Not quite what I meant.  If you pick certain criteria and a way to
weigh them against each other, then it becomes relative (and at that
point you have created a specific definition of 'slowness', which may
have a lot or a little to do with what most people perceive as
slowness).  Until then, it's purely subjective, because 'slow' as I
normally see it used simply refers to a particular subjective
experience of a film (or a collection of them), which may have a lot
or a little to do with various qualities of the film itself.  Much
like 'good', or 'interesting', or 'witty', or 'important', etc.

Choosing films under a subjective sense of 'slowness' doesn't have to
be an uphill battle.  You could simply take a poll, informal or
otherwise, and pick those films that are frequently mentioned as being
'slow'.

On the other hand, trying to pick films under a particular set of
criteria does raise the question of how those criteria relate to
'slowness' (and why other criteria have been excluded or given little
weight), and figuring those criteria in a satisfactory way sounds like
an uphill battle, because then you have to figure in questions like
"does the lack of music make this film a slower one, and if so, how
does that weigh against the fact that this other film has lots of
music but no dialogue?".  Then there's also the question of why you
are using the term 'slowness' for those criteria, rather than having
'The Musicless Long-Take and/or No Dialogue Film Festival'.

And yes, I think narcotics bring in an excellent point.  If you are
able to amuse yourself during a film, then the experience will seem
less slow (though the film may still seem slow when you reflect on
it).

As a side note, one of my professors once mentioned that when he was
struggling with a film because it was slow, he would focus on the
technique of the film, thinking about the angle of the light and where
that indicates the light sources to be, the framing, etc., all in a
conscious way.  This worked for him (and sometimes it does for me as
well), because as long as he was in an appropriate frame of mind,
filmmaking was a fascinating topic to him that could give him
something to think about when the content of the film failed to.

Jun-Dai

On 7/19/07, Henry Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> "Slowness is not just relative, it's entirely subjective unless you're
> > going to define certain criteria weighted against each other for a
> > specific definition of 'slowness'"
>
> Doesn't this mean precisely that it *is* just relative, ie a certain
> property measured against another? Unless you're going to go without a
> definition of 'slowness', which might make choosing films under this
> criterion an uphill struggle. Dare I introduce the use of narcotics
> and their effects on perception into this discussion?
>
> On 7/19/07, Henry M. Taylor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Yes, and it very much depends on the individual spectator's
> > involvement with the film in question.  And on the venue in which it
> > is seen. I once watched Tarkovsky's Stalker on video, on a smallish
> > tv screen - it was almost unbearably slow. It's meant to be and has
> > to be seen in a cinema, on a large screen.
> >
> > Speaking of viewer involvement, Sokurov's 5-hour video Spiritual
> > Voices (1994) is probably one of the most intense film experiences
> > I've ever had. I saw it towards the end of Locarno film festival,
> > exhausted after having watched 40 or 50 films in ten days, and I'd
> > anticipated falling asleep. The very oppositie was the case: I was
> > completely enthralled, almost trance-like, in the mysticism of this
> > wonderful documentary.
> >
> > Finally, take Rear Window: not suited for openair cinema, where it
> > will seem remarkably slow. Again, you have to watch it in the cinema,
> > or in a very controlled setting.
> >
> > H
> >
> >
> >
> > > Slowness is not just relative, it's entirely subjective unless you're
> > > going to define certain criteria weighted against each other for a
> > > specific definition of 'slowness' (e.g., length of takes, amount of
> > > camera movement, lines of dialogue, etc.).  A large part of what makes
> > > it subjective is that a conception of slowness depends on weighing the
> > > significance of the types of events that you are measuring the rate
> > > of.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > *
> > *
> > Film-Philosophy salon
> > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
> > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> > Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> > For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> > *
> > Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> > Contact: [log in to unmask]
> > **
> >
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy salon
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> *
> Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> **
>


-- 
_____________________
http://consulting.purico.jp

*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**