Fair enough.

There is value in the mundane. Plus, it's not like that's the focus of his films....Taiwan's history and present are. It's not like he shows people eating w/o discussing something of central importance to driving the narrative forward.

>And plenty of directors can use non-actors without resorting
>to tedious long shots that go on forever without anything of
>interest happening.

I agree somewhat. There are vast examples of which you are speaking of, but easing improvisation and minimizing continuity/match-on-action errors are not the only reason why Hou uses long shots and takes.

And on the other hand, what would be worse is using various angles and camera distance and height just to enhance attention even when nothing interesting is happening. Or using diegetic and/or non-diegetic music just to liven things up.

The long shot has value because it provides context for the characters. You also have the group emphasis. "The Last Supper" painted as a gallery of 2 or 4 person compositions give off a different feeling than a composition of all 13.

Dynamism w/i the frame can do just as much as dynamism b/w shots. Hou employs blocking that gives us clues when to look and where. Same stuff that changing angles and distance do. Character blocking is a lost art...its vital to mise-en-scene.

Long takes have a certain tension to them.

I welcome any style of shooting, really.