What makes a film boring?

[Michael Strangeways]

The presense of Gwyneth Paltrow in everything but The Royal Tenenbaums......just watched Sky Captain on DVD and her line readings are AWFUL: flat, monotonic, moronic, dull; well, just BAD!!!!!!!!

[oldsheperd]

I find it interesting to watch films that are considered "great" by most critics and scholars and then when I watch them I find them to be pretty dull.
I mean Citizen Kane is a great film and I understand why, but I just think it's plain boring. Same thing with 8 1/2. It's funny though. Just as an aside I couldn't watch Last Year at Marienbad cause the plot gave me a headache.

[justeleblanc]

I don't think I ever saw a film that in itself was boring. It all depends on the mood I'm in. Hell, If I'm in the right mood I can listen to Wagner's entire Ring Cycle, watching Blow Up, while reading I Am Charlotte Simmons.

[cdnchris]

That last Austin Powers movie was the most painful experience I've had in the theater. Tedium to the extreme. Never doing a group date again! Also, I had an almost impossible time getting through Jubilee, but I made it!

Of course it probably comes down to interest and understanding of the movie. I think I got Jubilee (statement against the government at the time and punk culture) but I might not have. Plus I was never really interested in punk culture, so that was probably another hit against me on that one. In the end I just don't think I cared.

Another movie I used to find really boring was Easy Rider. I saw it young, yet again going through my dad's movie collection. I had to keep coming back to it as I was determined to get through it. I did it, but it was the hardest thing I ever did. But I think it was because I didn't understand the time, or the counter-culture the film represented as well as I probably should have. But I came back to it a few years ago, a better understanding of the time and so on, and the film was a totally different experience. It was far from boring this time around, and went by much quicker (though the first half was definitely slow, but not as painful as before.)

I never found Citizen Kane at all dull (I always liked the story, which I actually became interested in after I saw Ghostbusters cartoon that payed homage to it--my dad pointing me to the movie it referenced--but now it's fun to watch for all the technical stuff), but I used to find Casablanca dull for some reason. Then my parents bought the early DVD release and I rewatched it and couldn't believe how I could have found that film such a chore before. I love it now, and I've watched the new DVD many times. I don't know why it is I found that one dull, though.

[kevyip1]

People are bored by what they don't understand, I suppose. But part of the appeal (and purpose) or cinema is that it occasionally puzzles us, confounds us, and challenges us, and jolts us out of our complacency. Films like 2001, Un Chien Andalou, Mulholland Drive, etc. must surely have puzzled and frustrated a lot of people. But If you see every new film as a potential voyage to unchartered territories, you will never be bored. I would rather go see a film that I might not understand than to go to one that I will fully understand.

On the other hand...

Cinema verité could be boring to many people, with its detached tone and often highly specialized subject matter. If you don't care about the subject, you probably won't care about the film.

Porn films could be boring, too. Far too many missionary and doggie positions from what I've noticed. Don't these people read "Joy of Sex" ?

I once went to a theater where the screen showed nothing but darkness for the first 15 minutes. It turned out the projectionist fell asleep. BUt if a movie were to show a blank screen for 90 minutes, that would surely be the most boring thing ever made...

[skuhn8]

Great topic, and something I've been thinking about lately as a finished quite a number of classic films, great films, thinking "huh, so why is this so great; was pretty boring"--but later appreciated them after seeing them again or simply contemplating them. Turns out most of those cases was because I was either distracted or very sleepy (often can't start a film until 10 pm and then if it's three hours it's going to be a problem. So that's my fault.

Also, if I can't connect with any of the characters I'm just not going to care. I'm pretty good at bending with the cast though.

And then there's films like Day After Tomorrow which are totally predictable and have characters I hope and pray will die and untimely death. Formula films. I guess they bore me but I still don't know if I could call the film boring in and of itself.

I guess my answer is that I can't find a boring film, just films that bore me.

[Michael Strangeways]

People are bored by what they don't understand, I suppose.

I'd have to disagree there.....The Cremaster films are utterly confounding and utterly fascinating to me......

[cdnchris]

People are bored by what they don't understand, I suppose.

I'd have to disagree there.....The Cremaster films are utterly confounding and utterly fascinating to me......

Hmmm, that is a good point. While I did find Easy Rider boring because I didn't understand it, I didn't find 2001 boring (though I fast forwarded through the Jupiter journey at the end when I was younger) but had no clue as to what the hell was going on. I had the same experience with El Topo and some of Lynch's films (I don't understand Lost Highway but I'll be damned if I can't turn away while watching it) But of course those films have other things going for them that will keep one's attention.

I still think an "understanding" of the film still plays a big part, though, whether it be the understanding of the story, intent, style, etc. With most of my friends, if they don't really understand what's going on, in any of those fields, they get bored. So that's why they usually stick with safe, simple things that don't take much brain power to view. If they don't understand it, they can't get interested.

[kevyip1]

People are bored by what they don't understand, I suppose.

I'd have to disagree there.....The Cremaster films are utterly confounding and utterly fascinating to me......

But that's not the typical reaction of most filmgoers when they see something totally foreign. You and I, and most members of this board, are different, of course.

[Jun-Dai]

Boring is, in some sense, the opposite of interesting. If a film fails to interest you, it is boring. There is some small grey area wherein a film might be entertaining, but not really interesting (and yet not boring). But most films have to be at least a little interesting to be entertaining.

As such, boredom occurs based on a number of factors, not all of which have to do with the film. If you are tired, you may be unable to maintain the attention span necessary to keep up with the plot, or to endure something along the lines of Tarkovsky. This will usually generate boredom, and possibly sleep. Another possible factor is restlessness. If your mind is on other things when you watch a film, you may find yourself lost, and unable to pay attention to the film, and consequently deem it boring.

With regards to the film itself, most people are inclined to find films boring that have plots that develop very slowly, especially if the takes are long and the dialogue is sparse. Do a Google search on "2001:A Space Odyssey" and "boring", or "Tarkovsky" and "boring".

Some people find a certain amount of repetition to be boring. While enjoyment or the idea that a film is "good" seems to stem largely from the recognition of elements within a film (e.g., symbolism), recognition that seems to obvious or repetitive is often considered boring. If something happens too many times within a film, it can generate boredom. If there is a dramatic plot twist every 2 minutes, most people will lose interest and become bored. Similarly if symbolism seems too overt or overused, then people find themselves turned off, which greatly increases the chances of boredom occurring. Same thing with cliches.

A friend of mine is becoming by and large bored with the medium of film itself. Given that the range of character types in most films are severely limited, and tend to represent generalizations of humanity, rather than anything that could be considered "real", he becomes turned off. Films like Taxi Driver, which, while significant achievements within the domain of Hollywood, are fairly minor steps within the context of the medium itself, he now finds boring, and he has turned instead to the likes of Cassavetes, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Tsai Ming-Liang, Mike Leigh, and Ken Loach. There is, however, a fairly small number of films that he is likely to find interesting, and almost none of it made in this country.

In the end, the idea of boring as an attribute of a film itself, rather than as something affected by the audience with regards to the film, is simply part of our tendency to erroneously define psychological traits to objects. We are essentially projecting our own concerns and considerations onto the film, and then trying to judge the film in response to that. A film itself cannot be "boring" or "interesting" any more than it can be "bad" or "good". It can only be "boring" within a particular context, and when most people write about a film as "boring," the context they are defining is really just themself.

[Steven H]

And if so, what subjective quality enables us to percieve greatness? Is it mere taste? Is it intellect? Education? Multicultural understanding and appreciation?

This is a difficult question. Who's to say intellectual analysis (which I believe education and multicultural understanding can lead to) isn't a kind of "taste"? Perhaps art appreciation is completely based in subjective ideas of "good", "bad", and "boring", etc. which is then warped into an overcomplicated survey. Then again, theories of design tell us that human beings have things in common (rhythm, balance, symmetry) that cross into different art territories. This discussion being interesting seems to rely on concentrating on what humans have in common rather than what subjectively sets us apart. Hmm.

Boring seems to indicate a problem with the attention span, slowness, or a percieved slowness. When someone calls something boring, maybe they're just projecting that very little is going on inside their own head, and so they notice more than usual that they lack an outside stimulus. Calling something "boring" means "I was bored" and therefore "I am boring". This sounds very elitist in my head as I read it back to myself, but really, what is art if not a reflection of yourself in someone else's self expression? I guess I just came back around to subjectivity... ah well, I tried.

[Jun-Dai]

what is art if not a reflection of yourself in someone else's self expression?

Well, it is also an image of the artist filtered through your own layers of cultural, social, and personal context.

Mostly you are correct, however. What we like, appreciate, or enjoy in art has a large amount to do with whether it reflects back on us a pleasing image of ourselves, either through our larger cultural context, or in some strictly personal context for having recognized something in the film or having understood the film in someway. Watching a film is like gazing into a mirror, except that most of the time we don't see that the image we are looking at is that of ourselves, and we don't recognize that our appreciation of that image stems from our desire to think well of ourselves.

[dvdane]

Who's to say intellectual analysis (which I believe education and multicultural understanding can lead to) isn't a kind of "taste"?

Taste is both an overused and a very limited word. While it does suggests an emotional / sensoric appreciation, it seems more to suggest the mere pleasing than intellectual stimulation. As taste requires no explaination, as its utterly subjective, taste has no value nor weight in a general appreciation of a subject.

To show "Taste" in its purest form, read this

The presense of Gwyneth Paltrow in everything but The Royal Tenenbaums [is boring]

A sentiment without any reasoning, without any explaination, without anything except the writers personal taste.

However, taste can be, if not is, the easy way to the first step of appreciation. As taste represents what pleases our senses, at some point, out mind will begin to interfer.

One should note, that the opposite of pleasing isnt boring. The opposite of pleasent is unpleasant, and the opposition of boring is interesting. As such, boring can be interpretated as uninteresting, as in the subject does not interest the viewer.

As attention is attracted by taste, with the exceptation of pleasing ones senses, and interest is suggested by intellect, one can suggest, that boring is when one faces material beyond intellect or of different interest.

[kekid]

I find cleverness without purpose boring. Of course this is a subjective statement, because there may be a purpose, but it alludes me. Using this definition I find much of Godard utterly boring. (Godard fans, I ask for your forgiveness in advance). A slow pan of the camera across the checkout lanes of a supermarket for what seems like an eternity may be an original idea, but it bores me to death even as I am conscious that this is intended to be iconoclastic.

[Michael Kerpan]

I just watched "Tout va bien" -- and thought this very sequence was wonderful. ;~}

(Strange film -- but I might just like it).

MEK

[Max von Mayerling]

I think that a person's response to something - like, say, a film - often says more about that person than it does about the "thing" (like, say, the film). What one person finds boring about Godard (or Spielberg or whomever), another finds stimulating. The film they are watching is the same, but the people who are watching them are different. I think that when we talk about what we find boring, we are (mostly) talking about ourselves.

[Magic Hate Ball]

I don't know what makes a movie boring, and I'm not sure what makes a movie interesting. Citizen Kane, Solaris, and Barry Lyndon are three of the most interesting films I've ever seen. Each one has me hanging on my seat each time I see it. However, I just can't manage The Bad Sleep Well, Insomnia, or Traffic. I don't know why. I think it has to do with each individual person, as well as how many times they've seen the movie. When I first saw Magnolia, it was intensely gripping, but on each subsequent viewing it's become lumpier and lumpier.

(thought it was an interesting topic)

[Paupau]

I once went to a theater where the screen showed nothing but darkness for the first 15 minutes. It turned out the projectionist fell asleep. BUt if a movie were to show a blank screen for 90 minutes, that would surely be the most boring thing ever made...

Then you should have a look at this. Or not.

[s.j. bagley]

For me it's usually a case of a film being too formulaic and/or too heavy with poorly written dialogue. If i can so easily predict how everyone will act, what they will say, etc. It pulls me out of my film and leaves me looking at the proverbial clock. Unless they also contain lots of explosions and overuse of action, then they just make me anxious.

[Person]

I think that it's fairly obvious what makes a film boring: the mind finds the story uninteresting, the characters uninteresting, the style uninteresting, the music uninteresting and thus, the nervous system of the individual does not respond in any way, ie. mild ennui briefly sets in. It's all relative and subjective, though, ie. the very same film could effect the nervous system of another individual.

[flyonthewall2983]

Simply put, what bores me the most is a lot of action without either consequence or deep characterization. I remember being really bored with the first Matrix. Looking back, there were obviously some great visual tricks and action sequences that were well done. But none of the characters had any actual character to them, except Agent Smith. At least that's what I remember, I doubt I've seen the whole thing back to front since 2000. Recently, I saw the first 10-15 minutes of 300 and felt the same thing. But somewhere down the road I'll probably give it another chance.

Someone earlier made a reference to The Motorcycle Diaries being a boring film, and I have to strongly disagree with that. And this comes from someone who has never sat through a film entirely done in a foreign language, until recently. I really liked Eat Man Drink Woman, partly because I got into the story and it also has some personal resonance with me outside of anything doing with the plot (long, long story there).

I'm an absolute sucker for a road movie, and I saw the trailer for this before Fahrenheit 9/11 and was a bit intrigued at the time. But I didn't see it until very recently, and I saw a lot of what I love about the "road movie" combined with something else to it that made it feel more than just a genre movie as well.

[Petty Bourgeoisie]

I recently watched Nosferatu and I found it boring. Especially so, considering it's reputation. It bored me on aesthetic, intellectual and emotional levels. I thought about it afterwards, and I surmised that my expectations were effected by the Lang films from the same time period. Dr Mabuse the Gambler, from the same year, was so much more advanced (in every aspect) that Nosferatu seemed silly and quaint. Perhaps if I never watched any Lang I would have thought Nosferatu was the most brilliant film I ever saw.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Monotonous editing and bad acting do it for me. Now if only we had one for "What makes a movie infuriating?" then I'd say bad score with bad acting.

[malcolm1980]

This is probably in keeping with the theme of what makes a movie boring so I have to ask: If you fall asleep during a film, is it the fault of the film or is it your own fault? Personally, if I feel it's my fault, I watch the movie again but if I feel it's the film's fault, I don't.

Any thoughts on this?

[colinr0380]

"What makes a movie infuriating?"

A character that is incredibly irritating (this can be either the fault of the way the character has been written or the way the actor is playing the role) in their mannerisms, yet is front and centre in every scene because someone behind the camera thinks the character or performance is so interesting, 'wacky' or 'outrageous' that they are improving the film rather than doing the equivalent of pouring gasoline over it and lighting a match. See Johnny Depp in the Pirates films, any Rob Schneider film or Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars for examples!

The infuriating part of it is knowing that I, as a member of the audience, am meant to be finding said character as funny/dramatic/enthralling as the film does, and as more scenes come along that desperately up the ante to grab my sympathy/funny bone/tear ducts, and the acting gets broader and broader I'm left with an overwhelming wish to reach into said film and throttle the character!

For example Ruby Rhod in The Fifth Element