I’m not a film student but I assume that long, comparatively difficult films by Tarkovsky, Ozu, etc are a lot of what the film students are watching and I would imagine that the professors are commentating on more recent developments
Tarkovsky films are incredible but are a “watch once in your lifetime” sort of deal.
I asked my grandmother if she had seen STALKER and she said yes, when it came out in theaters, like 40 years ago (in the USSR), and I asked if she was interested in re-watching it with her grandkids
She said: “No. It’s a very difficult film. A very difficult film. You watch it only once because you don’t get the same feeling a second time”
thumbnail of The Brutalist (4 hrs long) okay perhaps not the best example
And not exactly 4 hours of easy watching.
It’s not for the Marvel crowd but it’s an amazing movie wIth world class cinematography and it sucks you in.
It didn’t seem like 4 hours at all to me.
Right? They should be making them watch the entire Lord of the Rings extended trilogy instead.
I’m not a film student but I assume that long, comparatively difficult films by Tarkovsky, Ozu, etc are a lot of what the film students are watching and I would imagine that the professors are commentating on more recent developments
Tarkovsky films are incredible but are a “watch once in your lifetime” sort of deal.
I asked my grandmother if she had seen STALKER and she said yes, when it came out in theaters, like 40 years ago (in the USSR), and I asked if she was interested in re-watching it with her grandkids
She said: “No. It’s a very difficult film. A very difficult film. You watch it only once because you don’t get the same feeling a second time”
that’s weird. i’ve watched many of them multiple times.
I watched it like thrice and it only got better and more fascinating on every rewatch.
That may be true but the example in the article, Jules et Jim, is under 2 hours long.