In mini-reviews, I often see the adjective "boring" to describe a movie. I assume that most reviewers mean that they found the film boring--as opposed to the film being inherrently or "objectively" boring. Two things about this:
1. I'm not trying to be mean or rude, but I don't find this description to be very helpful. Without knowing the person writing the review, I have no idea what to make of some a comment. For example, if the person basically only likes action films, then the boring remark may mean little for a person who doesn't mind and often enjoys films with little or no action (i.e., explosion, bullets and fists a flyin', etc.). Having said that, maybe these reviewers aren't trying to be helpful to others, but just want to capture their reaction to the film, which is totally appropriate and fair;
2. Is it possible for a film to be inherently boring? That is, "boredom" is a result of the film's failurem, not primarily a matter of personal preference. For example, suppose there's an action film that really wants to be exciting, but the quality of the story and execution of the action sequences are poorly done. Would calling the film boring be fair? Now, it's important to note that we're judging the film based on the how well the story and action sequences generated excitement. I'm ruling out a response from individuals who are indifferent or strongly dislike action-oriented filmmaking.
Also, I want to distinguish films that aren't intending to be exciting or interesting in a more conventional sense. For example, Kubrick's 2001: a Space Odyssey isn't exciting like an action film, but it wouldn't be fair to call it boring, if you were evaluating as you would <i>Star Wars</i>. I would argue that 2001 isn't trying to function like Star Wars--that both films are very different, having very different objectives.
I guess what I would say is that we can more justly call a film boring (or exciting) based on the terms set by the film. 2001 isn't boring because it's not like Star Wars, but it could be boring because it fails in stimulating thought or execution of it's ideas.
Can a Film Be Inherrently Boring?
-
- Posts: 28
- 2657 Ratings
- Your TCI: na
- Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:43 pm
- VinegarBob
- Posts: 775
- 4157 Ratings
- Your TCI: na
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:54 am
Re: Can a Film Be Inherrently Boring?
Oh wow. You probably didn't check out the 'Her (2013) - Is it not boring?' thread a few weeks ago. Messy business, that. Be very careful.
-
- Your TCI: na
Re: Can a Film Be Inherrently Boring?
"Boring" is just like any other adjective. "Funny." "Scary." "Stupid." When describing a movie, these words are opinions. No movie can objectively be any of these things. And there's no way to know if you'll agree with another person's descriptor until you see the film yourself.
- lisa-
- Posts: 286
- 1907 Ratings
- Your TCI: na
- Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:22 am
-
- Posts: 28
- 2657 Ratings
- Your TCI: na
- Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:43 pm
Re: Can a Film Be Inherrently Boring?
@Rumplesink
I like Her quite a bit, but I think I'll take your warning and avoid that thread.
@JLFM
And there's no way to know if you'll agree with another person's descriptor until you see the film yourself.
Ultimately, this might true, but I wouldn't go so far as you are. I do think one's descriptions of a film can help a lot. For example, if I say that Making a Murderer is a real crime film similar to The Thing Blue Line or the Paradise Lost films, I think that can give a good sense of what the film is like.
I also think there's a significant difference between finding a film boring because you're just not interested in particular types of films and finding a film boring because the film really didn't succeed on its own terms. (shrug.)
@-lisa
Is that Paik film basically the equivalent of John Cage's 3' 44"? And are you saying that the film are inherently boring?
I like Her quite a bit, but I think I'll take your warning and avoid that thread.
@JLFM
And there's no way to know if you'll agree with another person's descriptor until you see the film yourself.
Ultimately, this might true, but I wouldn't go so far as you are. I do think one's descriptions of a film can help a lot. For example, if I say that Making a Murderer is a real crime film similar to The Thing Blue Line or the Paradise Lost films, I think that can give a good sense of what the film is like.
I also think there's a significant difference between finding a film boring because you're just not interested in particular types of films and finding a film boring because the film really didn't succeed on its own terms. (shrug.)
@-lisa
Is that Paik film basically the equivalent of John Cage's 3' 44"? And are you saying that the film are inherently boring?
- Stewball
- Posts: 3009
- 2188 Ratings
- Your TCI: na
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm
Re: Can a Film Be Inherrently Boring?
Jazzaloha wrote:I guess what I would say is that we can more justly call a film boring (or exciting) based on the terms set by the film. 2001 isn't boring because it's not like Star Wars, but it could be boring because it fails in stimulating thought or execution of it's ideas.
How could it fairly be said not to stimulate thought, and or emotion--especially in the music sequences.
- philamental
- Posts: 1413
- 1717 Ratings
- Your TCI: na
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 8:56 pm
Re: Can a Film Be Inherrently Boring?
I recently watched Anomalisa without any real knowledge of the plot beforehand and found the opening 30 minutes or so incredibly boring. However at a certain stage I realised that was exactly the intent of the filmmakers who wanted us to feel and experience the depressively mundane existence of the main character.
Your question seems to ask if a film can be boring by all accounts and not just personal opinion, but all art is subjective so we'll never have an agreed consensus. Despite the intent and successful execution behind the 'boring' opening to Anomalisa, I'm sure some found the focus on the tedious details to be interesting in it's own way.
Can a film be inherently boring? I believe so, yes, but only to you and others who share your view.
Your question seems to ask if a film can be boring by all accounts and not just personal opinion, but all art is subjective so we'll never have an agreed consensus. Despite the intent and successful execution behind the 'boring' opening to Anomalisa, I'm sure some found the focus on the tedious details to be interesting in it's own way.
Can a film be inherently boring? I believe so, yes, but only to you and others who share your view.
-
- Posts: 28
- 2657 Ratings
- Your TCI: na
- Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:43 pm
Re: Can a Film Be Inherrently Boring?
Stewball wrote:Jazzaloha wrote:I guess what I would say is that we can more justly call a film boring (or exciting) based on the terms set by the film. 2001 isn't boring because it's not like Star Wars, but it could be boring because it fails in stimulating thought or execution of it's ideas.
How could it fairly be said not to stimulate thought, and or emotion--especially in the music sequences.
Wait, let me clarify. I didn't mean to say 2001 fails to stimulate thought or poorly executes its ideas. Whether it does or not, is secondary. My point is that calling a 2001 boring because it's not like Star Wars is very different from saying 2001 is boring because it failed on it's own terms (e.g., being an art film about human existence, among other things). Does that make sense?
-
- Posts: 28
- 2657 Ratings
- Your TCI: na
- Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:43 pm
Re: Can a Film Be Inherrently Boring?
philamental wrote:I recently watched Anomalisa without any real knowledge of the plot beforehand and found the opening 30 minutes or so incredibly boring. However at a certain stage I realised that was exactly the intent of the filmmakers who wanted us to feel and experience the depressively mundane existence of the main character.
Your question seems to ask if a film can be boring by all accounts and not just personal opinion, but all art is subjective so we'll never have an agreed consensus. Despite the intent and successful execution behind the 'boring' opening to Anomalisa, I'm sure some found the focus on the tedious details to be interesting in it's own way.
Can a film be inherently boring? I believe so, yes, but only to you and others who share your view.
I guess I don't think all forms of subjectivity are equal. For example, if a guy finds 2001 boring because he's expecting it to be Star Wars, yes that's subjective, but it's a different type of subjectivity than if a guy says 2001 is boring because the themes weren't handled well. The latter is potentially more meaningful to me, even if the comment is subjective.
- paulofilmo
- Posts: 2586
- 2428 Ratings
- Your TCI: na
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:40 pm
Re: Can a Film Be Inherrently Boring?
I don't understand what you'd hoped to get out of this thread.
I don't understand this, either.
Star Wars is an adventure, with peril and daring-do. 2001 is a somewhat emotionally-removed foreboding space waltz.
Boring is when a film picks a hole in your skull for your lust for life to seep out of.
Jazzaloha wrote:I guess what I would say is that we can more justly call a film boring (or exciting) based on the terms set by the film.
I don't understand this, either.
Star Wars is an adventure, with peril and daring-do. 2001 is a somewhat emotionally-removed foreboding space waltz.
Boring is when a film picks a hole in your skull for your lust for life to seep out of.