"Painfully astute" is right. There's nothing wrong with the style, though. The problem is that it's been adopted too quickly by bad filmmakers (that's no slight on Ciao, which I haven't seen) and by festival programmers. I raised this topic when I interviewed Lisandro Alonso in Toronto.

Hughes: I’ve seen several films this week that have adopted an observational style of filmmaking, and there’s such a difference between the ones that work and the ones that don’t. In the bad ones, the directors seem to think that if they just point a camera at an actor long enough, audiences will magically intuit some great mystery about the character. Your films are different but I’m not sure if I can explain why.

Alonso: I don’t know either, but I understand what you’re saying. I see it also at film festivals. So, what the fuck? {laughs} What is happening? {laughs} I don’t know what’s happening, why I don’t feel anything with some films.

Hughes: Do you know Pedro Costa’s films?

Alonso: {smiles} Yeah.

Hughes: I think there’s something about having someone behind the camera who is giving himself to the other people in the room.

Alonso: I’m not talking about my films right now, but I can feel very easily if there is a filmmaker behind the camera -- being honest with the characters, with the house, with the streets, with a dog, with the sound, with the photography. It’s hard, though, because my uncle, for example, will go to the cinema and he doesn’t feel shit about Costa or about the new director who puts a camera in front of a dog, it’s all the same. It’s my hope that there are audiences who can feel the difference.

That's a great interview, Darren. I love your idea about a director 'giving himself' to the other people in the room. By room, do you mean the audience or the actors? I think it's a necessity in both regards. It's why, when I direct, I try to stay right by the camera (if I'm not operating it myself), as close to the actors as possible. And it's why, no matter how much I might be convinced of the righteousness of my own cinematic instincts, an unfavorable audience reaction can turn me in another direction.

On the subject Ciao: since I edited the film and am, at least somewhat, responsible for its pacing and duration, I feel that it's formal qualities are mostly sound. It's problem lie elsewhere, and part of what I think critics are reacting against was summed up by Michael Tully in his review:

"There is a strong Asian sensibility in Ciao, from the static, symmetrical imagery to the suppressed emotions hiding just beneath the surface. While Tan is Malaysian, the film is a predominantly English-language drama starring Caucasian men. This tone might be too jarring for some viewers, who will find the dialogue and delivery to be stilted and artificial."

When I said "the room," I meant the actors. We'd been talking about how, in order to decide if he could make a film in this location, he'd jumped in his car, driven 1,000+ miles, and lived in the small community for two weeks. That's what reminded me of Costa -- that idea of a filmmaker becoming a kind of participant in the lives of his "characters."