MovieChat Forums > Il gattopardo (1963) Discussion > Alas...it was boring.

Alas...it was boring.

posted 14 years ago by THEKINGOFCOMEDY
13 replies | jump to latest

Lavish, Burt looked good as did Claudia. Amazing scenery, beautiful costumes and every single actor was convincing but the plain fact of the matter is it was mind numbingly slow. I'm just back from seeing the restored version at the BFI and was a painful three hours indeed. In theory it should all work but it doesn't and it's shame really. It's the most beautiful looking picture I've seen in many moons but it lacks pace, dramatic tension and emotion.I understand The Princes pain,the way the world is changing and how he's becoming a relic but it lacks the minerals required for true greatness. If the script had been better...chances are it would be in gone with the wind territory but alas...it falls short.

[–] EdAi2k 14 years ago

I'm also just back from seeing it at the BFI and I'd generally disagree. I've seen quite a few films that I'd consider too slow, and generally I'm someone who like a fast moving film, but I found that the pace was generally good. Sure, it's slower than most films, and I'd imagine it could be faster (there are cuts that are faster apparently), but I think the slowness was certainly used for good effect in a number of scenes.

The film is very much about the Prince's boredom of the formality and banality of his life, and the slowness and lingering of scenes was used to portray this. In many cases, the slowness was used to intentionally bore the audience so you could empathise with him, at least that's how I felt it was. You were meant to feel the hot, slow, humid claustrophobia of the Sicily and the society the Prince was part of.

I'm sure cutting some of the film would make it easier to swallow, but I'm not sure you'd entirely get the same experience... Wikipedia mentions that the original cut was 205 minutes long - another 20 minutes, and this was considered excessive so the director cut it down.

I enjoyed the film for the length it was - it did feel long, but I felt it was more justified than other slow or too-long films I've seen.

[–] genovevades 14 years ago

I saw it this week at the IFI and it was a delight. It's true that it may take some time at the beginning to get used to its tranquil pace, but soon you are completely tuned into the Prince's life. Then you can simply sit back, relax and enjoy your privileged position as an observer.

I had a similar experience when I watched Dersu Uzala; it was tough at the outset when you're still aware of the hustle and bustle of the world outside. However, once you start sympathising with the character, that slow rhythm allows you to enjoy every single detail of the unique environment described.

I do believe that without this attention to detail the film would have not been the master piece it is. I tend to think that there are movies where action is not that essential because their main objective is providing you with a fresh piece of life, including all its 'time-outs'. The magic then is how you go back home with the feeling of having been invited to a ball in Sicily at the end of the 19th century, whether you found it exciting or you grew tired.

[–] preppy-3 12 years ago

Saw it on TCM today. I can see why some people found it boring. It IS slow and drags...but that helps u to understand the characters and situationa. I found the cinematography beautiful--virtually every shot could be framed as a picture! I also found the discussions between the characters about how things were changing was fascinating. BUT it isn't for everybody.

[–] faraaj-1 11 years ago

I've always felt that cinematic taste is relative and just because I admired a film it doesn't necessarily mean it will appeal to everyone matching my age group and educational profile. Similarly, I've seen some acclaimed "masterpieces" whose appeal eluded me entirely e.g. Gegen Die Wand (2004) on which I wasted two hours last night.

But there a handful of artistic experiences so profound that I can only feel sorry for anyone who was unable to appreciate them. Funnily enough, in addition to Il Gattopardo I would add Dersu Uzala (which genovevades mentions above) to this special category. In both cases, due to my fascination with the film I followed up by tracking down the book, reading it then rewatching the film.

Down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean..neither tarnished nor afraid..

[–] Bunuel_Fassbinder_Pasolini 11 years ago

There was a lot more going on besides people engaging in small talk, for *beep* sake. Read the original Lampedusa novel and understand the historical framing before attempting to critique this.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] onex-ge 11 years ago

You may have been bored. That doesn't mean the film was boring. Capice?

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] henrimaine 11 years ago

Overall, the film was slow of course. But strangely, while some scenes felt rather boring, for instance the conversation between Lancaster and the other guy about going into parliament. Some other "slow" scenes were not boring at all, for instance the ball - it was really long and detailed but I liked every second, minute and hour of it.

[–] patrik_ch7 10 years ago

Just saw a screening of this in the theatre. First and last time I'll ever watch it, I might add. What a bore. It said the running time was 159 minutes but it played well over three hours. After the terrible war scenes where no one actually engages another soldier, nothing ever really happens. I could not get any sense of where it was going, what it was working towards or what goals there were in the story. I had to read the synopsis after.. I'm certainly not some add kid who must have action or comedy every other minute but this just didn't work for me at all.. Didn't help that I kept thinking how that Tancredi guy must have sired Zac Effron and Ethan Hawke either.. You could cut two thirds out of this film and not lose any of the story, it's just too self indulgent.. Oh well

My eyes have seen the glory..

[–] irishtom99 9 years ago

it wouldn't be fair to go after people who are bored by a film,play or novel..to many,and I acknowledge their point,they are looking to be entertained by art..OK;but very often,great art isn't looking to entertain..it is expression..the leopard,barry Lyndon,doctor zhivago,and dozens of other films(frequently based on novels)are set against historic upheavals and deal with themes of greed,ambition,rebellion..and, frequently,are background for complicated romances..films like these take awhile..and in the hands of visual geniuses like Visconti,kubrick and lean,offer the bonus of brilliant cinematography,breathtaking sets and costumes,and evocative,memorable music..

when I first saw this movie in the early 70s,i was 22,and liked it,but didn't get it..i saw it 15 years later and loved it..when I saw it 3 years ago,it moved me almost to tears..where you are in life will frequently impact on how any form of art touches you..personally,the street fighting scenes were extraordinary,and the last 20 minutes of the prince/Lancaster's "walkabout" were
movies at it's best..

[–] prplayer 8 years ago

this movie had been sitting in my watchlist for a long time, finally got around to see it and was extremely disappointed

it actually started well i thought but got progressively more average as it went along

to the point that i no longer cared what happened anymore

so many movies, so little time