#what's up with the Sátántangó footage you tell me

[1001films1001days]

880. Sátántangó (1994)

"My biggest issue with Satantango is that it represents the very worst of post-modernism. There’s no discernible skill that went into it besides owning a camera dolly, it’s a blank canvas that you can throw any sticky metaphor onto, and it’s just weird enough (with its 7 hour quirk) for otherwise smart people to worship it for fear of being ridiculed for not being “serious” about cinema."

Seven hours of my life lost forever. Bela Tarr and his sycophant chorus have stolen them from me with impunity. At times, I could not help remembering the idea of "the artist as a social dictator" expressed in 32 Short Films About Glenn Gould -856-. When he made this film, Tarr decided freely (and for no real reason because the story could have been told in two hours instead of seven) that his work could not be condensed and left it almost uncut. Was such excess actually needed? His fans will undoubtedly say yes. They will staunchly defend each meter of footage as essential. They will affirm with a fierce determination that the scene of the grazing cows can last not a single second less of 10 minutes and that the shooting - in real time - of the sunrise or the building of a cobweb are vital for the plot. However, these are no more than unbearable whims of a too self-centered director.

The job of the editor is not much appreciated normally by film critics who are regularly enthralled by long shots, slow - or rather semi-static - pacing and epic length features. How far away are now the times when Antonioni's films were booed at Cannes! However, far from being a frivolous and market-oriented action, editing is an act of courage and social responsibility. It is the understanding that works of art belong to the public as much as to the artist. It is an act of generosity where the filmmaker stops thinking in oneself and starts considering the work from a universal point of view. And, above all, it is the conception of the cinema as an instrument to tell stories and convey emotions.

All too often, I read that the length and the pace of a film can't be used as critical arguments, that we must be able to overcome these purely formal aspects and review the actual artistic value of a work. But are these elements so superfluous that can be easily obviated? Does it have the same effect a transitional sequence of 10 minutes than one lasting an hour? Can you extract something from the facial expression of an actress in a 5-minutes close-up that you would miss in a 30-second shot? The only thing you achieve with that to lose the audience. It has been a personal ordeal for me to remember what happened during the second hour while I was halfway of the fifth one. I have had also troubles to appreciate the moments in which story actually progressed amid the general monotony.

However, the slow pace and the excessive length do not have to be negative when they serve some purpose. Stalker -645- and Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai Du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles -592- are long and slow films but, in them, those characteristics are justified by the story. What really annoys me of Satantango is that there is no reason for it to last seven hours. It is a film that, according to the director himself, was done improvising and without a script. Bela Tarr's flatterers may keep elaborating visual metaphors but, the fact is that most of the long shots simply show an absolute inability for planning or concision.

And, yes, it is paradoxical that I need 5 or 6 paragraphs to say this but, again, I have just been robbed 7 hours of life so I felt entitled to steal 10 minutes of yours. It has been one of the hardest experiences of this adventure and the best I can say is that, hopefully, there will not be much more like this left.

27th July 2017