Maybe on a second viewing some of the length of scenes might not seem so unnecessary. It's really not a film about plot or getting from A to B, so there's not necessarily going to be a way that you can take individual scenes and parse out how they advance the film. I do think that many of those scenes provide insights or character details which give us more understanding of Olivier and the boy, or heighten our anxiety about the inevitable conflict. Oh, yeah. I said above, last summer-- a bit misguided-- that I wasn't really worried that he'd hurt the boy. That's crazy. The threat of harm is always there, and imagine how another filmmaker might have handled this. Yeah, you, Gaspar Noe. I don't know if Olivier changes, or if from the beginning he's consistently been motivated by a desire to know the boy and improve his life. I know that the earlier scenes serve a purpose by introducing us to the lonely and clipped stasis that characterizes Olivier's life. I guess I prefer them to the shorthand that is often used to make the same point in much quicker time, e.g., character arrives home to empty house, presses answering machine button to hear message from mom ("Why haven't you called me?), heats up unappetizing TV dinner and turns on game show.