Sátántangó (Satan's Tango) Reviews

yes it's worth seven hours of your life

I actually watched this over a week, watching an hour a day. Some people have said this isn't the right way to watch it, but for me it was.

I have trouble paying attention to long movies, especially ones like this, so I was actually paying attention to each hour, before getting to the point where I stop concentrating.

It was boring. I LOVE long takes, but these were just pointless. The scene with the cat made me cringe, because animal cruelty makes me cry like a baby.

A rural town has its betraying and drunken inhabitants at the center of attention when a pair of previously thought deceased denizens are heard to soon arrive. Among much of the town's mistakes and uncontrolled actions is one which will cost it further betrayal and the citizens' way of life.

There is a good amount of talent involved with Satantango. At such lengths a film obviously needs a cast to perform impeccably by means of natural, professional and improvised performances, cinematography that outdoes most of the attempts from films of the new millennium, and its sound design to be spellbinding and otherworldly or at least emotive in a sense so that viewers can stay connected if not through pace.

Satantango does have its cast, photography and other share of things to boot but its mixture of conventional and unconventional filming causes fluctuations between godlike moments and granted ones. The film judged as a whole didn't create much greatness though I believe it deserves a higher rating (A perfect one) because of multiple scenes that warrant it. Individually rating scene by scene and coming up with an average would more or less be the manner in which I rated it. Because of any possible deterrents from full enjoyment and appreciation, I've decided to rewatch it perhaps in ten years seeing as how I've only been interested in art house for two.

Multiple shots, as previously mentioned, are expertly crafted and composed. I'll say my favorite is the opening where cows spontaneously herd from a warehouse to the field, all of this set to an entrancing, lulling sound of chiming, humming bells. This scene like various, various scenes in the rest of the film captures naturalistic instances: the cows wander a moment in mud and their footsteps echo loudly; some cows moo and its echo sounds beautiful; others attempt to mate. Scenes are not always as peaceful and metaphorical but they are impressively long and shot in one take. (This and the non-linear structure as well as the re-creation of scenes from different angles were a major influence on Gus Van Sant.)

It is unconventional in the sense that characters are truly fully developed, moments taking from ten to twenty minutes focusing on one individual almost like a novel. This character development is paired with the storyline, a conventional act that I did not wholly find interest in. It is not the story's fault; I have my personal taste. Most scenes where the photography dulled and characters spoke back and forth were anchored in an unnecessary realism with myself fully aware that there was a camera filming said characters. But as it is I'll still declare it a mammoth achievement as I felt it more of a three-hour movie. It would be interesting to see this style and manner of film making under surrealism.

Lastly, I have to address the child actor (The one on the cover) who was shockingly talented for her age. She elicits a psychotic unease with her naturalistic actions (Real time feline abuse) and facial expressions.

Has its moments, then leaves the camera there so you can watch the character walk away for 3 minutes, then does that again every time. Political statement? Maybe, I don't know. But then the characters start spouting out weird crap, and they're all dumber than shit, so that helps. Then we can watch the horses mill around the town square for 3 more minutes. Then we can watch another guy take a piss. Then we'll watch the fat doctor sit in his chair and wheeze (OOOH does he represent the old, dying old guard of old stuff? DEEP! Or maybe he's just a fat old man, I don't know, I haven't read the book.) Then some people will drink and get drunk a lot, and maybe throw up in the rain, or dance, and then throw up. But I know for sure one of them will have to take a piss soon, because they drank a LOT. Here's a kid torturing a cat, then she ingests some rat poison and that allows one of the stupid characters to spout some bullshit to trick all the dumber people into giving him more money. Fun fact: leaving the camera on a child actress for 10 minutes when her character is supposed to be dead reveals that she is still breathing. Of course, I realize she is not really dead in real life, but I'm saying editing would have actually made sense there. But since this is not afforded to us, the audience, the movie keeps on plodding, and so shall I. Another ugly, frumpy person just did something frumpy, let's watch them walk away. Here is a nice crane shot of it still raining, because it rains for a long time in Hungary. Did we mention it rains a lot here? It rains a lot here. Did we tell you it rains here? It rains here. Did we ever tell you about the rain here? It rains here. One shot of guys walking down a street being pushed along by the wind not enough? Here's another one, 4 hours later. This time there's a 3rd gentleman walking in the shot, so it's like a totally different shot. Here's some more dopey dialogue. AND SCENE! Really, a lot of nice shots in the movie, but then again the law of averages basically guarantees that. A lot of redundancy for the sake of art, I guess, and it's not fair to say there's no plot here, that's not the case, it's just that it is occasionally lost in the surge of repetitive imagery. Jeanne Dielman showed more restraint.

You know that feeling when you just finished a marathon? You finished in the 10th percentile, but you don?t give a damn, you finished damn it, so screw your ex-girlfriend who said you?d never amount to anything. Well, I don?t know that feeling either, but I think that?s the feeling I?d have after completing Sátántangó. Seven long ? but highly gratifying ? hours were spent on the couch, eyes glued to the picture mover (but not in succession, I had to keep my sanity somehow.)

Sátántangó is comprised of 12 chapters (to call them vignettes would be an understatement). The first six moving forward story wise, but following taking on another person?s POV. Until doubling back, and following the same people only in reverse. The structure borrows from (OMG!) the tango: six moves forward, six moves back. It?s very interesting, can only be taken true advantage of in a film of this length. It?s the only way you really get to know the characters.

One such chapter in particular really struck a cord with me. Felfesl?k (Those Coming Unstitched) follows Estike (Erika Bók) around on a short tale of betrayal and death. Being coerced by one, who we can only assume is her older brother, she?s lead to believe planting money underground and watering will grow the money tree. She returns a few days later and discovers the money was taken, and used by aforementioned older person. Her face to discover the betrayal, without reason might I add, truly saddened me. Of course she can?t fight back, so her only way to cope is to inflict pain on a poor cat. And that?s a key issue in the film: bullying. The bigger powers take advantage of the little, for no reason whatsoever, only because they can. It?s quite reminiscent to the Bush Doctrine, except America always has a ?reason.? I?d never go as far to say that America?s evil goes as far as the Soviet Union?s, but it sure as hell gets close. I?d hate to digress into some rant about America and our perverse concept of American Exceptionalism, but I can?t help but to find some allegorical similarity whenever a film takes on politics. It kills me just to think of Dragan Marinkovic?s satire The Bizarre Country (1988, Yugoslavia). If you can manage to find a copy, I highly suggest that film. Anyway?

It?s hard to be coherent when writing about a film you?re still digesting, but I do know this: Sátántangó is a film experience that can?t be matched. There are moments of boredom, do not get me wrong, but that?s more to do with Tarr?s need to stay stagnant on a particular shot, and all I want is for him to move on. I know why he does it, and frankly, commend his bravery, but after five hours, sometimes all you want is for things to progress. Save for that little complaint, this is a damn fine film, and deserves all it?s deification.

Somewhat uneven. The tango-like structure and extremely long dead time are pretty awesome in showing the futile inertia of the community. However whenever some douche in the film opens their mouth it becomes laughable. It's very effective in carving out large chunks of time, which is really above all what the film is about. I'm not sure what the scene near the end featuring the writers discussing the characters was for. I thought I had seen enough rain in this film to last a season, but I left the theater only see it was pouring outside (plus an ominous sound of bell towing).

at 7.1/2 hours this is an experience more than a your typical movie the running time allows one to become imursed in the world that Bela Tarr has created, to ruminate the extrodinary images and the deeper meaning that lies within

Can't wait to watch it now that I've got my hands on the
DVD all the way from Budapest!

I was surprised how enjoyable a watch this was. It is very slow, very tedious, and very long. But somehow Tarr immerses the viewer in a world of the poor and struggling and shady dealings that can be captivating and at times quite funny.

One of the greatest experiences I ever had in Cinema. Watching the 7-hour long silent epic Satantango kind of changed my opinion about cinema. Tarr has set an example of how powerful and limitless cinema can be and is....

Cinematic miracle of the 90's.A true masterpiece

You may balk at the length of this film, and I cannot blame you. I put off seeing this for years under the excuse that I really didn't have seven hours to watch a film in. Three hours, no problem. Four hours, meh, okay. Five hours, only if I'm really pushing it. But seven whole hours? An entire day dedicated to the lives of Hungarian farmers?
But this film understands the commitment we make to it. To call it an epic, is, I feel, inaccurate. The Birth of a Nation is an epic. Barry Lyndon is an epic. Those films take place over years and chronicle countless meaningful events in the lives of their main character(s). Satantango takes place, for the most part, over two days in the lives of these farmers. And because it's seven hours long and the lives of these people are about as interesting as our own (well, seriously) the attention to detail is immaculate. There are approximately eight characters, so we get a chance to know them and their lifestyle perfectly over the course of the movie.
And the reason for this is the same reason it's not an epic; we see meaningful events in their lives, but we also see meaningless events. Right near the start of the film we watch a woman go to the bathroom in a pan, in stark contrast to the beautiful shot of cattle that occupied the first eight minutes of the movie.
The only explanation that can be made is that Tarr wants us to actually be a part of the lives of these people, through their distresses and happiness and above all, their tedium. The reason approximately three hours of the film is dedicated to utter nothingness is that can you, seriously, say that you spend more than half your life actively doing something? Really?
It's a punishing work, to be sure. These are miserable, downtrodden people, and we have shared close quarters with them for seven hours. But their misfortunes are truly tangible, because their misfortunes belong to people who use the bathroom and drink and dance and walk and dream and yell and sigh and mutter and grumble and think and LIVE. Life is Satan's Tango, six steps forward, six steps back, and all we can do is occasionally take the time to think about it. I think that, for true contemplation of life and meaning, seven hours isn't too much to ask.

One of the greatest films ever made.

An epic of the truest sense: it is obsessively and meticulously crafted by a madman; its length, and pace, makes it unforgettable to some, unbearable to most; the subject matter is deafeningly political, grotesquely gorgeous, and darkly hilarious; and, of course, it is indescribably brilliant in every conceivable regard.

It has been said that if the viewer is to watch this film in one sitting, the impact that the story has created will be so much more powerful. To watch the entire 7 hour film separated in parts will not be any more of an impact than sitting through Requiem for a Dream, and shutting it off at the halfway mark. I am one of the lucky few to have sat down and enjoyed Bela Tarr's masterpiece for a full seven and a half hours (of course with a few short breaks in between). If there is one thing that will throw people off from this movie, it is its running time. For most audiences, it will be an ordeal to sit through. If the mainstream audience was ever to watch such a beautiful film in one sitting, they might go mad thanks to the director's pace, narrative, and impeccable use of tracking shots and slow movements with the camera. Yet what separates Satantango from other masterworks that are just as long, is that the story actually works with the running time. Films like "Taiga" by Ulrike Ottinger (8 hours), "La Commune" by Peter Watkins (5 hours) or even mainstream classics like "Gone With The Wind" (3 hours) and Ben-Hur (3 hours); they would got caught up in the moment and never sustained a true narrative for portraying a story with such a long running time. But Satantango is one of the most impressive films I have ever seen, for that specific reason. Not only does it keep a close eye on its narrative structure, but even as it is cinematically and dialogue driven, it will keep the viewer entertained with its beautiful tracking shots, and stretched screenplay.

Its story is fairly simple, and it doesn't provide us with a huge array of plot twists or big climactic moments. In fact, the film is rather anti-climactic according to most audience's descriptions. To truly appreciate this film will be a difficult task for many viewers, especially the mainstream audience. The main flaw that most viewers will notice right away is that it could be considered fairly tedious, and almost pretentious. The film is mostly focused on picking up the little details by keeping the scene the same for a long amount of time. Sometimes the camera does not move for at least 10 minutes, and the scene does not change for at least 30. Other times, the camera will use its tracking shots and capture the image as it slowly moves several inches over the course of a few minutes. A lot of the film also takes place while the character is walking along a long road/trail. Showing the protagonist's whole journey as the camera stays still, and the character gets closer and closer towards the screen. Its true flaw for that reason, is that it makes up so much time while that is shown. Yet it would only be considered a flaw for those types of viewers. What I saw, was the directors vision being portrayed flawlessly. In around 7 hours, I was able to pick up so much of the plot and little details than I normally would in any other situation. The short stories were more powerful for the strangest reasons. As I was able to picture the environment better, the characters were also able to shine through. Most everyone in the film had a moment to shine, and the tracking shots really gathered their full potential. As most cast members were shown as close to the camera as possible, the dramatic effect could play out very well. The performances set the mood much more than the direction, and it played out which way the story was going. Sometimes the film was entirely dramatic, other times it was disturbing to watch, and every once in a while the black comedy showed through and it was funny as hell. A film with so many genres packed into one, it is hard to decide what it was that you had experienced.

It will be a long time before I even think about watching this again. As much as I enjoyed myself, sitting in my room for seven and a half hours curled under my blankets, and staring at a screen is not my ideal vision of film-viewing. But overall, I was thoroughly impressed. I don't think I have been so impressed with a film since I watched "Les Enfants Du Paradis" or even "Belle De Jour". The film making it top notch. The cinematography never picks a bad sight, and the stories are especially fascinating when they are scrambled together through a chronologically mixed plot that overlooks a few of the previous scenarios through a different point of view. You will never get through 7 hours of video this fast. This is an innovative, imaginative, cinematically beautiful, and overall powerful piece of cinema. How can one do justice to such an epic. As a black comedy that can only be hailed as one of a kind, or as an imagery driven piece of powerful fiction. There's no way to tell, but there will never be any need to. What we are given is a typical film that is able to make use of the art it is qualified as with simple techniques, and moralizing short stories. But is it a good film? Of course... it may be one of the most exhilarating, and cinematically beautiful films I have ever seen. The art-house genre would be proud of such an experimental masterpiece. But for the viewers that are wishing for a more, fast paced and dramatic turn of events, this subtle piece will not be one for you. Fans of the art-house will approve rapidly. But the mainstream won't appreciate what it's trying to achieve.

postsinema hacım ;)

Hands down, one of the greatest films ever made. One of the few films that actually justify Cinema as an art-form.
However, it is recommended almost exclusively to either people who are catatonic, people who are studying\interested in Black Holes and perhaps to the few who are willing to dive into existential abysses.

Tied for my favorite movie of all time. If you are going to watch this then you MUST watch it in one sitting. If you don't then you will lose much of the impact.

Sure, no ones seen it. I mean, a seven hour movie? In black and white? In another language? Slow as hell, and in real time? I think this will be forever a forgotten work of art; and I don't mind being the only person I know who would watch it, but seriously; it is one of the greatest films ever made (though I will refrain from using the word favorite, it comes pretty close to the top, if not on the top)