Agreed that Marsh is clearly a great storyteller and that this was never anything less than highly watchable. But somehow I felt like the subject/set-up of this film promised more than it ultimately delivered - a bit like the experiment itself. It was a 4-4-3 for me... http://wp.me/p1dHvM-lj

Inteesting that you noticed a 'moment of sympathy for the police interrogator' - this film reminded me of last year's Of Gods And Men in that it was sympathetic to all of its well-rounded characters. There was no enemy 'other' for the audience to oppose and so it truly made you think. Great adult filmmaking, 3-4-4 for me too: http://wp.me/p1dHvM-hI

The fact of this film's existence is interesting in itself, and I also enjoyed many of the individual clips. But in terms of a whole piece of cinema, I'm not sure how successful it was - there was a lack of narrative (other than 'day passes') and therefore tension, so in the end it just felt a bit like an actual YouTube session - albeit quite a good one.

It also reminded me in form of Christian Marclay's 'The Clock', which was on a whole other level...

Hi Anton - interesting piece and I agree with your general sentiment that banning art is basically never a good idea. There are a million good arguments against it. I enjoyed your picking up on the BBFC's odd linguisitc gymnastics too - what is a "fanciful risk" anyway??

Picking up PPH's point, clearly there is an imagined 'other' involved in any censorship judgement but I'm interested in the (apparent) jump you then make to how this other is "constructed, typically in elitist terms, on the basis of social or class marginality." There's doesn't seem to be anything in the BBFC text suggesting this specifically - are you saying class status is involved in any constructed 'other' figure, or that there is something particular about this case?

Nice thing about this film is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. Warm and witty, and didn't outstay it's welcome. I was charmed!

I basically agree, especially about the missed opportunity re: the block as setting (here were my thoughts http://wp.me/p1dHvM-cP) although I guess it was more 4-3-3 for me. I didn't ever feel that the 'sketches' were expanded into proper characters, or at least not successfully. A such it felt a bit lightweight... albeit a fun ride.

Saw this today and have to say I found it pretty hard going. I liked the set-up: ramshackle hut, nearby radioactivity, radio static galore - but for me there just wasn't enough going on to justify its 2-hour plus length. I know it was all about what went unspoken / failure of communication etc etc... but I didn't feel I knew or particularly cared for either of the characters.

I preferred Pavel Lungin's The Island last year - similar setting, similar pace and tone, but much nuttier.

Ha! Yes... I suppose, in my defence, I'm not using Herzog's words strictly to interpret his film (which would indeed elicit a withering look from Barthes) but to answer our wider question of whether the filmmaking process in and of itself carries any more than trivial interest. Whether it's worthwhile doing a one-shot film if it makes no discernale difference to the final work. You're right though, we're splitting hairs :)

...In the case of Silent House, the existence (or otherwise) of seamless cuts during the pitch black bits is not nearly so crucial. Sufficient illusion can be created - we literally can't tell the difference when watching - so there's nothing at stake other than the story of making it. Ask someone like Barthes (‘Death of the Author’) and he’ll tell you that that’s of no consequence at all; dwelling on the circumstances of the creation of a text, or the intention of the creator, will only limit your interpretation.

You might disagree with Barthes, of course. And you may well be right re: camera hard drive add-ons - just reporting what I'd heard (and am equally technically ignorant!).

Interesting, Anton! Re: Fitzcarraldo, I would offer a slightly different interpretation: that Herzog dragged the boat over the mountain because he had the final product in mind, rather than the 'legend' of his making it. He didn't think he'd be able to create sufficient illusion with special effects to achieve what he wanted, and was so keen for cinemagoers to genuinely believe in the fiction of his story that he made it into reality. At least that's what he tells us in interviews. Cont...