Meek's Cutoff (Reichardt, 2011)

[kaytee]

I don't doubt it one bit that this movie is going to be in a lot of Top 10's of the year list. Those people who include such a tedious and boring movie are critics who have their heads right up Reichardt ass. She has so far managed to bore us with Old Joy, Wendy and Lucy and now Meek's Cutoff.

Set in 1800's where a set of 3 families struggle to find water while crossing a desert. The meet a person called Meek who tells them he can help them find it and then they meet a red indian who is supposed to have some significance which I didn't get or care about coz the whole journey is so freaking boring and uninteresting.

Thus one is Gerry all over again which is not a compliment.

1/5

[X.]

I support Kelly Reichardt and Slow Cinema.

[ayaa1977]

I don't understand this forum hatred for films like Wendy and Lucy. I thought the film was really good, and while I can not identify with the protagonist, I really felt for her and her blight, and I credit that to the writing and directing as well as Michelle Williams magnificent performance.

[X.]

The fact that such films even exist is a cause for celebration. I am a big fan of Reichardt and after getting to know her personally, admire her even more. She teaches at Bard College (it's her day job) and when she has enough money, goes and makes a movie. It has become increasingly difficult to make "slow cinema" (with a distinctly European tone) in America, and Kelly is a brave voice.

That being said, her films require considerable patience and are not for everybody. This doesn't mean these viewers don't get it; perhaps they're not feeling...the vibe. This is totally fine.

[fizz]

I think the NY Times had written a very interesting article some months ago in favour of "slow cinema" after the polarizing effect of this film. I generally enjoy films that are labelled slow but so far have yet to like anything Reichardt has done. I will watch this at one point, but I doubt it is going to be an exception in my book.

[fizz]

Here is it:

In defense of slow and boring

[kaytee]

I dont mind slow cinema but the story and writing has to interest me. Tape from Linklater was slow but used dialogue to keep the viewers intrigued. A movie that moves at a slow pace can keep viewer engaged but Reichardt seems to be forcing slow cinema without actually intriguing the audience. People seem to be in love with who she is and what she does to make movies than her movies itself.

[X.]

Art cannot be separated from the artist.

[madali]

The artist is not the art.

[X.]

Define art.

[madali]

A creation distinct from the creator.

[X.]

A dog falls into a bucket of paint, does not drown, runs over an easel, the paint dripping onto the white canvas.

A man named Jackson Pollock dips his brush into a bucket of paint and, in a drunken stupor, furiously lunges it against an empty canvas.

Both paintings are displayed anonymously at an art gallery and lauded.

Which one is art?

[madali]

Art cannot be accidental.

[X.]

The point of my post was that trying to *define* art and discuss what art means is a viciously cyclical process. The other point is that what an artist makes -- without getting into semantics -- is a extension of his or her personal self. Would you accept something created by a dog to be art? Obviously not! (Besides, Pollock usually painted under the influence, and that was part of his "process.")

Kelly Reichardt's work may not be for everyone. But it is a photographic representation of her inner self/ideas. To deny her this much is not fair.