Incredibly Boring
-
luckycharm65 — 16 years ago(July 01, 2009 06:34 PM)
In a way I suppose I am. It is not as though only "good and righteous" characters make a movie interesting because they give you someone to "root for" as you put it. Rather, this movie was a snoozefest because I didn't care about the welfare about what happened to any of them. The piano teacher was a pervert.cool. She had ZERO dimension and neither did her fellow characters. I don't know, maybe the director was attempting to be vague and mysterious but honesty I don't need a movie to drag on and on with zilch knowledge as to why the characters behave the way they do. Her mommy was mean and noseyso she tries to make out with her? I wanted just a tad more background and maybe this movie wouldn't have felt like it went on for 6 hours.
-
luckycharm65 — 16 years ago(July 15, 2009 01:39 AM)
Please enlighten me lovewhat "point" did I miss? And please stop trying to make yourself seem like a cultured movie goer for liking crap like this by telling me to watch something "blow up." For the record, foreign films with beep plots and tiring characters do not make a film intelligent.
-
deathofseasonsxg — 13 years ago(January 30, 2013 11:38 PM)
Erika was an incredibly layered and complex character, she wasn't just a "pervert", she was lonely to an insane degree, severely clinically depressed and acted out fantasies of degradation and sex to numb her pain, she thought she wanted to be abused by others, but in the end we find out that she really wanted to be loved and just never expected anyone could possibly love her.
-
PoppyTransfusion — 13 years ago(January 31, 2013 09:12 AM)
The Op doesn't seem to post here anymore
However, regarding this:
She had ZERO dimension and neither did her fellow characters.
There are lots of layers to the characters that can be traced through their facial and body expressions, how they relate to one another and around the theme of music (Erika's talk about Schubert being ugly is one example that comes to mind). These layers create fleshed out, 3-D characters but the film's script, acting and direction leave the viewer with lots to imagine, as befits an intelligent film. Expositions on the characters are not required.
Her mommy was mean and nosey
She was a bit more than that
so she tries to make out with her?
I don't understand how this was deduced from the mother being mean and nosy.
To say a little often is to tell more than to say a great deal. -
Strazdamonas — 10 years ago(August 12, 2015 10:10 AM)
It is easier to relate with characters that are likable, thus engaging the audience. While it certainly is possible to make a good movie without likable characters, it is a much harder effort to do so and many people that attempt it - fail to do so.
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually. -
vivalachristow — 16 years ago(January 09, 2010 12:22 AM)
I do agree with you that this film was a little slow and it did drag in some parts but nonetheless i think it was a powerful film. Perhaps it helps to maybe watch the movie more than once to appreciate the film. Otherwise, it probably one of those things where you either see the importance of it or you don't.
-
fernandes-e — 16 years ago(January 09, 2010 02:41 AM)
I believe this film is only boring to someone who decides to watch it without making an effort to understand its characters. It is not meant to be an easy and entertaining watch. Haneke expects us to read between the lines, to form our own opinions on what we think is happening in the characters' minds. He wants us to look beneath the surface. I personally love this film. It is visually amazing, and it is worth watching simply for the fantastic acting, especially on Huppert's part. She creates an Erika that is real, that is complexe. Of course I can understand why ''The Piano Teacher'' isn't for everyone. It's a heavy subject, and it takes a lot of concentration and thought. But like I said, I don't see why you would watch this film without wanting to make this effort, without looking at its artistic/psychological value rather than its entertainement value.
Folie n'est pas draison, mais foudroyante lucidit. -
amit_slash2000 — 15 years ago(April 10, 2010 09:44 AM)
I do believe that this film is not meant for everyone and while watching, you do tend to feel dragged due to the slow pace of the film. But once the plot sets in, I was intrigued by Erika's complex nature and the way it was brilliantly portrayed by Ms. Huppert on screen. However, I was a bit let-down by the abrupt climax.
If I criticize, I criticize the idea and not the person. -
ca111026 — 16 years ago(February 05, 2010 02:25 PM)
The movie is about complexity of human nature. Yes it is "slow" because it takes time to reveal it. I would call it realistic - not in the sense that these events occur every day in every little town and suburb - but in the sense that there are many people who are confused about themselves, their desires, and their relationships. Watch 'Oscar and Lucinda' - the message is essentially the same although the characters are much more likable, especially Lucinda.
-
Strazdamonas — 10 years ago(August 12, 2015 10:16 AM)
It was directed by Michael Haneke. A trademark trait of Haneke is that his movies is slow paced and his scenes drag on. he tries to portray reality but fails to realize that its not why people watch movies. He has said in an interview before that he tried to make The Seventh Continent (1989) - another of his films as boring as he could.
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.