Some members have suggested using film won't help your situation, others have commented opposite. I think they're all right in as much as it depends on the person. I generally take better photos with a film camera than I do with a digital device. That says more about my own strengths/weaknesses than it does about the relative merits of each method of recording an image though. Getting some film kit could be the making of you as a photographer, or it could be a step sideways or even backwards. But I think you should try it, anyway, because you are wondering if it would help, and the bottom line is that the only way to find out, is to try it.
But, it might not be a good move to drop $1000 on kit you're not certain you want to stay with over the long term, at this point. More importantly, it is really not necessary. The quality you can get for a small investment today is excellent.
If you'd like to slow down that suggests manual focus is what you may prefer as I get the impression you wish to go back to basics, and manual focus helps.
All the major Japanese brands were making good, reliable SLR bodies with excellent lenses by the mid to late 1960s. I would only suggest looking to a consistently reliable, all mechanical SLR, simply because they tend to age better than 1970s onwards electronic models. You can't go too far wrong with something from Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Olympus or Minolta, as they are plentiful, affordable, all had decent lenses, and generally only needed a battery/electrical system to power their internal metering. I personally own SLRs made by all these brands and many others (including a number of German types that are more special interest, due to availability and specific servicing needs).
With that said, I'd suggest you could do a lot worse than a Minolta SRT, because they're well made, solid, very reliable, and super affordable. The Rokkor lenses are as good as anyone else's, but you will not generally pay as much as you might for similar Nikon or Canon optics. It's not a question of the Minoltas being better than, say, the Pentax or Olympus alternatives, just that they're very good kit which you can acquire a bit more cheaply than some other brands without sacrificing anything in the way of features, or build quality. And I say this as someone who really didn't like Minoltas much, once, (suffice to say, I don't think they're very sexy designs, underneath their external coverings). But, it all works, and works reliably, which is what counts most, and, after having being given a number of Minolta items, I was converted when I tried it, despite my own prejudices.
You ought to be able to get a good body and two or three lenses for USD 100 (Eg. a 50mm, 35mm or 28mm and a 135mm) and, believe me, you can do an awful lot with just these few things, photographically.
Whichever way you do decide to go, don't invest too much, initially, until you've had a chance to experience this way of imaging. Apart from anything else, it is really not necessary, to drop $1000 to get started. I'm not advising against such an investment, simply, to make it after you have some personal experience with film and an insight into how you feel about it. I definitely think you should try it, though, if only to get it out of your system.
Cheers,
Brett
