.
Kubrick too.....
@@isaacjgl2657 Even though Kubrick's film are slow. They're interesting except 2001 Space Odessey.
Not boring
You haven't seen the Akerman film about the camera and the lift. In terms of incident "Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerece 1080 Bruxelles" is like "It's a Mad. Mad, Mad, Mad World!" in comparison.
As a student in film. I enjoyed the lesson this movie gave me: what does it look like if you don't cut out redundant seconds or minutes? When a character leaves a room and enters in another room, do you need to see them walking through hallway between the rooms? It was very interesting. Though not impactful enough, it stressed the vacuity of the couple of lines spoken every 60 minutes or so. Of course, I was the only one remaining in the theater after this 4 hours of real-time preparing a potatoe dish. Anyway, if you found this drama boring, you're not ready for Chantal Ackerman's comedies.
You're correct. It's a good lesson in what not to do, which is why it should be shown to film students. However, there should be a rule that anyone who claims to like Jeanne Dielman is immediately banished from the film school and barred from being allowed to make movies on account of terminal pretentiousness.
Don't forget turning off the lights
@@akf2000 oh don't worry she didn't
Lol. You had to be taught that? Bs. You are pretending, for what reason I don't know.
@@denroy3 i love you too
I think it also makes you wonder what other films might be like in the same style. Chantal Akerman's "Star Wars" for example (where Darth Vader keeps retreating to the kitchen of the Death Star to peel potatoes and put table linen away in overhead cupboards)
“Raiders of the Lost Ark” but Indiana Jones only grades students’ papers and sharpens pencils
@@Moviewise LOL!
John Wick spends two hours researching funeral homes for pet dogs. HAL-9000 literally reads the entire phone book. Dorothy and Toto do chores around the farm, then she reads a book in the shelter while waiting for the tornado to pass by. Etc Etc. That style of storytelling is easy; just pick the most boring thing and run with it.
@@SkullRabbit13 "2001: A Phone Directory"?
War movies would be a goldmine for this. Get Akerman to direct remake of whatever war film, from Dunkirk through A Bridge Too Far to Black Hawk Down and you'll get a true realistic depiction of military life, 3.5 hours of dudes sitting on an outpost or cleaning their guns and waiting on base for deployment. Also call it a study of toxic masculinity and imperialistic wars or whatever and there's just no way you won't win some type of snobbish festival
This is far and away the best film analysis channel on youtube. Thank you. Citizen Kane will always be the greatest film of all time to me.
Years ago I saw a funeral dooom video with scenes from The Turin Horse. I thought wow this video is really well done. I have been trying to find it again but I can not for the life of me recall the song title.
I remember the tours to the Coca Cola Factory when I was in Junior High.
Once the bottles were filled they moved along a transportation band on a single line.
There were guys sitting on stools watching the traveling bottles against a glowing glass to discard the bottles with variations in the content or "things" inside the bottles.
They should do a vintage movie about this guys.
I know that's deadly boring, but if you make them (fill the space) ___________________, you can laugh all the way to the bank.
If they're black transgenders, it will be labeled "brilliant".
I must say, I truly liked this video, it all made sense and the arguments are solid. And still, I enjoyed Jeanne Dielman when I saw it. I don't intend to defend the film, and also don't think it's the greatest film ever made. The video made me look at it critically, what need not make me stop liking what is being critised. Keep up the good work
So far I'm loving this channel, but I can't even watch you dis this film. I unabashedly loved this film.
I feel exactly the same. I just subbed after watching three great vids from this channel on things like blocking. This one nearly makes me want to unsub.
this channels still worth it bc his blocking and technical videos are great but his takes on non traditional experimental films like this are pretty thick
I'll have to give credit where credit is due as despite being a mostly joke essay there are some great comments here, such as:
"The movie has made a Pavlovian dog of you. It made you forget what type of scene a movie is meant to show you, giving you the most tedious expectations so you can feel uneasy when things go a little differently" - A very powerful example of how the film actually works and to many are amongst the great of all time as this is a very difficult accomplishment.
Not to mention the showcasing of the many ways the film shows you that things are a little off, including in the composition of the diner scene - great work there.
Where I will disagree is the claim that it is "a masterpiece of a 45-minute movie bloated in length". The long takes and showing the tedium of her world and the repetitions are precisely why the film works as well as it does. While in terms of messaging and even cinematic power, there would be ways to compress this into 45 minutes and hit you just as hard, it is the aspects of slow/contemplative/transcendental cinema that is the reason this film has grown to the position it has.
I also have to (obviously) disagree that it doesn't work. The contrast to The Turin Horse makes sense, especially from a personal perspective of taste, but while Tarr's flourishes are more visually impressive the films have completely different content, atmospheres and purposes. If Jeanne Dielman was shot the way The Turin Horse was shot it would be a completely different film. Rather than taking you into the world of a house-wife and showing you a very realistic depiction of chores and lulling you down to that pace and into that world, you would be presented with an "action-packed" turbulence that goes against everything that makes Dielman (likely) work for the voters that placed it in their top 10.
This approach could also have "worked", but there are many ways to make a captivating and spellbinding film.
My read of Dielman is that it is a commentary/showcase of women who don't live their lives but fill them with and entirely depend on their routine/keeping busy as to not hear their inner voice - and to me that last act is harrowing and unnerving - while what came before, indeed because of it's slow, static nature, lulls you in and captivates you. Like the best of slow cinema to do become spellbound/hypnotized by its slow (and often) static nature, leaving room for contemplation - which again ties in with the ideas in play - where Dielman leaves us with much food for thought.
I understand that as someone who did not enjoy the film you felt your time was wasted, and indeed, I can take your idea that Akerman gave nothing to the audience and expects them to pay attention on board - but why not? Why does every piece of cinema need to help its audiences along? Dielman may engross less than Citizen Kane and Vertigo, but in terms of power and admiration, it clearly hits the mark with a substantial number of film experts, landing in the top 5 of both the critic and the directors lists and sometimes you have to accept that a film that doesn't grab you can still grab others.
(On a side note, I strongly dislike the bizarre assumption that most voters may have noted for the film for different reasons than its merits as art. It is quite likely a portion of the voters specifically wanted to highlight films made by women because they feel the canon is lesser without this variation, but this is IMO, no different from wishing to highlight silent films, classic Hollywood films, comedies, action, French films, American films, new films, etc. and the joke insertion which I assume is tied to some internet culture war issue really demeans your overall essay - as does the assumption about the voters)
I have not seen the film but have read much on it, so my contribution can be dismissed. But....
From the video essay, and from what you have written, I gather that the film's merits lie primarily in tweaking expectations, that the director lulls us into complacency in order to make us uneasy (the second day into the third), with the culminating murder. The complacency and its undoing is achieved through camera shots that frame things perfectly, and thus it becomes fairly easy to understand how it is that something is "off" (eg, when she is forced to sit at a different seat in the cafe but the frame remains at the table where she would usually sit). The thematic thrust, I gather, is that she resents the domestic work that she must do (the "housewife" stuff) and, presumably, the sex work that she must do (the patriarchal element), and so she stabs a man.
Really? That's it? It takes three hours to do this? I'll wager that the film gets the attention it does because of its socio-sexual content (oppressed woman, female director) more so than any advance in or contribution to cinema. Maybe Akeman could have learned something from Andy Warhol's "Blow Job," clocking in at an economical 35 minutes.
@@frankd1565 Not to be discarded at all, Frank, very good questions. I'm dividing my answer in two parts as I could not paste it in one message:
"The thematic thrust, I gather, is that she resents the domestic work that she must do (the "housewife" stuff) and, presumably, the sex work that she must do (the patriarchal element), and so she stabs a man."
That's not my take, but it is a possible reading. My take is that it is a look at an archetype of women who bury themselves in housework/busywork because they essentially have nothing else, and do so to the point that they numb everything and are not used to ever being alone with their own thoughts. I did not see it through the lens of oppression, but gender roles is certainly one of the reasons why many women end up in this kind of situation, and there is a lot to unpack and discuss there.
"Really? That's it? It takes three hours to do this?"
Not at all. You could easily have done the basic premise and even many of the thematic and visual ideas as a short film, as could you with Citizen Kane, Vertigo - but they would all have been fundamentally different things, and I don't believe a severely shortened Dielman would have been as successful/effective as JD - especially if using the same techniques.
The length is a feature, not a bug, and while it may not be a feature everyone enjoys, it is one of the driving forces behind why many see it as powerful cinema.
Part of this is simply the traditional basis of contemplative cinema. This is a "genre" of film, often coupled with sparse minimalism, though as you see from the essay above, the films can also be more visually active, where we as viewers - when successful - lose ourselves inside the framing and allow thought while we see even minute movements carried out - and within cinephilia there is a big audience for this branch of filmmaking - while it is certainly not everyone's cup of tea - and with that explained we then just need to see why Jeanne Dielman is a successful piece of contemplative (and on top of that, "experimental" cinema) to see why the length matters.
A large part of the basis behind Jeanne Dielman is that we are to see the acts of the chores in full, (and this is where the experimental element comes in as well) changing what we view as action, making chores drive the plot and even build suspense and we see shake-ups in the routine. Many see it as bringing us entirely into the "tedium" of JD's life and fully immerse us in it - others see it as exciting contemplative cinema, making the housework interesting exactly because of the focus. A rather extreme example is going into an art studio displaying regular appliances and thinking of them in a different way and a different context. There is something very unique about leaving your home, going to the cinema and looking up at a woman doing chores (an experience I have sadly not had yet, really want to see JD on the big screen).
As you can see from the essay, Akerman uses static shots, closing us in inside the frame with JD and stripping almost everything away, and we are left staring at JD, locked in on her, fully immersed in her world in ways that few others films have managed. Yes, you can explore the same themes and life in a myriad of different ways, including far more dramatic camera work, maybe bring in the crew from Leviathan and shoot actions from disturbing/raw angles, or maybe go in different minimalist directions, ala Bresson (who might have made a 60-70 minutes bare-boned film and mainly focus on doors and hands) or Duras (who would likely have made the apartment the protagonist). How effective any of these methods might be is up to the taste of the viewer - personally, I loved JD, but I'm sure I would have liked/loved many completely different takes as well.
@@frankd1565 I have no idea what is happening but I just can't post part 2, it keeps being deleted after a few seconds. Been trying to change the content/formatting, but no matter what I do it is not going through despite being shorter than part 1. Really frustrating. Testing to see if this reply gets added. (This one survived a full minute so I'll try to edit in the message):
"I'll wager that the film gets the attention it does because of its socio-sexual content (oppressed woman, female director) more so than any advance in or contribution to cinema."
Content, themes, etc. matter and JD is certainly an excellent representation of art that comments on society/gives food for thought within the context of our society, which can often make films/art rawer/more powerful/more meaningful. (My personal favourite film is Last Year at Marienbad - which has none of that - it makes you think sure - but it is more of a puzzle - it has no social impact - which I'm sure to many viewers can be a flaw. Meanwhile, a film like Citizen Kane is likely appreciated by many for its themes tied to greed, the American entrepreneur/billionaire, etc.).
However, while I don't really think you can separate content and form in a film like JD, I would argue that content plays a part in the form, and above all, JD is heralded for its cinematic accomplishments, not that it is directed by a woman.
Getting back to "Really? That's it?" the feat of being able to take a woman doing housework/following a routine over 3+ hours and turn it into an engaging, even thrilling experience, changing our perspective on time and what we view as "action" is a big "it". It is in my opinion at least one of the greatest feats in history, and far more impressive (to me) than Kane and Vertigo. Being more "impressive" in its challenging form does not mean it is better. "Blue" for instance is very impressive in that it creates a highly emotional story without visuals (beyond a blue screen), but it is not a film I hold that dear in my heart. I prefer Citizen Kane to JD, and likely Vertigo too (they are about on par, even after rewatching both fairly closely together this year) but it is easy to see why many, especially academics and those more inclined towards experimental cinema, contemplative cinema, etc. would prefer JD.
@@frankd1565 Phew, that actually worked, anyways, if you do seek out JD I hope you end up enjoying it, but clearly not for everyone.
@@frankd1565 Funny of you to say that, Warhol's Sleep (1964) lasted 5 hours 20 minutes.
Another brilliant analysis! 👏
Thank you for this video, it's true many times we feel obligated to waist time watching "good" or "important" movies. Watching from Bolivia 🇧🇴
"Jeanne Dielman" is less cinema than it is surveillance camera footage. There are scores of films that didn't make the list that are light years better (Dr. Strangelove, Lawrence of Arabia, Yojimbo, High and Low, Nights of Cabiria, for starters).
For someone who calls himself a cinephile, you made a really simplistic analysis of the movie. It was nice to see you mention some relevant (and good) characteristics of it, though. But most of these judgemental comments seem pure laziness and I believe this movie demands a little more than that.
Nice that you gave all these iron arguments on why you think it's "simplistic"
And hilarious how "simplistic" is a hit on him while you're talking about 3.5hr movie about making meatloaf lmao
@@czwarty7878ok.
I don't think you need to be smart or artsy to enjoy this movie, the movie is super interesting if you try to put yourself in the shoes of her actions, then you gain an appreciation for the sheer energy it takes for her to get through her day. The movie is not a test of patience. Instead it challenges it's audience by asking "how long are you going to sit there bored before you try to open your eyes to her a little more?"
This is my exact thought when I hear people call this boring or mind-numbing.
It's a great work of art about women rather than a boring film about repetition and potato peeling.
It resonates in the psyche long after it's finished. Like some kind of assault you've experienced but were unaware of it taking place.
Thankfully, most of us understand the concept of repetition, even obsessive compulsive behavior. A boring 3.4 hr movie about it is a waste of valuable time imho. The other painfully predictable plot point, illicit sex and murder. So this is a snuff film pretending to be a psychological thriller wrapped in newspaper. OK.
@maguffintop2596
snuff film-
noun
INFORMAL
-a pornographic movie of an actual murder.
Dear Mr. Moviewise, the way you say the word ´boring´ is perfect. In future, I will try to pronounce it the same way.
My dad, who was very smart and well-educated, went to see this movie with his friend, Don, who was also extremely smart and well-educated. Don loved it and my dad thought it was awful. Which fit their personalities perfectly. Personally, I couldn’t watch it after ten minutes or so. It was subtle and nuanced, demanding an attentive palette and keen sensitivity, like an exceptionally fine wine. Except, I hate wine.
I think you've completely misunderstood the concept of this film. Jeanne Dielman is a housewife - so obviously the 'action' of the movie will be her doing housework. That's what stands out about this film, questioning the idea of what makes ACTION in. a film. Lots of 'actions' take place, but how many of them actually count?
This movie is for folks who think Andy Warhol’s film “Sleep” is too melodramatic
I watched Jeanne Dielman a few times - and that was long before it wound up number one on the BFI list. Yes, of course, the film violates nearly every convention of commercial cinema - and by intention. Because again - by definition, if not convention - the dull, repetitive depiction of a housewife's daily domestic life would seem by nature an unworthy subject of cinematic treatment. "Hell to that" replied Chantal Akerman. You're bored? Well pity.... Just imagine what existence is like for nearly half the globe's population on a daily basis. With that, Akerman challenges the unwritten rules of cinematic exclusion, pushes the boundaries of narrative and helps re-invent the temporal experience of what it means to watch a film. That's quite an achievement.
@@CRM-114 Sorry CRM, but I don't think you get it. The very idea of tedium changes the temporal experience of watching: the viewer learns to watch without the expectation of payoff that commercial cinema has mass trained audiences to expect. Television and movies have warped people's attention spans.
@@CRM-114 You haven't made any arguments.
@@CRM-114 So your "argument" is Chantal Akerman's movies are bad and boring and not art because she didn't make movies following mid-century industrial/commercial codes of cinematic narrative like Hitchcock?... Really? That's your argument?
I haven’t seen this movie, but listening to it described reminds me about the way I feel about conceptual art - if the concept is what’s important, rather than it’s execution (the craft that went into its creation), then why do you have to go to the trouble of making it, and why do I have to go to the trouble of seeing it? Just TELL me the concept and you’ll save both of us a lot of time.
Exactly. This movie is like one of those video installations you once came across in art museums, in one of those tiny white rooms with a 26" Sony Trinitron on a white box pedestal. You watch for a few minutes and leave. You circle back half an hour later and watch a few more minutes. You mutter "I don't get it" and go home.
You've got a point up to a point, but bear in mind that like other movements, the name 'conceptual art' wasn't dreamt up by the people who made the work and not all the work fits the idea that the concept is all. A lot of it was about an idea that could give you an experience, e.g. a shift in your perception.
I took my 8-year old nephew to Tate Modern the other day and he got it without me explaining it to him or telling him what he 'should' like. He was wildly excited by both paintings and conceptual works, and by the end he was simply declaring that everything was art. On the way home he was excitedly noticing all sorts of things and saying they were art. The art he'd seen had done the alchemical art job of heightening his perception and appreciation of 'ordinary' reality.
It's something I've experienced with a lot of slow movies, especially if I saw them in the cinema. It's like yoga for your short attention span: it stretches it out and at some point you go through a barrier, your own resistance breaks down and you relax and see things differently. It can be a superb experience.
The Turin Horse is one of the most cinematic cinema in cinematic history. Change my mind 🍺🍻
Your use of the "William Tell Overture" (the theme from "The Lone Ranger") was hilarious. It brought to mind the sex scene in "Clockwork Orange". And this is considered better than "Kane" or "Vertigo"? I saw the latter in the theater on its release. Didn't like it. But it grew on me as I grew up. And the final shot, of Jimmy Stewart (his "Scotty" was one sick puppy) is one that still haunts me. To jump, and end it all? Or to retreat, and have to live with the consequences of your obsession. Hitchcock at his best. And that is true greatness.
That last shot in 'Vertigo' of Scotty looking down -- what made it unforgettable to me was the fact that he was able to look down from that height, without getting dizzy. Just as a traumatic incident had given him vertigo, so another traumatic event cured him of it (a possibility which had been suggested in an early scene of the film).
“It’ll be different on the big screen…” my mind said. All right, so I attended the screening. At the last hour I was seriously…nearly agonizing from boredom. I was the first to leave after it was over…that last shot on the table…I’ve never witnessed anything so similar to purgatory.
how to get so near to getting the point and yet end up so far away
I saw this movie years ago, including a random "intermission" in the middle so we could pee. I was not the only person who thought that the break was some sort of performance, and that the film was over. I don't think I stayed, because I don't remember an utterly immoral murder at the end.
It's trash. Its recent elevation to "best film" is a patronizing joke, a desperate attempt to prove there have always been great but unrecognized women directors.
Thank you very much for the nice reactionary take on a serious work; insulting a female director on a work of particular purpose is a very fine display of critical acumen. I'm sure it's only coincidental that you're a male and seemingly misunderstanding the work on purpose. I especially appreciated you calling the protagonist a whore when bringing up that she's a sex worker; this is the kind of measured, noninflammatory language that we need more of in film analysis.
I hope Sight and Sound pays close attention to your faultless and unbiased in the extreme review and reviews their entire process of doing these things in the future. Contrarianism is the height of intellectual sophistication and should be the standard of critical discourse, as demonstrated by your masterpiece of critical insight.
Masterpiece but not the greatest filmi of all time
You simply don't get it 😮
Somebody’s pretentious
You know, though you hated It, you still made me super curious to Watch It. More than Fight and Sound did. And, I have to admit, I kinda liked It, like a lot. Appreciate your thoughts though bro
The problem is not really the film on its own or its themes.
It's the fact that out of nowhere, the film shoots straight to the top of a high profile best films of all time list - not at #4, not at #8, or #3 , but #1, at the very top. Highly suspicious. Is it because the film is an undiscovered, underappreciated gem that has been neglected all this time? For a film of this type to be maneuvered straight to #1, in 2022 in particular, reeks of politics. The film fits conveniently into a current day agenda that's being pushed everywhere lately, so in that sense it's not surprising at all. A film's content can be political, sure, many are, I'm not arguing that. But it's obvious that the film itself is being co-opted & reframed to fit modern day feminist politics.
You could easily document a man's mundane, tedious, soul crushing everyday routine working as an office drone over the course of his lifetime to support his family. Men have had miserable & boring lives too, but of course that's not part of the current victim narrative in 2022.
No, you’ve just misread the situation is all
Not out of nowhere at all
Oh yeah cause no films have ever been made about a man’s plight…except maybe Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Born on the Fourth of July, Apocalypse Now, Fight Club, It’s a Wonderful Life, Citizen Kane, Mean Streets, Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, every gangster movie ever, every war movie ever, 90% of all superhero movies and The Godfather.
And by the way you only need three words not three paragraphs to say “I hate women”
It’s been my favorite film or 2nd favorite film since I was 23. And Alien/Aliens, Predator, and Rocky are some of my favorite films, so, it’s not like all I watch is shitty pretentious films. But it’s easy to grab someone’s attention and being interesting with explosions, gun fire, blood, and kills. If you can be just as gripping without most of those things, then you’re a much better film. I also direct films in the vein of directors like - Christopher Guest, Barry Levinson, John Landis, Joe Dante, John Carpenter, Alfred Hitchcock and Mel Brooks. (I do comedy, horror, thrillers, action, and sci-fi.)
The movie is still ranked #4 on the director's list so your argument about this, being journalistic propaganda, is gone
Good lord my stomach hurt watching this, thank you so much hahaha
This film has an audacious concept and pulls it off in spades. A character study grappling with existential dread and presented in a manner that allows the viewer to feel it. An extraordinary achievement in filmmaking.
Turin horse wind (8'55"+), the foreground stuff is being affected but the trees waaaay back there are still.
Woahhhhh
I love this guy. Keep doing what you're doing, man. You deserve more subscribers and will pick them up over time if you keep producing this kind of quality.
These comments drive me nuts. The "message" isn't even significant at all. She's a widow. There is no "patriarchal" husband making her do anything. Anyone who lives in a house does chores. Anyone who has a child does chores. Oh boo hoo, she feels trapped!! We need to watch this to know that women, specifically, do chores sometimes and that chores are boring! How else could we know??
Middle aged white men are insecure...do we need to make hundreds of film's about this?
@@marknewbold2583Mark are you dumb?
I hit subscribe halfway through this video. Thank you for the sage, succinct, and hilarious synopsis of Jeanne Dielman 23, Quai du Commerce 1080 Bruxelles. As you say, even the title is boring.
. Maybe the title isn’t trying to be exciting, maybe it’s trying to be matter of fact.
@@MrShakespearefan Well, bra-f***ing-vo, Chantal.
This movie is an absolute masterpiece. Playing with emotions IS one of this movie’s aims and it does it in the most shocking and efficient way.
Yes, it’s long. Yes, it’s repetitive. That’s the point. The more you look at the details, the more nothing is the same.
I repeat, this is a MASTERPIECE. I SAID WHAT I SAID!
Do you have anything to say about "The Last Picture Show"
It's a masterpiece not worst at all
It's a proscenium arch. It's though someone decided to film a theatre play but also decided the play would have no plot and go on for hours.
This is the kind of thing they try to shake out of you at film school ;)
What came to mind after watching this analysis was the "A Joke by Ingmar Bergman" sketch on Mystery Science Theater 3000.
Sucks to hear you didn't like it
Sucks to hear someone did.
@@denroy3 loved it, was absolutely hypnotized the whole 3 hours
Sight and Sound has a critics list and a directors list. It tied for fourth place on the directors list. I haven’t seen it but this makes me assume it must be somewhat decent
It's a brilliant film
This guy has no clue what he’s talking about. But, we all have blindspots.
The way he criticized this, it’s like someone else is using his account.
It’s been one of my favorite films since I was 22-23.
@@anadamvargasblunthe's is reactionary conservative, that's why
News from home by her was my favourite film I saw last year
I got the point of the movie, however, is not a film I would watch again. Saying this is the best movie of all time was completely ridiculous, I know tons of movies that you can rewatch over and over again, but this was painful to watch just once. As I say, I got the point, but there's no way you can consider this as the best movie ever, not even in the top 10.
I think it just depends what one subjectively values in a movie, like I'd personally put zero value on rewatchablity as I usually can't stand repeating movies until I've almost entirely forgot them 😅
It figures that in this day and age, they would pick an obscure, pretentious movie from the 70s about a wh 00 re having sex and killing a man as the "greatest movie of all time". In any other "normal" time, people wouldn't even give this film a second thought, but because we now live in a world ruled by pretentiousness and feminism, people have to label garbage like this as "genius". Kill me now.
I don’t think you’ve actually seen the movie 💀
I don't want to. I read a synopsis on wikipedia and that's all I need to know.@@chrisneon1220
@@James-if3kc you really are the type of person to judge a movie based on its synposis on wikipedia ?
@@faissal3055 I've read a lot more than that. Read a lot of reviews of it that basically say the same thing I did. Long, plodding, no story, boring. If that kind of thing is your cup of tea, then I feel sorry for you.
@@chrisneon1220 Don't need to, don't want to.
It's hard watching someone describe a point word for word throughout an entire essay and still manage to miss it lmao
You actively mention the point of the film and why it works so well and argue that these are flaws. I'm positive you understand that the film is meant to walk us through this woman's miserable and boring life. And that it's purpose is to make the viewer feel just like her. It's not supposed to be fun or entertaining or even easy to get though. Akerman had no intention of making it pleasant to watch; you're meant to feel trapped and stagnant and like you're wasting your time because that is what this woman is going through daily. She feels as though she is /wasting her life/. You even made this the big final selling point of your essay! That you felt like you were wasting you life! I'd argue that that is the director's intention and the entire point of the film! To make you feel just like this housewife trapped in her routine.
This film was never meant to be entertaining, it was meant to give the viewer a glimpse into the daily tedium and monotony that the character (and any woman like her) goes through. This was a way for a woman in the 70s to illustrate and document the realities of a housewife at that time, and this, through the medium of cinema. She obviously conveys this feeling very effectively, since almost all of these "flaws" you've mentioned are intentional and drive home Akerman's message. The still shots, the lack of music, the long runtime, showing every chore being done in it's entirety, these are supposed to make the film hard to watch and miserable to get through; it's meant to feel like... a chore.
If you don't enjoy the film, I think that's just fine. I'd really argue you really aren't supposed to. But your arguments for it "not working"
are precisely what make it work. It achieved its purpose of making you feel the way Jeanne Dielman feels, bored, trapped, annoyed, whatever.
Is it deserving of the title of best movie? That can so easily be debated, but your claims that it "doesn't work" are a little silly given the justification you provide.
Also i guess as a final note, is there not something poetic (and reflective of the film itself) in feeling the need to really appreciate the visuals in order to get through it, in really taking in the things sometimes taken for granted, as a last resort to make something so tedious a little bit more bearable? I dunno, I think there's a lot admire about this movie and its success in making the viewer /feel/. Even this annoyance you seem to aim at the director for making such a boring movie, and the frustration with having to sit through it, I'm sure these emotions aren't too far from what housewives of the time felt, maybe toward their husbands or God or society (🤡) or simply themselves. I dunno. Art isn't limited to what's on a screen or in a frame or in sheet music or in a book, the viewer's reaction can and should be part of the work (especially in this case), whether intended by the author or not.
(That last part might be a little too corny or far fetched but hey, that's how I like to see art haha)
You don't have to like the film! Not all art is meant to be liked! Sometimes it's just meant to make you feel. (and boredom is indeed a feeling haha)
It's quite funny to argue against the movie because it backfires to make you feel like a hypocrite.
"the movie was boring" VS "The movie was meant to be boring".
I can just skip the movie to the end and know the story because nothing happens. That's not a "best" titled movie that's a video clip played over again and again.
Its trolling us for over 3 hours. I can watch two movies in that time! It doesn't feel fair to say that this is the peak amongst others.
I don't think he missed the point, we get what the film is doing, we just think that doing that with a film is stupid.
@@vodkatonyq Because sitting through 3 hours of an experience that is intentionally boring and unpleasant just to convey a point is stupid.
@@vodkatonyq What did you get from it?
@@vodkatonyq "the dehumanization that people and women endure through the entrapment of daily routines and how this dehumanization has been normalized. This film shows that seemingly placid domesticity harbors fast unnoticeable psychological violence and dehumanization."
Yes, this is "the point" that I referred to in my previous message. I got that part, we all got that part. And we still think it's stupid to make an intentionally boring film to convey that point.
Seems like you may have missed the point.
You seem rather dismissive to the concept of outside details like gender/feminism being noteworthy in film, although the contexts of what was made by who are relevant to the information being conveyed and the intended audience it is being conveyed to. For example, if you were a white European man, watching an indie film directed by an American black director, set within a specific region/context and intended for an American black audience, then there's a good chance there will be a lot of introspective ideas that you won't be privy to due to your specific experiences or more specifically lack of. There are also additional contexts that could be relevant, who has access to films, and what stipulations surround that access? These are some of the many real-world factors that are valuable to film critique and review as they can offer a wealth of insight that enriches the process of consuming art.
Yes, a director with specific life experience can then convey it to an audience without said experience through the medium of film but A. there's no obligation to and B. often doing so waters down artistic intent, methodology or quality of the message as serving more people requires appealing to popularity, not art. In this case, the context of 70's in relation to the rise of modernism in the film along with commentary about expectations of women in relation to societal roles, plus potential regional differences are important in relation to intent and ideas conveyed. This doesn't mean you have to have been a Belgian woman in the 70's to grasp the film but rather you must engage with it empathically, with a willingness to broaden your horizons, to understand why it is a 'feminist film' and the specific relevance of it being one has to the images being shown in such a slow unravelling pattern.
It's bold, and simply arrogant to refer offhandedly to said context as 'non-cinematic reasons' for liking the film. The artist and their background/lived experience are as important to the art as the actual products they create. Trying to belittle feminist filmmaking in this instance into something throw-away, not even up for discussion, simply equivalent to some dated meme of a woman shouting, it is simply not a good media critique. It's actually quite disappointing considering how invested in the subject of film critique you seem to be.
Yet personal bias, limitations, and clear lack of interest make it very clear why you didn't grasp the point of this film and viewed it as a waste of not only your time but anybody who sees it (a big claim not backed up well in your argument, an argument that was tacked on the end with platitudes). That and comparing it to 'The Turin Horse' is apples to oranges, vastly different films thematically with vastly different intentions, the connections you make between the two films in this video are surface level at best and showcase a poor understanding of both as a result. Applying the style of one to the other would completely change the meaning and intentions yet doing exactly that ends up being your conclusion, which can only make sense if you didn't grasp those intentions to begin with. If Jeanne Dielman is not for you that is fine, but instead, you place yourself as the definitive target audience who can speak on behalf of all viewers alike when dismissing the film, and concluding the relevance of feminism within it is not even worth discussing because 'blah blah feminism'. It shows a clear limitation with your ability to read films.
This is the best and most clearly stated contrary comment to the video, and you, therefore, deserve an answer.
It's common to expect that the artist's cultural/societal environment must be given emphasis when evaluating their work. This expectation is repeatedly given as the norm and when a review/analysis/essay ignores it, the text is considered a failure which neglects a supposedly mandatory aspect of artistic criticism. This is your point of view about the video.
However, giving such importance to the "context" is an extremely recent trend. It was mostly born from post-structuralism, a theoretical movement that arrived in the 1950s and took over the world of academia and cultural criticism. Now it's taken for granted that every work of art is the product of its environment. You claim that the "artist and their background/lived experience are as important to the art as the actual products they create" which makes perfectly clear how post-structuralism is ingrained in your beliefs, whether you know it or not.
You speak of empathy and of broadening horizons and you say I have a "limitation" in reading films when you wholeheartedly defend one highly specific and trendy way of looking at art and culture. There are different stances.
I defend that a work of art must be examined by itself, alone, in a vacuum. This has been the predominant view of artistic criticism throughout history and it's easy to understand why. A classic (be it film, literature or any form of art) is a classic when it's made and in any other era, and the reasons are always aesthetic, never contextual.
Imagine, 500 years from now, the vast amount of films a viewer will have to choose. Will he have to read an essay about the cultural landscape of each and every movie he considers watching? Being an educated movie-goer would become unfeasible. A film must speak for itself, through effective use of narrative and cinematic language. A classic will always be modern. Nobody needs to read in depth about late medieval Italian society and Aquinas-influenced theology to appreciate "The Divine Comedy", as you don't need to know anything about 1930s French society or even poetic realism in general to find merit in "The Rules of the Game".
Your belief that "Jeanne Dielman" and "The Turin Horse" cannot be compared because of different intentions is a non-argument presented as undefended fact. Do you deny their similarities? Do you seriously claim they do not feature comparable plot structures, scenes, actions and timing? Many commenters here mentioned that Béla Tarr considers Akerman an influence of his, but that's not enough for you?
If films can only be compared to others with the same intention - whatever you consider that to be for "The Turin Horse" - then can "Jeanne Dielman" only be compared to other Belgian feminist films? Could you compare it to the work of, for example, Lina Wertmüller, who's also an important European female filmmaker from the 1970s, even though she's utterly uninterested in feminism?
Your insistence on "intention" is so limiting as to make comparisons between films impossible. The only intention that matters is this: making good art.
I am confident enough in my knowledge of film to state and explain discernable reasons that cause them to fail or succeed. I believe "Jeanne Dielman" fails and "The Turin Horse" succeeds. These reasons are always narrative and technical; never cultural. Narrative and technique belong to the movie; culture is outside it. Does it influence the art? Definetely, but it influences every single work of art from the same time and place. It's a type of greatest maximum divisor; it can be removed. Using feminist theory does not explain why Akerman is more important and influential than, say, Helma Sanders-Brahms; using narrative/technical analysis does.
"Jeanne Dielman" does contain aesthetic merit, which I point out in the video, but those who most ardently defend the film base their defence on nothing but intention and cultural/political context.
As Harold Bloom said: A feminist reading of "Hamlet" will tell you a lot about feminism, but nothing about "Hamlet".
In any case, thank you for such a lucid and articulate comment.
@@Moviewise in other words:
my Eurocentric beliefs (definitely not ideology) are superior than post structuralists (ideology), recency = not important, you harshly criticizing me means your the one not empathetic not me, I will only think of films in a vacuum because otherwise it requires effort to think and challenging my beliefs is hard, and music and camera movement is what makes movies work so Jeanne Dielman bad.
10/10 you really gottem chief
This made me want to watch Jeanne Dielmann! It looks really interesting. Love a bit of cruelty theatre. Stopped watching when you put the note up about The Turin Horse as I haven’t seen that and don’t want it spoilt… shame you didn’t say you would spoil JD!
To be fair, Satan needs content for Hell's streaming service.
very true.
I love potatoes.
Never seen this movie or heard of it.
Meatloaf. I love Meatloaf.
Dementia? Manic depression?
Never heard of this movie until I watched the 2022 list video. I'd skimmed the list on and off for years and hadn't even noticed this one. I thought maybe they'd put Rules of the Game or Toyko Story at number one for a change.
I highly disagree with this review. It uses unoriginal arguments, when it does argue smth, and otherwise uses "comic" cut-aways as if to make an unprecise point. Thank you for highlighting the film, though.
"Jeanne Dielmann" is a highly original film in the landscape of world cinema. Its naturalism and slear story, the details of the set and the acting of Delphine Seyrig make it all a unique experience. It was a wonderful break from all the films with the expected elements in them (music, speed, intense continuity style etc.) Once I started watching it, and only watching it, I became entranced with the actions of the characters and I enjoyed the 3 hours of living in Bruxelles in the 1970s.
Had it been released today, it would become a tik tok challenge to watch it without sleeping. People had too much patience to watch this back then.
(Btw as always, a great vid moviewise! )
brilliant
I feel the opposite. I feel people don’t have enough patience nowadays.
“People had too much patience to watch this back then.”
In what universe?
My brain capsized with boredom.
It would be actually kind of cool if we could get your top picks of best directed films
I'm willing to bet that this video is more entertaining than the film.
Watching paint dry is more entertaining than the film.
Imagine needing a film to be entertaining
Bruh it's an art film.
@@ocho33 :D :D
I guarantee it is.
Movies are not supposed to entertaining, what are you a toddler ?
"Ackerman" isn't a Belgian name.
Sometimes great art is killed by not having the right rhythm... imagine Beethoven's 9th being only 5min long, or Lady Gaga's pop hits being as long as Pink Floyd's Dogs. They wouldn't work!
I had to 2x the movie
I practically worship Alfred Hitchcock. But Jeanne Dielman is a better film than Vertigo, a previous Best Film selection. Critics slobber over Vertigo because they like to see it as a film about filmmaking.
I haven't seen Jeanne Dielman yet, but even though I love Hitchcock and do think Vertigo is a masterpiece, it has always rubbed me the wrong way that a film about a middle aged man obsessed with a young blonde he barely knows, to the point of metaphorical necrophilia, was judged the "greatest of all time." Isn't there something else that captures more of the truth of human experience? I've never connected with Citizen Kane, although I admire its technical merits. I guess my point is, is ranking great movies even a worthwhile exercise? Any #1 is going to be lacking.
I think because it’s Jimmy Stewart, people miss that you’re supposed to view him as a sicko. But because Jimmy Stewart does his Jimmy Stewart thing, people find the film to be romantic, which is like, huh? What film are you watching? It’s the beginning of Hitchcock’s films about Paychopaths, Psycho, obviously being the follow up to this. He had another he was going to do, about a stalker in NY, but his producers stopped him, after he did location scouting for it in NYC. It was going to be his first film not filmed on a sound stage. But yeah, this this film is romantic, is like missing the point of American Psycho.
@@anadamvargasblunt Great points. Strangers on a Train and Shadow of a Doubt feature clearly psychopathic characters, even if they are charming and even sympathetic at first glance. But I will give Jimmy Stewart credit. He tries to play against his good guy persona to depict a man almost consumed by his obsessions.
Thank you for bringing "The Turin Horse" to my attention and that of others, probably. I will check it out.
Great great film, I'm glad It was chosen
6:01 I spent some time in Antwerp recently, and I think I recognise that square from there, not Brussels.
"Wasting my life" is the whole point of Jeanne Dielman, and precisely how Ackerman made it so real.
A brilliant and innovative film. It will only increase its reputation and standing as it is more widely viewed. Also Delphine Seyrig gives the greatest performance on film
yOu jUst dIdN'T uNdErStAnD iT!. iT's sUbvErSiVe mAsTeRpiEcE!
It's not subversive, it's just a masterpiece
What was the plotpoint of her turning the lights off?
FINALLY! Someone said it!
Great Review of a Terrible Movie
The term feminism has become so vague that anything depicting a woman can be seen that way. This superficial trend started in the 70s obviously.
You would have rarely seen such meticulous filmmaking! 😍 This is Chantal Akerman's love letter to all mothers! I love this Film so much! This is masterpiece beyond imagination even better than citizen Kane, vertigo!
Agreed. I don’t know how his take away was, I can’t believe how long this was. At the time this came out, it was common for most films to be 110-120 mins. So, for audiences of the time, it was not much longer. But the thing is, Jeanne Dielman says so much, with so little. It’s an exercise not in patients, but in observation. After she’s assaulted by the second client, it throws her whole world off. It becomes the most intense/emotional dinner prep you’ve ever seen.
I have not laughed this much in a video essay 🤣🤣🤣 Thanks.
This is the best film of all time? This, if nothing else, proves the crisis in western civilization.
The crisis in western civilization is…a woman getting the number #1 spot on a random respected film list?
After watching a few thousand movies, it just gives a very different emotional experience than almost all the rest which I think alone is one of the reasons it's ranked so high
*Hate back.*
It works for me.
4:30 She didn't rinse all the suds off
I think the best way to watch this would be as a three episode mini-series, a format not available at the time....
What are you talking about? Mini-series have existed for decades and did so in the 1970s. Did you think they were invented yesterday?
@@MidlifeCrisisJoe Got a list of Belgian mini-series from the 1970s?
local productions were an exception in 1970s Europe when a country had maybe two channels...
@@cliffarroyo9554 L'education Sentimentale
Deux Ans de Vacances
Joseph Balsamo
I’m with all the folks talking about a disingenuous argument. “JD” is clearly designed differently than any and all the movies you compare it to. That’s a feature, not a bug.
You can dislike it, but you might explore the reasons why you dislike it, or why it made you uncomfortable, beyond “they don’t move the camera.”
The fact that S&S diversified their polling allows for more voices, and therefore, a different list based on new values.
In this entire video, it argues all the reasons why "JD" should not be considered the best film, but it never entertains the idea that maybe some people really feel that way. Or "Black Girl." Or "Get Out." It's possible. "JD" is certainly the most challenging movie I've seen in a long while, and all of that is by design.
I don't think it's fair to dismiss someone's choices -- artistic or voting -- just because they don't align to your own.
Also you forgot to say "I'm not anti-woman BUT..." and "My one black friend says...."
09:40 So, you feel watching this film made you feel you were “wasting your life.” Do you think the heroine of this film was wasting her life by devoting it to being of service to her son? Everything she does over the course of her days is to sustain and improve his life.
If a parent can't find meaning by looking after their own child, what possible meaning could they ever find anywhere?
Even if that meant she was wasting her life, which it obviously doesn’t, what’s your point? Why would I want to watch someone wasting their life away?
There is absolutely no need for you to be a joyless pedantic perfectionist to look after your offspring. In fact, you usually do a lot better job of it if you aren't.
Thank you, Mysterious Algorithm. I don't know why your stuff came up on my feed but I am enjoying it very much so far! GJ
Sounds like a purely political situation that will not endure. It will be gone from the list in time.
It was still on the top 100 list 20 years ago, its just climbed each time the pool of film professionals polled increased in size.
@@maddiekits Right, purely political.
@@MJanovicable Nah the film has been notable for decades and the polling for list wasn't very refined till recently. Its ranking has increased as the polling for the list actually became more representative of average critics and film academics.
As a Belgian, I think that this film, that "nomination" is a SHAM & a SHAME!! Infinitely BORING as hell, just like Belgium🇧🇪 itself, really!...
That took an unexpected detour!
I sat through this at the cinema. Where do I get my badge?
🎖
You don’t get one.
Great essay! We actually looked at this during A-Level Film Studies for its 'composition' but I soon realised that Film Studies had actually been usurped by the Gender Studies department somehow. That said it's so boring there's little else to focus on than the composition so big success.
@@dthomscappello Maybe if you study hard enough you'll develop a sense of humour and then people may actually want to talk to you. If you really work at it you might even get a grip on 'irony' and then the sky's the limit for poor lonely Donal.
@@dthomscappello He said, ironically.
Wow, this pretty much sums up exactly how I feel, in a way I could never have completely expressed on my own. I’m glad I watched this.
One thing I know, Never put raw onion in a meatloaf, I will never watch this film,
We had to watch this awful thing in film school.... and then write about it.
Can you just repeat the word "boring" 5000 times and get credit for it?
And it totally fails in the goal to make you feel sympathy for the daily domestic plight of the woman. There is nothing there to make you care about her, it is just tedium. The only enjoyment is when it finally ends and you can go do anything else.
I think you should drop out or something, If your view on cinema is actually based these boring ass, dumb categories.
- oMG iM So BoREd
- ThIS MoVie FaILs TO mAKe yOu SyMpAtHEtIc
This is amazing. You're great. I am amazed.
Sorry about your school experience. Give it another go?
@@richardabbott1261 the school was fine, that attempt at a film was not - like others have said, the only reason this "film" has jumped up the best film list is because of toxic wokeness.
sorry about your awful experience with exploratory anal surgery; give it another go? ha
Calling a movie boring is a boring opinion.
@@MrShakespearefanthen that opinion completely fits the tone of the movie. The concept and idea are interesting; but the execution of that idea does not make for a riveting viewing experience. Are you really going to be on the edge of your seat as she peels potatoes or does the dishes with virtually no dialogue or soundtrack? This movie has already taken up too much real estate in my mind; spending the hours watching it, then writing a 20 page paper about it - calling it "boring" and leaving it at that seemed like just enough.
This film is not for Superficial viewer
yeah it is for pretentious filmbros who can jerk off each other pretending they see depth in 3.4 hour footage of woman peeling potatoes
Great essay. And you're really funny! But oh so true and you speak wisely my dear fellow. 😅
Thank you and welcome to the channel!
1:48 in a nutshell😂😂😂😂😂
A film built on the feminist myth that living a boring, unfulfilling life is exclusive to housewives and that housewives exclusively live boring, unfulfilling lives.
Does it say that? No
No, it’s saying that people like you believe in the fantasy that women should be at home and do chores all day in a Nuclear Family utopia is a sham. It’s not that women can’t enjoy being housewives, but the burden and oppressive nature of them and the mental tax of being there is absolutely heinous. Watch the movie, read what scholars think about it, then make up your mind, rather than drinking the rotten kool aid of a dying fantasy.
It looks like "The Room" on downers.