comment #1

JoseRC says ...

Saw this one in Mexico about a year ago. I hated Battle in Heaven, way pretentious, but was okay with Silent Night; it requires willingness and patience but leaves you with a strong afterflavor.

That said, I remember many people walking out starting with the first longish frame and throughout the entire movie. It was quite amusing, the parade I mean.

comment #2

EDouglasCS says ...

Totally agree with what JoseRC said above... it really leaves a lasting impression with you.

comment #3

EDouglasCS says ...

""It seemed to be too much for a lot of people, though, to sit and look at a hand for 20 seconds, and then a table for a bit longer, all of it in a more or less silent environment."

This is a gross exaggeration of the film... I would have walked out if it spent more than 10 minutes on any shot and that's not the case even with the opening sunrise.

comment #4

EDouglasCS says ...

Oh, nevermind... I read "seconds" as "minutes" :)

comment #5

Breedlove says ...

I think I'm gonna do a doubleheader of this and 'Wendy and Lucy' at Film Forum. My plan is, see this first, then 'Wendy and Lucy' will seem like the 4th 'Bourne' movie by comparison.

comment #6

Matthew Lucas says ...

I wasn't a huge fan of "Battle in Heaven," but for me "Silent Light" was the best film of the year. Brilliant and breathtaking from start to finish.

comment #7

EricGilde says ...

The thing is, there were definite moments where I noticed how long we were looking at the pendulum, or the flower, or whatever. And although it's great that he is so boldly deliberate with his pacing, there were certainly times where I had to think, damn, we've been looking at this tractor for a long time.

But part of me also thinks that his style may bring about that kind of reaction (ranging from my "huh, ok" to people walking out exactly as JoseRC describes) partially because I can't really think of directors that do that. Or do it now, at any right. Reygadas in some respects seems antithetical to the sort of hyperactive editing and kineticism that dominates contemporary film. And for that I'm grateful.

There's also a part of me that thinks, just because I hate one extreme doesn't mean that I'm totally at home in the other. I liked Silent Light, enough to want to see it again, and it definitely is lingering. At at the same time I think, for being almost twice as long, Che easily went by faster

But it's beautiful, ends in a pretty wonderful, poetic flourish, and made me think that I would benefit from a second viewing. So that's not bad.

Battle of Heaven has some great moments, but it kind of got bogged down in shock value between all the sex and the more than a little fucked up story. Silent Light is a much wedded to his style, I think.

comment #8

EricGilde says ...

Much better wedded to his style, I mean.

comment #9

franz says ...

I was deeply troubled by SILENT LIGHT, myself. There is great beauty in it, particularly in the sound design of the film, the shots that bookend the piece, and one of the main female performances really stood out to me as well.

However, for all that, the following in particular disturbed me:
(i) I don't think the ending of Dreyer's ORDET feels like a convincing answer to the questions this film poses. It feels like an escape from the moral concerns the film has explored to that point, and one specifically tailored to please cinephiles. Here's one that felt it made a lot more sense in Dreyer.
(ii) The emulation of Tarkovsky's sense of rhythm seems to drive a lot of the camera choices in this film. Yet, even when they've frustrated me, I've always been gripped by Tarkovsky's blocking, even when watching his films for the first time on a small TV. There is always something to explore as we move ever so slowly towards his ultimate position. In SILENT LIGHT, I didn't see that same skill at work. Had every shot unfolded with the incredible beauty of the opening / closing shot, full of details to explore, this would not have been a problem for me. But the film opens with a promise that the rest never comes close to following up.
(iii) The NOTICEABILITY of every camera move - some marks seemed chosen for the way they drew attention to the camera over the characters - took me out of the film several times. I could not be involved when I could not forget that the crew was also in the room with the hero.
(iv) I get that the film is meant to be cut slowly. I gave Reygadas a lot of latitude on that, as he clearly sets up that style from the word go. But I feel he goes too far. The film could lose 10 minutes easily, keep many of its longer moments, and feel less overlong overall.
(v) Most troubling of all for me, the performances, particularly from the lead character, troubled me. I was often aware of the director's prompting of him to his marks, and never felt like he knew what character he was playing or why that character was doing things. Of course not every moment is weak, but enough of them were that I cared little for the character, and urged on the day when either his wife or mistress would sit at the centre of a scene.

My distaste for this film was marked against me by some of my fellow film lovers. I saw some wonderful films around the same time - Sokurov's Aleksandra; Akin's The Edge of Heaven; Hou Hsiao Hsien's Flight of the Red Balloon; Terence Davies' Of Time and the City. I would watch any of these films again - I truly loved them and responded to them. SILENT LIGHT felt like the emperor's new clothes by comparison, an ambitious film of merits, but also awkward in its rhythms full of reminders of stronger filmmakers.

Obviously I'm somewhat alone in this view, and don't mean to offend people who enjoyed the film. These are just my thoughts.

comment #10

Gabriel says ...

The only version of this film I've seen is the Australian DVD, which is 131 minutes as opposed to, I believe, the 142-minute original cut (which one is playing at Film Forum?). Point being - I'm not sure where the trims were made, but the film never felt overlong to me at any point. I've seen it twice now, and I feel like it's the kind of film that will reveal new layers with every additional viewing.

comment #11

md'a says ...

The 142-minute version played only at Cannes, I believe. It was down to its current length by the time NYFF screened it.

I preferred the longer version, but oh well. Still one of the best films of the decade.

comment #12

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of what is high availability