This is one of those pieces where I think, “ah, I have a lot to say on this subject.” Then I finish it and realize I don’t have much to say that you didn’t already say here! This will be my standard reference for this topic from now on.
I’ll add a tiny bit, mostly riffing on what you said, or implied.
I read a lot of customer reviews on Shudder, the horror movie app.
And the “critique” that the movie is too slow is the most common one. They run everything from sordid trash to subtitled art films, so a lot of trash-dependent horror fans just don’t have the ability to appreciate a film that isn’t packed with gore and jolts and screaming music.
“Slow” for me almost always means the viewer or reader only wants one kind of storytelling. And I hear you on the danger of using “interesting” as a constant arbiter, but I also think that it can work in a variety of contexts if you allow it a variety of meanings.
In James’s work, I tend to find his prose consistently interesting, even when story incidents are few. And usually they are few, I think. And his use of time, stretched and bent by his language and flexibility of perspective, is also interesting. His “horror” tales are among the best in any language, I think, even though the typical horror film viewer might not see it that way. I’ve read some that are truly terrifying, even though they’re largely about ideas more than action. In fact, their emotional effects continue to grip me even when I recall almost nothing concrete about the story.
Lastly: here’s a great anecdote from old Hollywood, which I’ll ruin slightly because I can’t recall which mogul and director and film it involved.
After a screening, a director was told by an executive, “your film is exactly 17 minutes too long.”
This is one of those pieces where I think, “ah, I have a lot to say on this subject.” Then I finish it and realize I don’t have much to say that you didn’t already say here! This will be my standard reference for this topic from now on.
I’ll add a tiny bit, mostly riffing on what you said, or implied.
I read a lot of customer reviews on Shudder, the horror movie app.
And the “critique” that the movie is too slow is the most common one. They run everything from sordid trash to subtitled art films, so a lot of trash-dependent horror fans just don’t have the ability to appreciate a film that isn’t packed with gore and jolts and screaming music.
“Slow” for me almost always means the viewer or reader only wants one kind of storytelling. And I hear you on the danger of using “interesting” as a constant arbiter, but I also think that it can work in a variety of contexts if you allow it a variety of meanings.
In James’s work, I tend to find his prose consistently interesting, even when story incidents are few. And usually they are few, I think. And his use of time, stretched and bent by his language and flexibility of perspective, is also interesting. His “horror” tales are among the best in any language, I think, even though the typical horror film viewer might not see it that way. I’ve read some that are truly terrifying, even though they’re largely about ideas more than action. In fact, their emotional effects continue to grip me even when I recall almost nothing concrete about the story.
Lastly: here’s a great anecdote from old Hollywood, which I’ll ruin slightly because I can’t recall which mogul and director and film it involved.
After a screening, a director was told by an executive, “your film is exactly 17 minutes too long.”
“How did you arrive at that specific number?”
“Because 17 minutes ago, my ass started to itch.”