At one point, I checked the time code on Netflix and saw that the movie had over forty minutes to go. I visibly winced.
From: Jacob Sager Weinstein, London, England
This is counter-intuitive, of course, because "Playtime" is all about long takes and calm camera work. But what it has in common with the latest "Bourne" is that it demands constant attention and effort from the viewer. Most other films use a variety of techniques to direct the viewer's eyes to specific visual information. But a minority of films--including "Playtime" and "Bourne"--throw an overwhelming amount of information on the screen, and expect the viewer to actively look for the important parts. In "Playtime" that flood comes from long takes with a non-moving (or calmly moving) camera set far back from a densely packed scene; in the two recent "Bournes," the information flood comes from lots of whip pans and fast edits shot very close up.
Although both films achieve their effects differently, they have a common result. If you're willing to run as fast as you possible can to keep up with the filmmakers, it's exhilarating. If you don't have that patience, or if you don't process visual information in quite the right way, it's exhausting.Personally, I far prefer a film that rewards constant attention to one that spoon-feeds me everything.
"Playtime" is discussed in this site's Great Movies collection.
This message came to me from a reader named Peter Svensland. He and a fr...
Part two of Jana Monji's essay about the portrayal of Asian characters in cinema.
A review of the History Channel remake of the landmark mini-series, "Roots."
Separating the artist from the art isn't as easy as it sounds.