A Rant About Personal Favorites
Yes, in my “heart of hearts”, I think it would resonate with anyone reasonable and open to it. Most people would not be interested in seeing it at all of course, a lot of who would see it wouldn’t actually be open to it (subtitles?? b/w?? NO TY) but for anyone reasonably intelligent and with an open mind, it would nail ‘em right where it counts. When I first saw Seven Samurai I hadn’t seen very many movies and was hardly even considered a budding cinephile, but I could tell something special had unfolded before me nonetheless.
And if the film did not resonate, well, then I think that would call to question its status as an “all-time great”. I realize of course this is an idealistic approach, it’s possible that the vast majority of people are ignorant and unreachable even by my blessed “all time greats”, however I think you kinda “have to believe” in this scenario otherwise it’s all (largely) meaningless, a depressing thought indeed. (A topic for another thread perhaps.)
@Axel
*…I think it would resonate with anyone reasonable and open to it. Most people would not be interested in seeing it at all of course, a lot of who would see it wouldn’t actually be open to it (subtitles?? b/w?? NO TY) but for anyone reasonably intelligent and with an open mind,…_
…and in the right mood/frame of mind, with the right expectations, etc….This doesn’t sound like every great film “cuts past all of this, it pierces every shell and every defense and every bias.”
it’s possible that the vast majority of people are ignorant and unreachable even by my blessed “all time greats”,…
FWIW, my guess is that the vast majority of people could appreciate these films—but, as you alluded to, they have to be open and interested in appreciating these films. Without this, I don’t think great films (art) will always reach people. Are the vast majority of people open and interested? That’s not the sense I get—at least not of Americans. But this could change. It may not be likely, but you never know.
Jazz,
This is a bit truncated because I lost a bunch of writing but it should help to keep things moving, I hope.
“1. How does knowledge make one opinion more valid/compelling/meaningful than another? “
1. Well, I can’t actually believe you’re questioning the value of knowledge but…
I wasn’t trying to suggest that knowledge makes a person’s opinion more valid than anther, just different. I can see Memories of Underdevelopment as a film studies student, someone else can see as a person who lived in the area and era, someone else can see it as a student of Latin cultures, ect. Assuming all are reasonably intelligent (the opinions of dumbasses is another story), all opinions would be valid. As for compelling or meaning, that would be subjective as well.
“2. With regard to question #1, how can knowledge be significant if the things that elevate a film into greatness can’t be known? "
2. Knowledge is a base, it’s indispensable. Just because it won’t necessarily lead to a complete understanding does not diminish its importance. You still have to be able to see the good technique from the bad.
“3. In terms of overall impact, can’t a film succeed or fail based on other factors that don’t have anything to do with a film? For example, a person hates Brief Encounter because his wife cheated on him. We can’t automatically conclude that the film failed because the guy hated the film, right? This is one example among many where external factors can diminish or enhance a film.”
3. Yes, that is a factor that would ensure a subjective view of the film regardless of the technical or artistic achievement. We can conclude that the film failed but that viewer can
“Technique refers to the technical aspects of the filmmaking. Good technique may not be original; it may not result in a film that is timeless, universal, unified or profound. Yet, these qualities provide a compelling basis for a film’s greatness. I think Sunrise, Citizen Kane, Tokyo Story, Godfather are great because of these reasons.”
Those films are technically great, but are they necessarily great art? If you or I were to remake them shot for shot would that have the same impact? I doubt it, though they would look technically identical. If they are great art it has much more to do with the individuals involved than the technically achievement.
“If you define originality in a very narrow way—i.e., being absolutely novel—than very few artworks would qualify. I don’t think that’s what’s meant by originality—at least I don’t mean it that way.”
I think your assuming that I find lack of originality, or the lack of existence of originality as a negative. This is not the case. I see it only as the way it is. Everything is derived, whether consciously or not, from what came before. Originality may not exist but it does not preclude uniqueness within the confines of the established.
As for the genre question, you’re of course right that there are many exceptions. I still feel that a vast majority can be placed within that context, more so than in any other theory, and it is thus an important aspect to consider when trying to analyze a film.
@JAZZ
…and in the right mood/frame of mind, with the right expectations, etc….This doesn’t sound like every great film “cuts past all of this, it pierces every shell and every defense and every bias.”
Eh, I wouldn’t be so quick to underestimate the power of cinema and art in general in this regard. And I’m not saying every great film does this, I’m saying that this (among others) is what separates “great films” and “all-time great films”. A large part of why “art” is so attractive has to deal with people wishing to break free of the their individual “bonds” (their self, their bias, their perspective, ect.) and for two or three hours just forget all the nonsense of being “you” and step into something else, another person, another world. It goes beyond simple “escape”, escape is entertainment. Escape is stepping out of you. Art is when that isn’t enough, when you want to step out of you and into someone else.
Part of the glory and the power of it is that you can step into someone else from a completely different time, culture, perspective, upbringing, worldview, you name it…. and yet we are all human, so there is always something to relate and hold on to.
“we try to set aside our much of personal reaction to the film”
But by doing that, wouldn’t we be risking abdicating our own experience for, what, a sort of hypothetical partial experience of the film that’s just kind of the average of a number of experiences of the film rather than something any particular person actually had? How are we participating in the process? I can see how this works fine, more or less, for someone like Bordwell who’s interested primarily in formal qualities and common cognitive processes involved in watching a film, but how does a film critic say something “new” about a film if s/he only has a finite set of already-iterated tools to do so?
@Matt
We set aside our personal reaction—for a moment, while we trying get a good understanding of the film. Would you agree that we don’t want our some of our preferences, expectations, moods, biases, etc. to interfere our understanding of the film? Now, separating the parts of our personal reaction that may be inappropriately clouding our understanding is not as neat and tidy—or easy—as I’m making it sound. It’s a messy mix, but wouldn’t you agree that there are some aspects of our reaction that inappropriately influence our understanding, and that we should do our best to be aware of these factors and try to mitigate them? For example, while watching Yimou’s Hero, I expected a conventional kung-fu/action film. When the film didn’t go this route, I was disappointed. That reaction made me feel the film wasn’t any good. But is that accurate? I had to push aside that expectation/reaction and try to understand the film on its own terms. When I did, I had a much different assessment of the film.
…but how does a film critic say something “new” about a film if s/he only has a finite set of already-iterated tools to do so?
Two things:
1. If a critic wants to say something new, my sense is that they shouldn’t read any other critics. They should go into films with knowing as little as possible about the film and the opinions of others. New insights are also going to depend on the perception, intelligence, knowledge (not necessarily about films), experiences (in general) and honesty of the individual. My sense is that these factors are more crucial to saying new things then the process of evaluating a film.
2. My personal feeling is that newness is secondary to a deep understanding of the film and effectively communicating this understanding to a wide audience. I don’t read a lot of criticism, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but my sense is that these qualities are undervalued. If someone wants to know what makes Turin Horse so great, it shouldn’t be so difficult to find a compelling answer for that (assuming the film is good, which I think it is)—especially in the internet age.
“If a critic wants to say something new, my sense is that they shouldn’t read any other critics.”
How, then, would won gain a sufficient knowledge of the aforementioned intersubjective criteria? Doesn’t positing criteria that “most of us find compelling” presuppose a certain degree of knowledge of film history and criticism?
@Jason
Assuming all are reasonably intelligent (the opinions of dumbasses is another story), all opinions would be valid. As for compelling or meaning, that would be subjective as well.
But when you say that “opinions of dumbasses is another story,” to me, this signifies that not all opinions are equal—i.e., what is compelling and meaningful are NOT subjective.
Knowledge is a base, it’s indispensable. Just because it won’t necessarily lead to a complete understanding does not diminish its importance. You still have to be able to see the good technique from the bad.
To me, these statements suggest you do think intersbujectivity exists. You’re implying that technique is an aspect of films we should evaluate. More importantly, you’re saying there is such a thing as good technique, and that people are able to distinguish the two. Presumably those who can accurately distinguish good technique from bad have a more solid basis for making a judgment about art. This is sounds very similar to an intersubjective approach (although it involves much more than this example).
3. Yes, that is a factor that would ensure a subjective view of the film regardless of the technical or artistic achievement. We can conclude that the film failed but that viewer can
I’m not sure what you were trying to say here.
If you or I were to remake them shot for shot would that have the same impact? I doubt it, though they would look technically identical.
I’m not sure I could say that. Does following another film shot-for-shot constitute good technique? I think technical filmmaking goes beyond that.
Originality may not exist but it does not preclude uniqueness within the confines of the established.
The first part of the sentence seems to contradict the second part. If originality doesn’t exist, then can uniqueness exist as well? The point I was trying to make was that I don’t have a very narrow definition of originality. If a film has “uniqueness within the established” form, that could count as original, imo.
…and it is thus an important aspect to consider when trying to analyze a film.
Yes, I agree thinking about the genre(s) of a film is important when analyzing a film.
@Matt
How, then, would won gain a sufficient knowledge of the aforementioned intersubjective criteria? Doesn’t positing criteria that “most of us find compelling” presuppose a certain degree of knowledge of film history and criticism?
Several comments:
First of all, you’re not saying that we have to read a lot of critics to learn about the general standards of excellence, are you? I mean, you could get that pretty quickly by reading a textbook on art.
Second, this is going to sound glib, but I think we also get an understanding of these criteria by being members of the culture. We hear people talk about good films; we read reviews, etc. Honestly, a lot of the criteria and principles I chose (choose) comes from “myself.” By this I mean, I just sit and think about about what makes films good or great. Or if I see a film I think it’s good I extrapolate criteria from that film. Of course, my sense of criteria that will be valid doesn’t come strictly from myself—it’s definitely informed by the culture and ideas I’m a part of. But I haven’t read a ton of criticism or theory, either, so I don’t think that’s necessary. Or do you disagree with that?
" I think we also get an understanding of these criteria by being members of the culture."
OK, but there are different levels of “membership” in culture, and therefore different levels of understanding of it. For example, a casual reader might read For Whom the Bell Tolls and not have any trouble keeping track of the characters and the progression of plot and such, but might have little or no particular interest in or sensitivity to Hemingway’s themes or imagery, or his prose style and narrative style. Therefore one might reach different conclusions than one who were interested in these things were one to try to “extrapolate criteria” from the novel.
Or one might look at this
and register “It’s a still life . . . apples, bottle of wine” and a few other details, and then move on.
“I haven’t read a ton of criticism or theory, either, so I don’t think that’s necessary. "
Well, I don’t know that you necessarily need x amount of formal criticism, but seeing as your OP was concerned with critics and was, in a sense, a sort of “criticism of criticism” (“I get especially frustrated when . . .”), along with the interest in “intersubjective standards”, “I don’t think it’s necessary to read criticism” seems like sort of an odd position to take.
@Matt
OK, but there are different levels of “membership” in culture, and therefore different levels of understanding of it. For example, a casual reader might read For Whom the Bell Tolls and not have any trouble keeping track of the characters and the progression of plot and such, but might have little or no particular interest in or sensitivity to Hemingway’s themes or imagery, or his prose style and narrative style. Therefore one might reach different conclusions than one who were interested in these things were one to try to “extrapolate criteria” from the novel.
I totally agree with that with all of this. But I think what determines the different levels of understanding and membership have more to do with the individual’s intelligence, perception and general understanding (versus specific understanding of film theory, criticism and filmmaking—not to say that these can’t help.), as well as their interest in understanding art. Bright individuals who really want to understand art can get a good understanding of an artwork. It takes effort and modicum of intelligence, but if they’re willing to put in the effort—e.g., reflect upon and a work and analyze it—then I think they can understanding of a work.
…“I don’t think it’s necessary to read criticism” seems like sort of an odd position to take.
I don’t think it’s necessary to read a lot of criticism to become a good critic—indeed, it might hinder an individual from being a good critic, particularly one with original ideas. But I’m interested in hearing about the best films—so lists that critics put out interest me—especially one’s that weren’t primarily lists of favorites.
I am a solid fan of this film:
Now, I know what it looks like. However, if you give this film a chance it actually delves into some decent territory and has one of my favorite narrative structures. Now, some “critics” will likely scoff at a film such as D.E.B.S., but fuck ‘em. Not only is D.E.B.S. a “pet favorite” film of mine, but I actually think it is objectively good. Not the greatest film of all time or even from it’s year or anything, but it definitely has some things going for it.
Now will most critics or even most reasonable cinephiles respect D.E.B.S.? Uh, I doubt it. However, I like it, and I legitimately think it’s all around decent, if not an outright “good” film. If people gave it a shot, I think they’d be surprised.
Could I sit back and go "woah woah woah… look at this film, I mean c’mon. Look at it. There must be some messed up subjective reason why I like this film that has no relevance to any reasonable critical analysis / discussion. I should therefore attempt to set aside “myself” and understand that this is just a “personal favorite” and not an objectively good film."
OR… I could, y’know, take a risk and actually give myself the benefit of the doubt and say… “ya’ll R crazy, D.E.B.S. is the real deal!” What kind of world would it be anyway if we all stripped away or ignored or even downplayed all the quirks that determine what we like and what we don’t like?
Of course this is not to say you need to be “ruled” by these quirks… it would be strange if I maintained that D.E.B.S. was the greatest movie ever made (spoiler: it’s not) BUT on the other hand it would be equally foolish for me to attempt to utterly circumcise myself of whatever inner qualities I have that allow me to appreciate D.E.B.S. This is my issue with the segregation of “great films” and “favorite films”, I think that on the spectrum of:
Ruled utterly by personal quirks -———- A robot with 0 personality and utterly perfect objective perspective
The segregation lies a little bit closer to the “robot” side of the equation than I am comfortable with, a nice middle ground is much preferred I think (keeping ones “quirks” in mind more or less, don’t be ruled by them, but don’t rule them out either).
“quirks” in mind more or less, don’t be ruled by them, but don’t rule them out either.
It might have been the radio show Moon over Morocco that began each episode :
The wise man rules his stars; the fool is ruled by them.
“But I’m interested in hearing about the best films—so lists that critics put out interest me—especially one’s that weren’t primarily lists of favorites”
OK, so now you’re telling me, essentially, that you’re interested in knowing what films critics think are best (so you’re interested in lists), but NOT interested in the underlying processes of criticism that go into to compiling such lists. Yet, if I go back to your OP, there you are calling into question the validity of these very same critical processes (even though you admit to not being particularly familiar with them), the basis of which for you seems to be a perception of critics over-reliance on “personal reasons”, yet when pressed for specifics, you said “honestly, a lot of the criteria and principles I chose (choose) comes from ‘myself’” . . . which sounds a lot like “personal reasons” to me.
It seems like you’re making one set of assumptions about your own “personal reasons” relationship to “great” and another set of assumptions about list-making critics’ “personal reasons.”
@Matt
Yet, if I go back to your OP, there you are calling into question the validity of these very same critical processes (even though you admit to not being particularly familiar with them), the basis of which for you seems to be a perception of critics over-reliance on “personal reasons”, yet when pressed for specifics, you said “honestly, a lot of the criteria and principles I chose (choose) comes from ‘myself’” . . . which sounds a lot like “personal reasons” to me.
Sorry, I’m not being very clear. By “comes from ‘myself,’” I meant that I would ask myself, “What are some intersubjective criteria and principles—i..e, what are some principles and criteria one could use to determine greatness of a film?” So I’m attempting to identify intersubjective criteria alone—versus getting it from critics. This isn’t necessarily the same as listing personal criteria—i.e., the kinds of things that I personally like and dislike in a film. In a way, isn’t this a valid way about of identifying intersubjective criteria and principles (although there might be some one overlooks)? I don’t think an individual has to have specialized knowledge to know which criteria and principles are intersubjectively valid or not. My sense is that individuals somehow “know” these criteria and priniciples are reasonable, if that makes sense.
As for the critics, my perception of critic’s over-reliance on personal reasons could be totally off-base. I’m basing this on interviews of critics that I’ve heard, specifically on NPR, and that’s the sense I get. I also get this sense when I see some picks that seem a bit curious to me. In any event, I could be completely wrong, but that’s my impression. Btw, I wasn’t trying to condemn all critics. Instead, I wanted to express my frustration at lists of greatest films that are primarily a list of one’s favorites.
OK, so now you’re telling me, essentially, that you’re interested in knowing what films critics think are best (so you’re interested in lists), but NOT interested in the underlying processes of criticism that go into to compiling such lists.
Well, that’s not entirely true, and I partly blame myself for not being entirely clear. Basically, I’m interested in these lists because they help me shift through films and hopefully help me find great movies. I like the fact that they don’t have any criticism because I want to see the films with as little information as possible.
Now, after I’ve seen the film I don’t mind reading critical analysis. Indeed, I’m going to want to read good criticism if I didn’t understand the film or if I don’t get the film is critically acclaimed. Unfortunately, I seem to have difficulty finding criticism like that. Btw, fwiw, here’s an exception to that. It’s a great review of the film, Brave, that Greg mentioned. This is the kind of criticism I really like, and it seems to be close to the way I try to evaluate a film. I’m interested in reading more film criticism like this.
“Sorry, I’m not being very clear. By “comes from ‘myself,’” I meant that I would ask myself, “What are some intersubjective criteria and principles—i..e, what are some principles and criteria one could use to determine greatness of a film?” So I’m attempting to identify intersubjective criteria alone”
But, Jazz, as a matter of definition, if we’re talking about “intersubjective criteria” in the the loose, Bordwellian sense of stuff “most people recognize” as legitimate criteria, the only way one could possibly know what “most people” think is, well, to set about finding out what people think. Looking at lists, you can try to divine from the films listed critical principles underlying a given list, by such a process seems awfully fallible. For obvious reasons, it’s much easier to figure out the thought process if you actually have a piece of criticism that actually contains the thought process rather than just a list of films.
“My sense is that individuals somehow “know” these criteria and priniciples are reasonable, if that makes sense.”
Having read through many hundreds of threads here on these forums, I have a really hard time accepting this explanation. Clearly some people (present company excluded, of course) have no f-ing idea what’s reasonable.
“I want to see the films with as little information as possible.”
Need I point out that the notion that the film is being offered as one of “the greatest films ever” is a huge piece of information to have about a film? At any rate, I’m not primarily thinking of reading reviews of the film and then trying to map one’s experience of the film to that review—that’s not necessarily a good way to go about watching films—but rather a gradual accrual of knowledge over time that won’t necessarily be specific to particular film that you’re about to watch, but that can be applied to a given film via extrapolation and re-application.
@Matt
Looking at lists, you can try to divine from the films listed critical principles underlying a given list, by such a process seems awfully fallible.
You’re probably right, but that’s the way I’ve done it. And I’m not trying to be glib or a smart-ass. Part of my talking about the process on the forum is to test out the ideas. When I say that the criteria I use are technical skill, wholeness, profound feeling or ideas, originality, timelessness, etc., I’m thinking that if these are wrong someone will call me on them.
For obvious reasons, it’s much easier to figure out the thought process if you actually have a piece of criticism that actually contains the thought process rather than just a list of films.
I’m not disagreeing with this. You’re probably right. But I’m taking a more DIY approach. What I’m trying to create is something that I want to do for myself. The danger of reading too much criticism is that you begin to adopt procedures and ideas that you don’t truly hold or even understand fully. By “making up” the process on my own, I can be sure more sure about what I’m saying and that the ideas come from “myself”—versus parroting critics and other thinkers. (To be clear, I don’t think all my ideas are original. We talked about how we get ideas via osmosis.)
Having read through many hundreds of threads here on these forums, I have a really hard time accepting this explanation. Clearly some people (present company excluded, of course) have no f-ing idea what’s reasonable.
Heh. I think the problem is that conflation of personal standards and intersubjective standards. The other part of the problem is the difficulty of effective online communication. Consider this thread. I suspect that the people who have objected or opposed the idea of intersubjectivity probably don’t disagree too much, if at all. The problem lies in communication. People aren’t expressing themselves as clearly as they could and people aren’t really paying enough careful attention to what people write. Plus, it’s a very difficult subject to talk about. My point is that I think there is—or could be—widespread agreement on what is reasonable if we could work through the communication challenges.
Need I point out that the notion that the film is being offered as one of “the greatest films ever” is a huge piece of information to have about a film?
I’m interested in hearing about what makes this information so significant.
For me, I think knowing that the film is great, important or worthy of seeing is unavoidable. There are a million films out there. A top ten list is a tool to help me shift through those films. Obviously, the tool is telling me which ones I should pay attention to—which implies that the films are really good, if not great. It’s the price I have to pay if I want to narrow down my options.
At any rate, I’m not primarily thinking of reading reviews of the film and then trying to map one’s experience of the film to that review—that’s not necessarily a good way to go about watching films—but rather a gradual accrual of knowledge over time that won’t necessarily be specific to particular film that you’re about to watch, but that can be applied to a given film via extrapolation and re-application.
I understand, and it’s valid and maybe more sensible way of approaching movies. But here’s where I’m coming from: having my own opinions is important to me. Doing the type of extensive reading you’re talking about can interfere with that process. One problem is that I might begin to think like everyone else—which will stifle or prevent an original thought I may have. (We talked about this earlier, I think.) Knowing which thoughts are my own versus the thoughts of others may also become difficult. I don’t want either to happen. Does that make sense?
I’ll give you a recent example. I just watched Vertigo for the second time. While getting to the end of the film, I began wondering if the film was really about the way our expectations and ideas of our SO can destroy our relationships. I have no idea if any other critic has written about this; I have no idea if this is a good reading or one that is so terrible that I should be embarrassed. Being in this position is scary in a way, but it’s also exciting and freeing. It’s my honest opinion, and I don’t have to worry if I’m just going along with critics or the consensus. If I read a lot of criticism, I think I might lose all of this.
“You’re probably right, but that’s the way I’ve done it. And I’m not trying to be glib or a smart-ass. Part of my talking about the process on the forum is to test out the ideas.”
Understood. And I’m not trying to argue you out of you particular way of going about things, necessarily, just trying to point out some aspects of your own process that you may not have fully explored.
" here’s where I’m coming from: having my own opinions is important to me. Doing the type of extensive reading you’re talking about can interfere with that process"
But you seem amenable to seeking opinions and approaches here . . . albeit less formalized ones than one might get from professional criticism, but we’re still talking about potentially integrating someone else’s thinking into our own, right? Or are you saying you feel like a professional opinion would somehow exert greater influence over your own thinking?
“If I read a lot of criticism, I think I might lose all of this”
You might . . . but I doubt it.
A lot of the joy in cinema for me stems from getting excited about something that yesterday would not have interested me at all.
Charlie the “car guy” loves cars. Say Charlie made a film about cars. I personally couldn’t car less about cars. However, through the magic of film, I get to (using charlie himself as the medium) tap into that excitement. Through charlie’s eyes, I get to feel that excitement that he feels. For the next few hours, I am Charlie, and I genuinely love cars.
The whole point, I dare say, is to catch a glimpse into another person’s “personal favorite”, completely irrelevant what the “subject” is, as long as whoever is telling the story is genuinely passionate about it, you can live it vicariously. I mean, that’s the whole point of art, right?
@Matt
And I’m not trying to argue you out of you particular way of going about things, necessarily, just trying to point out some aspects of your own process that you may not have fully explored.
I really appreciate the feedback. I’m talking about the process to get feedback—including (maybe especially) ones that may challenge my views.
But you seem amenable to seeking opinions and approaches here . . . albeit less formalized ones than one might get from professional criticism, but we’re still talking about potentially integrating someone else’s thinking into our own, right? Or are you saying you feel like a professional opinion would somehow exert greater influence over your own thinking?
This is a good point/question. Honestly, a lot of the comments about films here isn’t very extensive—there’s a handful of people who express opinions that people have put a lot of thought and time into. Still, when they do occur, I don’t think it affects me in the negative way I referred—mainly because I try not to read comments until I’ve actually formulated my own thoughts—or I’ve basically given up on the idea.
As I mentioned, I’d be open to reading more criticism after I’ve seen a film—thought about it and decided that I’m not going to spend so much time thinking about it. Part of the problem is that the film criticism I have come across hasn’t interested me very much—or at least provided what I’m looking for. I don’t come across a lot of pieces like the Loofbourow one I linked (although it’s not like I look very hard).
You might . . . but I doubt it.
What makes you so sure? Here’s another example: I’ll watch something and I’ll think of connections to other films. For example, re-watching Vertigo made me see a connection between Ruby Sparks This may or may not be interesting, but when I read reviews/criticism, I often see these type of insights. If I read these seeing a film or formulating my thoughts, the criticism might “preempt” some of these observations. That’s just one example.
But I don’t want to belabor this point. I’m open to reading criticism after formulating my own ideas.
@Axel
Could I sit back and go “woah woah woah… look at this film, I mean c’mon. Look at it. There must be some messed up subjective reason why I like this film that has no relevance to any reasonable critical analysis / discussion. I should therefore attempt to set aside “myself” and understand that this is just a “personal favorite” and not an objectively good film.”
OR… I could, y’know, take a risk and actually give myself the benefit of the doubt and say… “ya’ll R crazy,…
Or you could examine your reaction and lay out a case for or against the film. If you were willing, you could make this case to other people and get feedback. The film may not “seem” good to everyone, but that doesn’t matter. Can you make a compelling argument? If so, open-minded people (who have a bit of courage or who don’t care what people think), will be able to see this.
Of course this is not to say you need to be “ruled” by these quirks… it would be strange if I maintained that D.E.B.S. was the greatest movie ever made (spoiler: it’s not)…
And that’s what I’m trying to avoid. You might think this kind of think is easy and obvious to avoid, but I don’t think so.
…BUT on the other hand it would be equally foolish for me to attempt to utterly circumcise myself of whatever inner qualities I have that allow me to appreciate D.E.B.S. This is my issue with the segregation of “great films” and “favorite films”, I think that on the spectrum of:
Who says making a distinction between “favorites” and “bests” is tantamount to, ahem, “circumcising” one’s self? That’s a completely fallacious—and overly dramatic—position. They’re just not necessarily the same thing. I think you would agree with that, right? I don’t think this is so controversial or radical. This separation doesn’t make me feel ashamed of my favorite films, and I DON’T see them as less important or valuable. I have no problem saying I really enjoyed 300, Lincoln Lawyer, and Star Trek (reboot) I don’t think they’re all time great films, but I really, really enjoyed myself watching them—and I wish I could see more films like this more often. (I don’t think any of them are bad films, btw—and I actually think 300 could be very good, if not great.)
Another instance where th hated food analogy is helpful. The idea that because you enjoy something that you also think it is good for you and helpful/ potentially beneficial to others is ludicrous. This seems to be a particularly cinephiliac disease that equates the pleasures of porn with those of art.
Isn’t the other side of that eating something that tastes to you completely bland, but trying to convince yourself it is actually a “excellent, highly nuanced entrée” because all the food critics claim it’s the all time best dish, it must just be your ignorant taste buds betraying you?
The metaphor isn’t about food as art, it’s about food (or art) as something we consume with either positive or negative consequences for our bodies. So we wouldn’t be talking about a bland-tasting “excellent, highly nuanced entree,” we’d be talking about a bland-tasting “extremely healthy meal” that might not be as instantly satisfying but that is “better for you” in the long run.
What, the idea that you pay it forward? …"This film may not be doing anything for you now… But don’t worry… You’re becoming a “better cinephile” just keep at it, one day you’ll mold yourself into a successful clone of all the smart people?"
No, it’s a blissful ignorance vs a wise, realistic outlook thing. It’s not about becoming a better cinephile but becoming a better person. If you only concern yourself with what’s most pleasing, you’d be watching porn, Hollywood blockbusters, kids movies, addicting video games, and the like, never really reading books or bothering to confront reality. I think this is less preferable to having people that are willing to struggle for the right answers rather than immediately settling for those that make us feel the best about ourselves. Appreciating great art over bad art is a way of appreciating a wise worldview over a deluded one. It’s prioritizing what’s true over what’s comfortable to believe. At least, in the context of “the infamous food metaphor.”
Oh…I see what’s coming. This is going to be good :)
What would happen if we all actually figured out which movies really the greatest? What would knowing this do to our cinephelia? Would it really help our experience of the films we see?
I’ve been following this discussion, but not participating much, mainly because I don’t think I have anything to say that hasn’t already been said, with more eloquence, by others here. But as I read through it all I begin to wonder if having a purely objective knowledge of the movies that are great and those that are not does anything for us. I know that if I get my fibre, I will go #2. I know that eating fibre-rich foods is the objectively greatest way to keep me from getting constipated. Can determining greatness in cinema carry such practical weight or is it just a dull endgame?
I watch art films primarily because I have been intuitively creating art my entire life, particularly drawing and painting and more recently classical music, and so naturally I gravitate towards the artistic side of cinema. So about a year ago I was temporarily unemployed and was illegally downloading and watching at least five art films a day, every day. It got to the point where it was interfering with my job hunting and other aspects of my everyday life.
MICHAEL: It’s not about becoming a better cinephile but becoming a better person. If you only concern yourself with what’s most pleasing, you’d be watching porn, Hollywood blockbusters, kids movies, addicting video games, and the like, never really reading books or bothering to confront reality.
Art can be addictive too to the point where it can interfere with one’s duties and responsibilities in confronting reality.
You’ll probably retort by saying that I am not learning the proper “lessons” from which great art is supposedly teaching. But if your primary concern is in seeking morality lessons and a healthy lifestyle then you probably have little need for art, which is a much more unique and rarefied discipline than all that. In seeking health and morality to “confront reality” you can read Aristotle or Bertrand Russell or even Jamie Oliver, but nobody is under the allusion that these guys are artists; they are moral philosophers and dietitians.
There are a great many physically and mentally healthy people in this world who have little interest in art and yet who are happy and successful in living a balanced lifestyle; conversely, there are also a great many mentally unbalanced and physically unhealthy people in this world who are passionate artists or consumers of art.
Like everything else, art ought to be done in moderation so that one is not neglecting one’s other duties and responsibilities in life – unless perhaps you’re Michelangelo Buonarroti or Ludwig van Beethoven… but Michelangelo or Van Beethoven I am not.
Sorry, but even if the food metaphor was fitting (which it isn’t) it seems to assume that sugar and porn are necessarily unhealthy for people when they actually aren’t. Sugar and porn only become unhealthy in excess. Also, the metaphor just isn’t fitting because when it comes to art, what people find “most pleasing” is subjective. I bet a lot of people on this website find art-films to be a lot more pleasing than Hollywood blockbusters. For these people the art-films are more like sugar than the Hollywood films. You can’t just say that Hollywood blockbusters and kids movies are the “most pleasing” (like sugar) for everybody and that art-films are like healthy vegtables for everybody. Everybody gains something tangible from eating vegtables (i.e. better health) whereas not everybody gains something tangible from watching art-films. The only people who gain anything from watching art-films are people who enjoy them and are interested in what they have to offer. Forcing someone to watch an art-film isn’t going to do them any good if they don’t want to engage with it.
Does the quality of an individual really depend so heavily on the type of movies they watch? I know a lot of decent people who mostly watch mainstream movies and TV. Maybe they could be better people—and couldn’t we all—but I don’t think the type of movies, books, music, etc. is the decisive factor. So if being a better person is the main concern, I wouldn’t worry so much about the type of movies one is watching. Instead I’d focus on spending more quality time with people, working on being forgiving and caring to those around you in need; being honest and many other things.
Btw, in the food analogy, is art films supposed to be equivalent to health food? So “entertainment films” would be equivalent to everything from junk food to fine dining cuisine that’s unhealthy? Not many people can eat health food exclusively, and there’s nothing wrong with eating a mixture of healthy food with some not-so-healthy food mixed in there.
@Nathan
But as I read through it all I begin to wonder if having a purely objective knowledge of the movies that are great and those that are not does anything for us.
I don’t think we can objectively know which films are great, but if I play along with your hypothetical, I would suggest the following:
>We could prioritize our movie viewing—not a small feat, imo.
>If we could develop a process for identifying these films, then we could identify these films for ourselves—particularly the films among the new releases
>If we develop a process, then we should be able to address the whole, “everything is subjective” response.
I suspect these responses won’t be compelling or interesting to you, but they’re important to me, fwiw.
Jazzaloha
@Axel
OK, what if we screened Seven Samurai at a local multiplex? You’re saying SS would overcome it’s “oldness,” pacing and its use of subtitles and resonate with the moviegoers who flock to the new Twilight film or the next MIchael Bay blockbuster?