Attack-Free Unpopular Opinion Thread

[Irish]

Irish, did you make an edit before I could comment that they would’ve been digging in the right place if Jr hadn’t shown up?

Yah. I didn't want to jump in the middle of the convo between Duke and Ezee and start waving my arms and shouting. I'm in waaaaaay too argumentative a mood this morning to discuss Indiana Jones on the internet. :P

[Irish]

Even before widescreen TVs existed, before I realized that the aspect ratio in theaters was different than home VHS, before I even knew what Pan and Scan was, I found it incredibly distracting and unnatural. I remember watching ET and being so annoyed by it.

Oh my God you were a weird kid ;D

Then there was this one store in the mall that sold incredibly expensive VHS tapes that were ALL widescreen. I purchased my first one: Goldeneye back in 1996 and felt like I was in heaven.

This explains a lot about your current home theater set-up

[transmogrifier]

Pan and scan is the worst. Hell, my Korean streaming site has a few 2.35 movies cropped to 1.85 for some stupid reason, and that shit gets turned off as soon as I realize.

[Dukefrukem]

Oh my God you were a weird kid ;D

This explains a lot about your current home theater set-up

I was lucky that Goldeneye was the ONLY one I ever purchased. Three years later, DVD hit mainstream and (almost) every movie came letterboxed. That's when I became collection obsessed.

I still remember buying the Phantom Menace on VHS, bringing it home and realizing it was 4:3. I may have cried. It took Lucas 10 years before he released that movie on DVD.

[Spinal]

My unpopular David Lynch opinion is that Inland Empire is every bit the masterpiece that Mulholland Dr. is.

[PURPLE]

Personally, I'm not convinced there's a coherent philosophy or method underpinning the work of all the directors listed on the site you provided a link to. If there were, we wouldn't need so many of them.

That's true, to a point. It's also true to a point that the philosophy is of the viewer in the approach to the films, not of the director, and the viewer is the one selecting those films to categorize. It's also true that much of why this is a contemporary movement and not merely a continuation of something dominant in early film is that the style is in part a reaction to or an outgrowth from the dominant trends in cinema which are decidedly fast and mind-numbing. That nothing is definitive isn't necessarily a drawback to a categorization since it is in fact a necessity.

I looked at that list and I realized I still don't get what the hell slow cinema even means.

Well, if you haven't seen the films labeled as such then it's not really possible to know. Here's a description:

http://unspokencinema.blogspot.com/2...m-profile.html

For what it's worth, I disagree entirely with the alienation point. I'd say Mother and Son is the best example of such a film for me, both in terms of style and in terms of quality, and it's about the opposite of alienation. It also represents an example for me the variability of experience with a film like that: The first time I watched it I was bored and too slow, the second time I watched it I thought it was one of the best films ever made and would watch it again repeatedly for the rest of my life - but only in the right mood.

Once you love slow cinema, then it's time for Satantango!

[Ivan Drago]

So my Hot Rod claim was not all that unpopular after all. So let's go with:

1. Batman Returns > Batman > The Dark Knight Rises > The Dark Knight

While I disagree with the placement of The Dark Knight, I DO second that Batman Returns is the best Batman movie.

[Grouchy]

I think I already said this on this site, but once I realized about the difference in aspect ratios as a kid, I couldn't stop thinking about it and everytime I went to the theaters I pictured how it would look without the side information.

[Skitch]

Dont get me wrong, I don't like pan and scan. Full frame is less obnoxious. And I'm selective with my VHS purchases. If its some movie thats awesome it deserves to be viewed in best quality. But 80s Van Damme and Segal movies are just fine in VHS. Its a very nostalgia feeding kind of thing. So many movies I rented so many times from the video store...to return to the format is mostly a wonderful little taste of childhood. I even rewatched the original Star Wars trilogy because I found copies of the original releases. A buddy even sent me a factory sealed copy of Empire (no I didn't open it, I rewatched my trilogy set version). Its a funny thing to hold a copy of Empire on tape that has never been viewed by human eyes.

[baby doll]

That's true, to a point. It's also true to a point that the philosophy is of the viewer in the approach to the films, not of the director, and the viewer is the one selecting those films to categorize. It's also true that much of why this is a contemporary movement and not merely a continuation of something dominant in early film is that the style is in part a reaction to or an outgrowth from the dominant trends in cinema which are decidedly fast and mind-numbing. That nothing is definitive isn't necessarily a drawback to a categorization since it is in fact a necessity.

Apart from fundamentally disagreeing with the premise that fast equals mind-numbing (is His Girl Friday a mind-numbing film?), I'm not sure how useful it is to think of slow/contemplative/long take films simply as a rejection of the dominant cinema, as this doesn't tell us anything useful about how these films work on the spectator, which varies considerably from film to film. In other words, it's a purely negative definition (plotlessness, wordlessness), and one that suggests any departure from mainstream practice is inherently a good thing (i.e., slower equals better). It also fails to take into account the international festival circuit as an alternative distribution network that finances, promotes, and exhibits certain kinds of films and fosters audiences to support them.

Well, if you haven't seen the films labeled as such then it's not really possible to know. Here's a description:

http://unspokencinema.blogspot.com/2...m-profile.html

For what it's worth, I disagree entirely with the alienation point. I'd say Mother and Son is the best example of such a film for me, both in terms of style and in terms of quality, and it's about the opposite of alienation. It also represents an example for me the variability of experience with a film like that: The first time I watched it I was bored and too slow, the second time I watched it I thought it was one of the best films ever made and would watch it again repeatedly for the rest of my life - but only in the right mood.

Once you love slow cinema, then it's time for Satantango!

Just FYI, I'm told Verfremdungseffekt doesn't mean "alienation" or "estrangement" (as it's often translated as), but something closer to defamiliarization. Also, Brecht was adamant that plays need to be entertaining.

[Skitch]

Some films are fast paced. Some are slow paced. Neither adjective is intrinsically a good or bad thing. In some cases either is a positive, in some cases either is a negative. This is a weird argument.

[PURPLE]

Apart from fundamentally disagreeing with the premise that fast equals mind-numbing (is His Girl Friday a mind-numbing film?), I'm not sure how useful it is to think of slow/contemplative/long take films simply as a rejection of the dominant cinema, as this doesn't tell us anything useful about how these films work on the spectator, which varies considerably from film to film. In other words, it's a purely negative definition (plotlessness, wordlessness), and one that suggests any departure from mainstream practice is inherently a good thing (i.e., slower equals better). It also fails to take into account the international festival circuit as an alternative distribution network that finances, promotes, and exhibits certain kinds of films and fosters audiences to support them.

When I said "mind-numbing" I didn't say "all films that are not slow are inherently and always mind-numbing". I would certainly say that a film like His Girl Friday requires constant attention to the goings-on-of-the-film and does not allow space for contemplation, though.

As for the descriptive terms, I agree that they imply a moving-away-from the standard type of cinema. This is certainly what the author is trying to do with these terms, and this is certainly what I experienced as a viewer moving into these types of films - having to change the way my mind approached them. As such, the terms work, without regard to whether the filmmakers view their art in such terms. Many do, it must be said. I see no reason whatsoever to imply that this means that such things are inherently good. I certainly don't think they are, and I certainly don't think the terms do, either. I could certainly argue that some of the aspects better lend themselves to a more personal, rewarding experience, though that would be my opinion and not a statement of necessity. I don't think your other points are necessarily damaging to the way the films are spoken of, either - this "alternative distribution network" is an alternative both to the mainstream and to the mainstream youth and to the niche youth. There is no distribution network for getting the kids hooked on Satantango. It is simply a fact that most every person who is going to watch an arthouse film will have an extensive amount of experience with mainstream films in their earlier period of life. Moving away from this type of film is not merely something that we experience in a vacuum as adults, it is a fact of life guaranteed by upbringing and indeed even by the history of literary and art education. Nobody begins with the avant garde, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Just FYI, I'm told Verfremdungseffekt doesn't mean "alienation" or "estrangement" (as it's often translated as), but something closer to defamiliarization. Also, Brecht was adamant that plays need to be entertaining.

I disagree with Brecht, and I certainly think there is more to the world than Brecthian epic theater, though I do love some epic theater.

Some films are fast paced. Some are slow paced. Neither adjective is intrinsically a good or bad thing. In some cases either is a positive, in some cases either is a negative. This is a weird argument.

I guarantee that most people would agree that the degree to which slow films are slow is intrinsically a bad thing. Show them the opening shot of Satantango and ask them if the slowness is inherently a problem. They'll say yes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXRxosazh6g

[Skitch]

"Most people" are not a legitimate barometer for anything.

[baby doll]

I would certainly say that a film like His Girl Friday requires constant attention to the goings-on-of-the-film and does not allow space for contemplation, though.

Aren't all films, fast or slow, in the business of engaging our attention? If I want to mentally zone out for a while, I don't have to be watching a movie.

As for the descriptive terms, I agree that they imply a moving-away-from the standard type of cinema. This is certainly what the author is trying to do with these terms, and this is certainly what I experienced as a viewer moving into these types of films - having to change the way my mind approached them. As such, the terms work, without regard to whether the filmmakers view their art in such terms. Many do, it must be said. I see no reason whatsoever to imply that this means that such things are inherently good. I certainly don't think they are, and I certainly don't think the terms do, either. I could certainly argue that some of the aspects better lend themselves to a more personal, rewarding experience, though that would be my opinion and not a statement of necessity. I don't think your other points are necessarily damaging to the way the films are spoken of, either - this "alternative distribution network" is an alternative both to the mainstream and to the mainstream youth and to the niche youth. There is no distribution network for getting the kids hooked on Satantango. It is simply a fact that most every person who is going to watch an arthouse film will have an extensive amount of experience with mainstream films in their earlier period of life. Moving away from this type of film is not merely something that we experience in a vacuum as adults, it is a fact of life guaranteed by upbringing and indeed even by the history of literary and art education. Nobody begins with the avant garde, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Putting aside the issue of whether classical narration is in fact some kind of universal standard, and not merely one mode of filmmaking among many whose historical pervasiveness is not necessary but contingent, the question for me is: "Moving away" from classical cinema to what exactly? As I see it, art cinema broadly and slow/contemplative/long take movies in particular are just another flexible set of conventions, which can be employed more or less imaginatively (as is the case with classical narration). My objection to terms like "slow" and "contemplative" cinema is that it implies a binary opposition between a "fast" commercial cinema and a "slow" art cinema.

I disagree with Brecht

On which point, that works of art need to be entertaining?

[PURPLE]

Aren't all films, fast or slow, in the business of engaging our attention? If I want to mentally zone out for a while, I don't have to be watching a movie.

That's quite the point of Contemporary Contemplative Cinema: It is emphasized that you needn't pay strict attention to everything going on, because there often isn't anything going on. Joe is quoted as being perfectly content if people fall asleep watching his films. If you want to zone out for a while, you don't have to be watching a movie, that is certain. It may be the case that watching a CCC film will instigate you into zoning out into a particular headspace that you wouldn't otherwise, and that can be a good accomplishment. After all, Brecht's epic theater is intentionally attempting to force people into a certain headspace so that they have to be at all times aware of the artificiality of the production. There are many ways to skin a cat. It may be the case that you, personally, do not want a film that will encourage you to space out. But there are certainly people that are not opposed to such things. I can attest that I am one of those people. It's as simple as that.

Putting aside the issue of whether classical narration is in fact some kind of universal standard, and not merely one mode of filmmaking among many whose historical pervasiveness is not necessary but contingent, the question for me is: "Moving away" from classical cinema to what exactly? As I see it, art cinema broadly and slow/contemplative/long take movies in particular are just another flexible set of conventions, which can be employed more or less imaginatively (as is the case with classical narration). My objection to terms like "slow" and "contemplative" cinema is that it implies a binary opposition between a "fast" commercial cinema and a "slow" art cinema.

I understand your objection, and I don't oppose you finding another set of terms that more accurately expresses your philosophy or point of view. I understand where the other terms are coming from and I don't have an issue and in fact find them helpful both for myself and for introducing others. To each his own, I guess.

On which point, that works of art need to be entertaining?

Yes, certainly, even vehemently.

[PURPLE]

"Most people" are not a legitimate barometer for anything.

They're not a barometer but a proof. As for your own barometer... you're free to see things as you like, it's fine by me.

[baby doll]

That's quite the point of Contemporary Contemplative Cinema: It is emphasized that you needn't pay strict attention to everything going on, because there often isn't anything going on. Joe is quoted as being perfectly content if people fall asleep watching his films. If you want to zone out for a while, you don't have to be watching a movie, that is certain. It may be the case that watching a CCC film will instigate you into zoning out into a particular headspace that you wouldn't otherwise, and that can be a good accomplishment. After all, Brecht's epic theater is intentionally attempting to force people into a certain headspace so that they have to be at all times aware of the artificiality of the production. There are many ways to skin a cat. It may be the case that you, personally, do not want a film that will encourage you to space out. But there are certainly people that are not opposed to such things. I can attest that I am one of those people. It's as simple as that.

Being aware of the artificiality of the production doesn't necessarily mean not attending to it. Furthermore, even if we take Weerasethakul at his word that he's fine with people falling asleep during his movies (and as a rule I tend to be skeptical of anything a filmmaker says about his or her own work), the question then becomes: (1) how does a certain film, as you say, instigate a particular kind of zoning out that is different from ordinary zoning out (or to put it another way, what's the difference between a good boring movie and a bad boring movie?), and (2) how specifically is this special kind of zoning out productive for the spectator?

As to the idea that there isn't anything going on in such films, I can think of numerous examples of films where a sparse style, rather than alienating me, elicits a different, but equally intense, form of engagement. In Jeanne Dielman, for instance, the repetition of daily chores sensitizes the spectator to minor variations in the heroine's behaviour and Akerman's framing across the film. In other words, rather than zoning out and thinking about something else, the film's minimalism is an invitation to scrutinize just noticeable differences--that is, to look more closely at the film, not less. Consequently, I don't find the film slow or empty or boring in the slightest, but rather enormously entertaining.

[PURPLE]

Being aware of the artificiality of the production doesn't necessarily mean not attending to it. Furthermore, even if we take Weerasethakul at his word that he's fine with people falling asleep during his movies (and as a rule I tend to be skeptical of anything a filmmaker says about his or her own work), the question then becomes: (1) how does a certain film, as you say, instigate a particular kind of zoning out that is different from ordinary zoning out (or to put it another way, what's the difference between a good boring movie and a bad boring movie?), and (2) how specifically is this special kind of zoning out productive for the spectator?

1.) I feel like you're not serious with this question. How does a certain film, that is not CCC, instigate a particular type of "paying attention" that is different from ordinary "paying attention"? Content. Of course, not all films that are strictly narrative and tied together so tightly that there's not a second of breathing room succeed in either preventing any and all contemplation in the viewer or in keeping the viewer's attention entirely tied up or in directing the viewer's attention to any one single line of thought. It is an arrangement of elements which may provoke a certain line of thought. It may provoke something else. It will, certainly, affect two different people entirely different. This is how art works. CCC is no different - it contains content, and that content will instigate some sort of reaction, and it may not instigate any reaction that would not have otherwise been instigated - but I can attest that it certainly does, to me, at least in some cases. Let's take Mother and Son: With the barest of details, it is a great conduit for pondering one's own relationship to family, to mortality, to tenderness, to generosity, etc. I don't think about that stuff all of the time - I am a cynical bastard. I also don't think about the same things each time I watch it - this might be a failure of a film that is trying to instigate a particular type of "paying attention", but I wouldn't put that to the discredit of a CCC film. If a CCC film works more like fertilizer than it does like a full grown tree, then that's completely fine by me. After all, many non CCC films don't bear new fruit on repeat watchings, so the fruit that you saw the first time is the fruit you get the next time, and often that fruit is rotten or has been eaten by worms in the meantime. With a CCC film you might find that your tree which was merely a sapling is now capable of holding a treehouse, or perhaps it is bearing a bountiful harvest of fruit.

(As for your parenthetical question, I would answer it this way: A good CCC is the fertilizer that I feel like is good for whatever reasons I personally like fertilizer. Now, sure, I know nothing about fertilizer, but if it grew good trees the first time then I will expect it to grow good or better trees the second time. I can't be sure. Sometimes fertilizer I thought wasn't good, like Mother and Son, turns out to be the best damn fertilizer there is. Is this a negative of the film, or of CCC films in general? I don't know, maybe, but life isn't perfect but Mother and Son sure is, now that I've figured out that it is the type of fertilizer I like. How do we know that we like anything, and how do we know that we'll like anything again a second time, and how do we know when our opinion will change from the first time to the second time without just trying it? Well, we know ourselves, to some degree, and we're wrong often, as well. It's the same process. You have some internal rubric with some vague ideas and it changes over time and you do whatever seems best at the time. This is the exact same process for all films, even if your rubric is different or has to expand from non-CCC films to CCC films, or to experimental films, or to musicals, or to silent films, etc. This process is always amorphous and ever-changing. CCC films are no exception - and they are also no exception, in that there's no one simple way for any person to differentiate between a good film and another. You make it up yourself, and it changes as you change.)

2. How is this type of zoning out productive? Well, contemplation is highly productive in terms of generating thoughts. I'm not sure that "productive" is the sole or even best way to judge it, though. How "productive" is watching His Girl Friday? It doesn't seem like a sensible question, to me, in this context. I've always found mere "diversionary entertainment" to be an "unproductive" waste of time, whereas any film that can, even if often indirectly and unintentionally, produce contemplation is far better than one that "produces" mere entertainment. That this is the goal of "finding films that fit into the CCC philosophy" (regardless of whether or not this is the intent of the author) seems to me a good thing, and this is why I seek them out. But, again, as in #1, that's a rule I made up myself, for myself.

As to the idea that there isn't anything going on in such films, I can think of numerous examples of films where a sparse style, rather than alienating me, elicits a different, but equally intense, form of engagement. In Jeanne Dielman, for instance, the repetition of daily chores sensitizes the spectator to minor variations in the heroine's behaviour and Akerman's framing across the film. In other words, rather than zoning out and thinking about something else, the film's minimalism is an invitation to scrutinize just noticeable differences--that is, to look more closely at the film, not less. Consequently, I don't find the film slow or empty or boring in the slightest, but rather enormously entertaining.

Sure, but I can't even bear the thought of watching the film because that sounds hideously boring to me, but I'm fully aware that this "contemplative space" or this "slowness" or this "entirely apt pacing for the content some particular films film which just so happens to be substantially slower than almost every mainstream film in existence" (or whatever term we're calling it) has lots of ways of being viewed and engaged with and appreciated. It may very well be that, to you, Jeanne Dielman is slow but not contemplative, or contemplative but not slow, I don't know. Nobody can force you to fit something into a box you don't like. I can't imagine that there's no film that you wouldn't find space to contemplate while watching, though, and for the purpose of this conversation about contemplative cinema that would probably be a far better example.

[transmogrifier]

As to the idea that there isn't anything going on in such films, I can think of numerous examples of films where a sparse style, rather than alienating me, elicits a different, but equally intense, form of engagement. In Jeanne Dielman, for instance, the repetition of daily chores sensitizes the spectator to minor variations in the heroine's behaviour and Akerman's framing across the film. In other words, rather than zoning out and thinking about something else, the film's minimalism is an invitation to scrutinize just noticeable differences--that is, to look more closely at the film, not less. Consequently, I don't find the film slow or empty or boring in the slightest, but rather enormously entertaining.

See, to me, that sounds like absolute torture. It is a type of cinema of no interest to me whatsoever.

[Skitch]

They're not a barometer but a proof. As for your own barometer... you're free to see things as you like, it's fine by me.

"Most people" select Brittany Spears as "good music". Quantity does not equal quality. If we're doing that then Transformers are awesome movies. Proofed

[baby doll]

1.) I feel like you're not serious with this question. How does a certain film, that is not CCC, instigate a particular type of "paying attention" that is different from ordinary "paying attention"? Content. Of course, not all films that are strictly narrative and tied together so tightly that there's not a second of breathing room succeed in either preventing any and all contemplation in the viewer or in keeping the viewer's attention entirely tied up or in directing the viewer's attention to any one single line of thought. It is an arrangement of elements which may provoke a certain line of thought. It may provoke something else. It will, certainly, affect two different people entirely different. This is how art works. CCC is no different - it contains content, and that content will instigate some sort of reaction, and it may not instigate any reaction that would not have otherwise been instigated - but I can attest that it certainly does, to me, at least in some cases. Let's take Mother and Son: With the barest of details, it is a great conduit for pondering one's own relationship to family, to mortality, to tenderness, to generosity, etc. I don't think about that stuff all of the time - I am a cynical bastard. I also don't think about the same things each time I watch it - this might be a failure of a film that is trying to instigate a particular type of "paying attention", but I wouldn't put that to the discredit of a CCC film. If a CCC film works more like fertilizer than it does like a full grown tree, then that's completely fine by me. After all, many non CCC films don't bear new fruit on repeat watchings, so the fruit that you saw the first time is the fruit you get the next time, and often that fruit is rotten or has been eaten by worms in the meantime. With a CCC film you might find that your tree which was merely a sapling is now capable of holding a treehouse, or perhaps it is bearing a bountiful harvest of fruit.

(As for your parenthetical question, I would answer it this way: A good CCC is the fertilizer that I feel like is good for whatever reasons I personally like fertilizer. Now, sure, I know nothing about fertilizer, but if it grew good trees the first time then I will expect it to grow good or better trees the second time. I can't be sure. Sometimes fertilizer I thought wasn't good, like Mother and Son, turns out to be the best damn fertilizer there is. Is this a negative of the film, or of CCC films in general? I don't know, maybe, but life isn't perfect but Mother and Son sure is, now that I've figured out that it is the type of fertilizer I like. How do we know that we like anything, and how do we know that we'll like anything again a second time, and how do we know when our opinion will change from the first time to the second time without just trying it? Well, we know ourselves, to some degree, and we're wrong often, as well. It's the same process. You have some internal rubric with some vague ideas and it changes over time and you do whatever seems best at the time. This is the exact same process for all films, even if your rubric is different or has to expand from non-CCC films to CCC films, or to experimental films, or to musicals, or to silent films, etc. This process is always amorphous and ever-changing. CCC films are no exception - and they are also no exception, in that there's no one simple way for any person to differentiate between a good film and another. You make it up yourself, and it changes as you change.)

2. How is this type of zoning out productive? Well, contemplation is highly productive in terms of generating thoughts. I'm not sure that "productive" is the sole or even best way to judge it, though. How "productive" is watching His Girl Friday? It doesn't seem like a sensible question, to me, in this context. I've always found mere "diversionary entertainment" to be an "unproductive" waste of time, whereas any film that can, even if often indirectly and unintentionally, produce contemplation is far better than one that "produces" mere entertainment. That this is the goal of "finding films that fit into the CCC philosophy" (regardless of whether or not this is the intent of the author) seems to me a good thing, and this is why I seek them out. But, again, as in #1, that's a rule I made up myself, for myself.Sure, but I can't even bear the thought of watching the film because that sounds hideously boring to me, but I'm fully aware that this "contemplative space" or this "slowness" or this "entirely apt pacing for the content some particular films film which just so happens to be substantially slower than almost every mainstream film in existence" (or whatever term we're calling it) has lots of ways of being viewed and engaged with and appreciated. It may very well be that, to you, Jeanne Dielman is slow but not contemplative, or contemplative but not slow, I don't know. Nobody can force you to fit something into a box you don't like. I can't imagine that there's no film that you wouldn't find space to contemplate while watching, though, and for the purpose of this conversation about contemplative cinema that would probably be a far better example.

By productive, I mean simply productive of pleasure, which has been the goal of art for thousands of years. If His Girl Friday is mere diversion, then so are La Règle du jeu, Cosi fan tutte, and Mother Courage and Her Children. Whatever else they are, all of these works are fundamentally entertaining in the sense that they unfold in time and use narrative to sustain the spectator's interest over a particular duration, which is not an easy or simple thing to do--hence all the lousy films, operas, and plays cluttering up the world. However, you seem to think entertainment is oppressive because it requires you to attend to a narrative rather than thinking about your own life (hardly a revolutionary project), as if attending to a narrative weren't also an active mental process.

As to your fertilizer metaphor (which sounds like something Chance the Gardener would say), I think it's a giant cop-out. Obviously everybody is going to think of different things while watching a given film and each viewing will be different. If you will not, or cannot, articulate what are the formal and stylistic attributes that, in your opinion, make Mother and Son particularly conducive to contemplation, beyond being slow and telling a story about family and death (which are not characteristics unique to Sokurov's film), then there is no reason to continue this discussion, and I best leave you to contemplate the inside of your own head while not paying attention to the films you're watching.

[baby doll]

See, to me, that sounds like absolute torture. It is a type of cinema of no interest to me whatsoever.

I've posted this quote elsewhere on this forum but it seems worth repeating:

Most moviegoers choose titles that will show them, they hope, exactly what they want to see. The willingness to accept a director's vision, even if it's not your own, is the sign of a moviegoer who has advanced from passive, childlike consumerism into a more advanced understanding of the cinema.

[Ezee E]

I'm bored enough doing my own chores. I don't need to watch people doing them.

[baby doll]

I'm bored enough doing my own chores. I don't need to watch people doing them.

Another good Ebert quote:

A film is not about what it is about, but how it is about it. A good film or a bad film can be made about anything. Therefore, to dismiss (or praise) a film solely because of its subject matter, it is not necessary to see it. That is why people who make statements beginning with the words "I don't like films about..." are idiots, or censors.

[PURPLE]

By productive, I mean simply productive of pleasure, which has been the goal of art for thousands of years.

Is this the goal of all art for thousands of years? It's certainlly not the goal of the earliest art we have from roughly every culture on the planet - religious stories. Those are most often meant to be instructive. It's certainly not the goal of some of the earliest theater we have - Greek Tragedies. Those, too, are meant to be instructive, are meant to invoke pathos, are meant to evoke empathy, but "pleasure" is a strange way of putting the reenactment of an eagle feeding on a man's liver. Art has always had many intended purposes, and even more different actual results. I see no reason why "contemplation", or especially "inspired and productive contemplation" would not be equal to those. In fact, I personally find no reason why this would not be superior. This opinion need not be universally held by everyone, but neither is the opinion that "pleasure" is better than "contemplation".

If His Girl Friday is mere diversion, then so are La Règle du jeu, Cosi fan tutte, and Mother Courage and Her Children. Whatever else they are, all of these works are fundamentally entertaining in the sense that they unfold in time and use narrative to sustain the spectator's interest over a particular duration, which is not an easy or simple thing to do--hence all the lousy films, operas, and plays cluttering up the world. However, you seem to think entertainment is oppressive because it requires you to attend to a narrative rather than thinking about your own life (hardly a revolutionary project), as if attending to a narrative weren't also an active mental process.

As to your fertilizer metaphor (which sounds like something Chance the Gardener would say), I think it's a giant cop-out. Obviously everybody is going to think of different things while watching a given film and each viewing will be different. If you will not, or cannot, articulate what are the formal and stylistic attributes that, in your opinion, make Mother and Son particularly conducive to contemplation, beyond being slow and telling a story about family and death (which are not characteristics unique to Sokurov's film), then there is no reason to continue this discussion, and I best leave you to contemplate the inside of your own head while not paying attention to the films you're watching.

I don't mind that someone else finds His Girl Friday to be better in whatever way and for whatever reason than Mother and Son. That's not what I'm talking about at all - merely the idea that some person might enjoy contemplative cinema. As for why, I mean, I agree with the site that I linked to, so I don't feel the need to restate. If you feel it's a cop-out, that's fine. I tried to explain myself in good faith. If that's not sufficient for you, then perhaps conversations aren't for you.