What do people mean when they call a film "difficult"?

[NB: This post has made me particularly cranky, as I just received comments from a producer on a screenplay I wrote. His one-word comment? "DIFFICULT" It is NOT difficult by any sense of the word. Yes, it's non-linear. Yes, part of it is in another language. Yes, it's not a happy ending. But difficult it is not!]

I do believe it's fair to say that some films require more work than others -- simple passive viewing might not be enough. Some films might be difficult, on first viewing at least, to really latch on to what the director intended -- perhaps it made heavy use of symbolism or referenced other obscure works.

Some could also say that a film like Irreversible is difficult, in that it's very uncomfortable to watch.

I would say that certain films of Shuji Terayama are difficult, though I love watching them. Knowledge of the political situation in Japan at the time is helpful, as is an understanding of the social hierarchies within families and the problems of tradition.

I would not say, however, that the films of Bela Tarr are difficult. Long, yes. Slow, definitely. But difficult, no. (Even if everything in Satantango isn't obvious, you pick up enough in the seven hours to see what he was getting at.)

I guess much avant-garde cinema could be classified as such (by some) but I think I'd rather let Jay comment on that.

Difficult films tend to be ones that seem to dare the audience to be bored, upset or confused. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

I hate: Drowning By Numbers (or anything else by Greenaway), Russian Ark, The Hanging Garden.

"Au Hasard Balthazar", the Bresson film, would be classed as difficult in having no professional actors and giving you nothing in the way of a human identification figure... though, it wouldn't necessarily fulfill all of people's 'difficult' criteria, up-thread. It's both too intensely ordered (the religious fable quality) and too intensely naturalistic for general or 'easy' consumption.

this is an interesting comment because, in my experience, I don't think I have ever seen a movie simply dismissed as "difficult" and therefore bad. It's usually a case of "difficult, but rewarding."

Is there really such thing as a film you have to work at? To say a movie is "difficult" almost compares it to a puzzle, and encourages the kind of responses to art that I have come to find so offensive. Symbol hunting, etc. (essentially a producton of standardized and methodical responses to texts--as if it was produced according to a diagram--of course a lot of art probably IS produced according to a diagram, whether that is bad or good is another thread i suppose.)

I think a grounding in whatever cultural, aesthetic, historical, or philosphical universe the film inhabits can facilliate a coherent response to it, but on the other hand is this really necessary? (can't i respond to the film from my own cultural, etc. situation?)

I think what i'm trying to say is that i wonder if the term "difficult" betrays a certain attitude towards interpreting films, and I am wondering just what that attitude is.

Of course, for many artists, that's the entire point of making art--to create something that challenges both the artist themselves and their audience, and to create a dual system of responsiblity, in which the audience is required to engage actively with the artwork to create their own meanings & work towards an understanding.

I've never understood why anyone would want something immediately accesible; it just seems like such an insult and a waste of time. A film that you "get" immediately simply washes over you. It's nothing more than a passive wasting of time, whereas "difficult" works engage you to be active in your perception, and the challenges inherent result in an appreciation and continuation of the work after you leave the theater, which can't be said of "easy" films.

What's so "offensive" about a challenge? We'll pay $20,000 a year to be challenged at a university, why not pay $10 to do it in a theater?

P.S.: "Difficult" most often times refers to something that is outside a person's normal realm of perception, whether it be aesthetically, culturally, linguistically, intellectually, spiritually. Unfortunately, the homogenization of mass media, especially in the West, has resulted in many of these doors of perception (and I'm not referring to Huxley here, because I am not familiar with his work) being closed off to the average audience member. Film has really not evolved much, and the fundamental level, since the 1920's--classical cutting techniques, modernist form & straightforward narratives have become not only identifying markers but the absolute standard for 90% + of commercial (and even independent) film production. Difficulty comes when a person is exposed to a work of art that operates outside this comfortable, narrowly defined space they are accustomed to, and they often act the same way one would if they were suddenly transported to Zimbabwae--defensive and afraid.

What's so "offensive" about a challenge?

i dont think a challenging film is offensive, i just think the idea that we have to "get" (or "figure out" or whatever) a film that is "difficult" a a bit disturbing to me (and i am possibly very wrong to feel that way). as i said, this seems to present art as a puzzle to be worked out by the audience.

there are different ways of looking at this. the puzzle approach is possibly perfectly valid if you think puzzles are fun and enlightening or whatever. i dont know.

i have my doubts. what does it mean to "get" a film anyway?

I think the problem that many people have with "difficult" works of art (especially films) is they come into the theater with the expectation that they need to "get" the film. That's easy if you're watching a straight-forward, linear narrative, and people get used to that.

I agree with you on the so-called "puzzle" films. There seems to be an over-abundance of these "Memento" type film rip-offs where directors seem to be just trying to best each other on how labyrinthine the script can become. I think it's idiotic. I have respect for films like "Last Year at Marienbad" because they were the first to attempt such a thing, and it was more about experimentation with form (and an homage/collaboration to and with the writing of Robbe-Grillet) rather than just a clever gimmick.

I'm more interested in films that don't expect the viewer to come to any definite conclusion, but DO make them think and engage with the work.

I also find it kind of ironic, as a side note, that some people claim to find films by directors such as stan brakhage or peter kubelka to be difficult, when they're really the most simple, open-to-interpretation films ever made.

Boy meets girl, they're terribly in love. He takes her home to meet his parents, who can't understand why he's in love with her. But nonetheless he is - and if the primary intention is to find someone who will be liked by his parents, he'll never be in love with such a person. Now think about that in terms of artistic intentions vs. audience expectations.

lana I think u might be on 2 something.