In Reply to: 'specifically, his tendency for fully decompressed storytelling'' posted by SagoBob on November 23, 2025 at 12:23:23
in roughly 1 minute of narrative and stretches it to anywhere between 5 to 10 minutes making the same point by slowing down the pace, lingering on images, and adding those journal entries or excerpts from letters that don't add any new info but just work as a way to dramatically underline every point he makes. And the whole episode seems like segments like that, strung one after another.)
At the end of that stretch I felt like I spent all that time nibbling at the edges of a dish whereas a brisk pace and more compact storytelling could be building upon that exact point and give me more and more info.
I feel like he is more in tune with making the audience feel something than he is in being informative and connecting dots.
My personal take, obviously. Anyone who enjoys that style, more power to you folks. Immerse yourselves in it. It just so happens that that style does not work for me. I find it a bit of a romantic slog.
(As to the Adam Curtis comparison, he also takes a long time lingering on footage and pulling himself out of the narrative for stretches of time, but when I'm watching his documentaries, I feel like I'm seeing things for the first time and I'm able to make connections better, and images seem more fascinating and revealing. IOW when he does something similar, my mind is interpreting, and when Burns does it, I'm emoting.)