A Rant About Personal Favorites

Jirin: So if it’s a kids film you judge it based on how well it entertains kids, if it’s an action film you judge it by how well the action is choreographed, it’s an adventure film you judge it based on how invested you got in the character’s success or failure, and if it’s trying to have trance-like cinematography and profound reflections on human existence, you judge it based on whether it does so.

I agree to an extent, though I might word it differently. But I think that this approach is still far too vague and flimsy for serious critical analysis of art, in that it lacks theoretical substance and rigour. For example, saying that a children’s film is a great work of art because it entertains kids can hardly be a thorough appraisal, in that it probably raises more questions than it answers, specifically in matters of taste and demographic.

I suppose that it really comes down to what you are personally looking for in your experience of art. So Jazz, if you’re not looking to create a grand theory of art which can rival “the best the world has to offer” then this is certainly fine with me; whatever floats your boat mate. But personally, I can’t take your approach too seriously because I am looking for an approach which is much more rigorous and fundamental, and like Greg mentioned, I believe that art must be “felt” to be truly appreciated.

Jirin said, Aboutness is overrated. It has almost no metacognitive viscerality!

Where’s Rober when you need him.

I do think we can come up with an approach that accommodates any style. That approach starts by getting a deep understanding of what the film is about and what it’s going for. Like I said in another thread, Big Trouble in Little China is going for someting different from All the President’s Men—or Blazing Saddles or Color of Pomegranates. So look at what each film is about and what it’s trying to do, and then determine if it has succeeded; and if so, how well it has succeeded.

How are we supposed to know what a film is going for? Doesn’t that assume some sort of specific authorial intent? And even if there was specific authorial intent how would the audience know what that was unless we explicitly asked the director for a statement on his intent, meaning and interpretation of his work. Without that information we can only guess at “what the film is trying to do.”

More importantly, why is authorial intent so important? Shouldn’t a work of art be experienced and interpreted by the audience on its own without the author trying to force his own meaning, interpretation and intent onto the audience? Wouldn’t it take a lot of the fun and interest out of watching movies if with every film you watched you had to read a pamphlet that explained exactly what the director thinks the movie is about and what his intent and message is? I want to make my own meaning out of art, not be told what it is by the author.

@Westley

How are we supposed to know what a film is going for? Doesn’t that assume some sort of specific authorial intent?

No, we don’t need to know the intentions of the director—we can determine what the film is going for from the film itself. What is Blazing Saddles going for? For one thing, it’s a comedy—a kind of goofy, spoof-ish one, specifically directed at Westerns. (There’s also some social commentary going on, if I recall.) It’s not realistic or serious the way All the President’s Men is, right?

Now, knowing what a film is going for isn’t always easy or clear, and one can make mistakes. I never saw the satire in Robo Cop, for example, but we have to get a sense of this if we’re going to evaluate a film fairly and properly, imo. You can’t ignore these details. If I were to evaluate Robo Cop while being unaware of the satirical elements, that’s a huge oversight, imo.

@Flani

But personally, I can’t take your approach too seriously because I am looking for an approach which is much more rigorous and fundamental, and like Greg mentioned, I believe that art must be “felt” to be truly appreciated.

Well, fwiw, I enjoyed our conversations.

Jazz, my point was more about relying on the discursive as proof, meaning that which can be readily converted to words or language rather than that which remains outside of it. Given the nature of the split you are proposing, with the “felt” on one side and the “thought” on the other, you have created a rift right at the heart of what some of us think is the fundamental and necessary point of union for art to be art.

Well, fwiw, I enjoyed our conversations.

Oh yes, me too :)

And I’d like to continue conversing with you, even if our approaches are very different.

“So look at what each film is about and what it’s trying to do, and then determine if it has succeeded; and if so, how well it has succeeded.”

All too often the film is “about” some variation of “sell more toys for Hasbro”.
If Hasbro sales suddenly go up, does that make it successful as a film?

Or, just as importantly, if the product doesn’t succeed beyond it’s function as an advertisement for more product, why were the seats full?

This is the sort of thing that keeps me up at night.

Or, If a director makes a movie with no thematic intent of his own for the movie, can he make a good one?

I don’t think so. I can’t even imagine a director being so lazy as to not even try… to add something…

On the other hand I think that committees can occasionally produce art.
I believe that Be-Papas did with Shoujo Kakumei Utena, though that was anime before it was a movie.

From Robocop:

Top story, Pretoria.
The threat of nuclear confrontation in South Africa escalated today when the military government of that besieged city-state unveiled a French-made neutron bomb and affirmed that it would use it as the city’s last line of defense.

@Jazz

Well, yes, I guess in a very broad, unspecific sense one can tell what a film is going for simply by watching the film. We can usually tell if a film is trying to be a comedy or a drama or a satire or whatever genre. Also, some films that want to get a specific message across are able to make that message very clear. Other films, however, aren’t so clear about what their message is, or what their genre is,. What about those films? How are we supposed to know what those films are going for? Sure, we can hypothosize what we think the film is about and what we think it’s trying to say and whether or not it achieves what we think its goals were. But isn’t that just our own subjective interpretation, and who are we to say that our interpretation is more correct than another?

Some art is ENTIRELY (or nearly so) about intentionality:

I think the shit is supposed to symbolize something. What could it be… :)

@JAZZ

“No, we don’t need to know the intentions of the director—we can determine what the film is going for from the film itself. What is Blazing Saddles going for? For one thing, it’s a comedy—a kind of goofy, spoof-ish one, specifically directed at Westerns. (There’s also some social commentary going on, if I recall.) It’s not realistic or serious the way All the President’s Men is, right?”

You can determine what you think a film is going for, but you cannot know. If someone were to interpret Blazing Saddles as a great and deeply profound dramatic experience, you might not agree… and in fact most reasonable people might not agree… but neither you nor mel brooks nor anyone else has the right to say with certainty that this is false.

What you “perceive” as a films intention is just that, your own perception. For me, if I ever feel like a film is “trying to do / say something” I get very annoyed and more or less write off immediately. I don’t want to be “told” something, I don’t want to be spoon fed, I don’t like things that make obvious “points”. It’s hard for me to believe these kinds of films because life, in my experience, doesn’t often bother with making points or “aboutness”. It just is, and you’re left in the dark to flail about and draw your own conclusions.

This works both ways. An incredibly intelligent and learned critic can watch a film, say 2001, and like it very much. They interpret all sorts social and political commentary, symbolisms, poetic insights, you name it. Also someone much more “ignorant” watches 2001, and for reasons inexplicable, completely unique and personal to them as an individual, they also love the film. That’s the thing about great art, it speaks on both of these levels, all at once. To try and parse these and separate these into “a great film” or just a “favorite” is a fools errand. Do “reasons” why a film strummed that sacred chord really matter? It’s nice to communicate these and relate to like-minded people, but at the end of the day each person is different. My reasons for liking 2001 are likely very different than yours. Your reasons for liking The Incredibles are likely different than mine, but who cares? Both films hit that sacred and special note, surely this matters most. Who gives a crap what most “reasonable critics” say, what matters is what you think, what you feel. If The Incredibles speaks to you in such a way that dwarves all other cinematic experience, then don’t sell that, or yourself, short. After all, we are but lowly mortals, doomed to stare into the abyss and never really know anything.

“Gentlemen, there’s more to Heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in our philosophy.” —. Major Briggs (or Shakespeare, if you prefer).

@Westley

Other films, however, aren’t so clear about what their message is, or what their genre is,. What about those films?

It might help if we think of a specific example. Btw, I’m not specifically referring to a “message.” Films can go for something other than delivering a message.

How are we supposed to know what those films are going for? Sure, we can hypothosize what we think the film is about and what we think it’s trying to say and whether or not it achieves what we think its goals were. But isn’t that just our own subjective interpretation, and who are we to say that our interpretation is more correct than another?

Excellent questions. My response:

1. We don’t always know with precision and absolute certainty what a film is going for, but we can get close enough for us to effectively understand and evaluate a film. This means that there could be multiple answers that are valid, but I would argue that the number of valid answers are fairly limited.

2. When there are different answers to this question, then we can evaluate the films according to these readings.

3. The validity of an answer depends on the film itself. Does the film back up that interpretation? Can we think of specific examples to back this up? Are there many examples that back this up? Are there examples from the film that challenge this reading of the film?

4. Ultimately, I think the validity of the response depends on how reasonable it seems, and I believe that reasonable people can arrive at a consensus—even though it may not be one precise answer.

@Matt

Some art is ENTIRELY (or nearly so) about intentionality:

In such cases, I think knowing the artist’s general philosophy and approach is really important, if not necessary. But once you have this general understanding, I don’t think you need to know the artist’s intentions for specific artworks.

@Greg

Are you saying you can’t talk about feelings? You can’t talk about how the film evoked these feelings? If these types of feelings are so critical to films, then how can we meaningfully talk about movies?

@Flani

And I’d like to continue conversing with you, even if our approaches are very different.

So would I, but fwiw, it would be more fruitful if you can point to some specific deficiencies in my approach, as well as suggest a superior one, rather than just saying you can’t take my approach seriously.

@Linden

All too often the film is “about” some variation of “sell more toys for Hasbro”.
If Hasbro sales suddenly go up, does that make it successful as a film?

I don’t see this as an aesthetic objective of a film. Films have commercial objectives, but we don’t really use these to judge the film on an aesthetic level, right?

Or, If a director makes a movie with no thematic intent of his own for the movie, can he make a good one?

What do you mean by this? Do you mean someone else provides the intention? Are you referring to conscious intent? Or the fact that the filmmaker literally has no intentions with making the film—conscious or subconscious?

@ Jazz

I agree that there will be some readings/interpretations of a film that will be more convincing than other interpretations in the eyes of most people. I’m not sure that that makes these interpretations more valid (correct), but it does make them more compelling to more people. I also think that a film can have multiple, conflicting interpretations that can all be convincing. For example, I think that Neil LaBute’s The Wicker Man can reasonably be read as either a straight-up horror movie (in which it fails miserably) or as an absurd black comedy (in which I think it succeeds). I think a convincing interpretation can be made either way.

Also, I do not think authorial intent (i.e. a director’s statement) should be taken into consideration when reading/interpreting a film because I think a film should be experienced on its own; as its own artistic product, separate from its creator. (Not that I think it’s wrong that a director make known his intent and interpretation of his work, I just don’t think that the director’s interpretation is necessarily more valid than other interpretations just because he is the creator).

^ yes

@Matt

I hate the kind of art whose only purpose is to question whether it is itself art. Ooh, I nailed a bench to a museum wall, I’m so intellectually daring!

@Flani

But why do you thoughts need to be wrapped in formally identifiable terminology for them to be considered worthwhile criticism?

@Linden

If the intent is to sell toys, that intent is external to the experience of a film, and doesn’t count toward artistic merit.

@Westley

The intent that matters is that which is successfully communicated through the context of the film. If you have to read a pamphlet to understand that intent isn’t really part of the film.

“I hate the kind of art whose only purpose is to question whether it is itself art.”

Well, you know, in the Book of Art it’s perhaps marginalia, but look at how often the question of a director or film’s claim to artistic legitimacy is called into question, just in the course of casual conversation . . . are mainstream Hollywood films art? . . . are music videos art? . . . are video games art? . . . is “highbrow” art more art-y than “middlebrow” art? . . .

At some point it seems pretty reasonable for art to take up these questions.

“If the intent is to sell toys, that intent is external to the experience of a film, and doesn’t count toward artistic merit.”

Right. And the other point I would make re: intent is that in fact, in the course of daily life we’re pretty much constantly interpreting the intent of others, and we’re probably quite often wrong in the “readings” of everyday situations ("I’m walking on a crowded sidewalk, that guy just bumped into me because . . . ), so I don’t see why we have to use a completely different approach when it comes to interpreting art.

Jirin: But why do you thoughts need to be wrapped in formally identifiable terminology for them to be considered worthwhile criticism?

For me personally, to fine-tune my own musical compositions and paintings.

To be clear, I don’t use my knowledge of theory to follow a “list of rules” in creating my work. I rely upon my own creative intuition and balance of form in generating ideas and executing them.

But when it comes to “fine-tuning”, I find that rigorous attention to detail is beneficial, hence theory.

I understand that not everybody is interested in the same things when it comes to appreciating art, and I also understand that “laymen” can benefit from analysis which is not heavy in theoretical terminology, which is fine. But again, my approach is suitable for me, and I can easily understand how other artists might likewise be frustrated by a “layman” approach such as Jazz’s. But it depends upon the individual I suppose.

Jazz: So would I, but fwiw, it would be more fruitful if you can point to some specific deficiencies in my approach, as well as suggest a superior one, rather than just saying you can’t take my approach seriously.

I have already done this, though admittedly not in great detail. For instance, you often like to say that a big part of how you judge the artistic quality of a film is if it has “achieved what it set out to do”, and as I wrote to Jirin earlier in this thread, “saying that a children’s film is a great work of art because it entertains kids can hardly be a thorough appraisal, in that it probably raises more questions than it answers, specifically in matters of taste and demographic.” In other words, I am looking at rigorous attention to detail in how an artist balances the form of their work to create a poetic totality, and I am trying to explain why this is a useful thing to do in the When Can the Content Make or Break a Film? thread.

I guess now that the conversation has revolved back into the world of ‘intent’, I can sum up my general feelings about the question of this thread.

Let it be stated for the record that I like movies, a lot. That is why I am here. If I did not like movies, if I did not personally find them a favorite medium of expression and art, I would not be here and I would not bother talking to you people. Without me actually liking movies, I would participate here as much as I participate in forums about sailing: never, because I don’t like sailing.

On that fundamental principle, you better be damned sure that if I’m going to be discussing movies, I’m going to be discussing my personal favorites. Do I care whether they’re critically canonized, high brow or low brow, commercial, independent, or foreign? This is how much I care about holding back my interests in film based on what is intersubjectively acceptable:

Why do I spend more time writing about Dark Knight Rises than Citizen Kane hereabouts? Because Batman interests me and Charles Foster Kane doesn’t. As big of a character as Charles Foster Kane is and how empty he turns out to be inside, which is the point of the movie’s structure tearing away those layers to reveal his core, I also don’t give a rat’s ass about him. Don’t like him. Don’t care. Will defend the movie on the intersubjective principles of its strength and how well it was made, but type through several hours making wall’o’text about it? Forget it. Couldn’t be buggered. Sorry.

Appreciative I am of most cinema. But cinema I like gains precedence for what I seek. Go figure.

Now here is why ‘intent’ comes into play about this: because it would be a much more useful, logical, and illuminating discussion if it weren’t for the fact that people these days are so fucking cynical. And no I’m not just talking about MUBI, our solipsistic fascination with criticizing ourselves is far beyond the point I’m trying to make. What I mean is, few people these days ever, really, discuss arts, philosophy, politics, or media on the basis of what it achieves, but rather on the basis of the conflicts it creates. Very few people say, “This director intended to do this and it succeeded in this way,” most people say, “This director does this, which is against my personal values and incompletely represents this specific thing I know about a tangential issue.” The same way people scrutinize legislation to find out what is wrong with it rather than try to figure out what it’s attempting to do and how it’s supposed to work, we have critics write off independent filmmakers for being ‘too Hollywood’ because they bothered to put a little effort into production value, Hollywood filmmakers for not deserving the philosophical thoughts they bothered to insert into their movies because the commercial intent of the work, and so on. Yes, even to foreign independent filmmakers making a personal project, apparently they’re not doing enough to push forward the art of moviemaking or incompletely covered an idea fleshed out in fuller consideration by an 18th century philosopher or really are just making ‘Euro-art’ genre films for the international prestige. Everyone thinks everyone out there is just lying to us or trying to hide what they’re ‘really doing’. Intelligent filmmakers are written off as pseudointellectual and entertainers are written off as antiintellectual. The whole damn discussion would be more meaningful if we weren’t busy trying to tear down the achievements of others, which is the de facto stance of every modern individualist.

Ergo, when someone says, “That movie is my personal favorite”, I tend to actually listen more simply because that person will be willing to discuss how the movie affected him or her, communicated, how the person appreciates what it achieved and why. When people say, “Whether you like it or not, Citizen Kane is still a very important movie,” I’m less interested in the conversation because those people are indicating, silently, that they feel rather detached and unintrospective about it.

In some sense, intersubjective quality could be redefined as the movies that consistently become many people’s personal favorites. The kneejerk reaction to that may be, “But look at how many people went to see a movie that’s only intent was to sell Hasbro toys! Does that make it a great movie because so many people ‘like’ it?” but how consistent is that appreciation, and how long lasting really? The argument “One million fans can’t be wrong” isn’t the same argument as saying that a band has consistently engaged people over generations; hence The Beatles are intersubjectively superior to The Red Hot Chili Peppers, at least for now, and frankly I don’t like either band so I won’t engage in that intersubjectivity but I will acknowledge it from a detached intellectual perspective. This statement of intersubjectivity can also resist canon vs. non-canon argumentation on the basis that obscure bands seeking wider representation will be kept alive by a dedicated cult fanbase that will make their music available to whomever is prepared to listen to it or has been searching for something like it all along out of dissatisfaction of what they find ersewhile available. Cult movies have always interested me more than classics anyway.

We also have to redefine ‘like’ as being more than just, “Yeah, I liked it. I mean it was good, and I was entertained” to also include those movies that make us feel like shit, challenge us, beguile us, give us the howling fantods: engage us. Many people truly account Cassavetes among their ‘personal favorites’ and it ain’t ‘cause he gives them the warm and fuzzies and makes them feel safe from terrorists at night. People don’t go into movies for that anyway, entertainment itself is somewhat of a perverse thing when you notice the fact that we willingly put ourselves through a lot of emotional stress just for the quality of the experience. Breaking Bad is one of the most popular television series currently playing and its filled with the continuing downward spiral of increasingly desperate and disturbed people. I’ve had people tell me that they suffered major stress in real life after watching too much of it and yet they still want to keep watching it.

For that reason I’m more interested in hearing about people’s personal favorites than their opinions on what they think must be considered the most broad-encompassing ‘best ofs’ of all time or whatever. Want to know how to perk up my interest in a movie? It’s not to say, “The movie is was greatly influential to >>>>” or “Well it’s well regarded for <<<<<<”, it’s to say, “I don’t know, as I was watching it I couldn’t help really relating to how ______”. Wow. You just acknowledged a moment in time when the artist was communicating to you, touching your interest and your thoughts and maybe even your heart. Fuck getting around to the next Criterion on my queue, I’m gonna fucking rent THAT movie.

—PolarisDiB

Edit: I also think there’s a responsibility to present several ‘classic’ or ‘canonical’ movies or whathaveyou in the context of its historical importance so that people can have a grasp of cinema’s history and development, and I do not regret sitting through movies that were ‘important’ regardless of whether or not they engaged me. I also tend to seek out movies that are held in high regard on the presumption that they are deemed so because they engaged somebody out there. I don’t think ‘classics’ is a determined effort of various critics to isolate movies as some single fundamental thing following certain standards or principles but rather a feedback loop of pluralist statistical averaging. In the end movies that make ‘best of’ lists either are ‘liked’ by somebody out there honestly and unironically, or were liked to such a degree they’re worth some sort of perspective and consideration and maybe even rediscovery.

I’m just saying that personal favorites attract me and please me more than best of lists, on the fundamental level that there’s passion and connection felt there that best of lists make didactic and detached.

—PolarisDiB

… personal favorites attract me and please me more than best of lists, on the fundamental level that there’s passion and connection felt there that best of lists make didactic and detached.

Which is what genuine art appreciation is all about as far as I’m concerned. In order to appreciate an artwork on its own terms (as opposed to its place in history or whatever) you really need to feel it.

You certainly would think, or I guess hope that something deemed by so many to be “classic” would be deemed so because of its “historical merits” (whatever the fuck that means) as well as its raw power to engage, to be meaningful in a personal way, to be a “favorite”.

Hence, anything that is worth its salt can be a “canonized great”, but this part is not required. What is required is that it touched you in such way as to become a “favorite film”.

@Westley

I’m not sure that that makes these interpretations more valid (correct), but it does make them more compelling to more people.

So are you saying that all interpretations are acceptable? You don’t think there are some interpretations that are not valid because they’re too off-the-wall, based on a misreading or lack of a understanding of the film? Have you never interpreted a film and then later realized you didn’t fully understand the film?

I also think that a film can have multiple, conflicting interpretations that can all be convincing.

I agree. But this is not the same as saying all interpretations are valid.

Also, I do not think authorial intent (i.e. a director’s statement) should be taken into consideration when reading/interpreting a film because I think a film should be experienced on its own; as its own artistic product, separate from its creator.

I don’t know if I would go so far as saying that the director’s statement should NOT be taken into consideration, but I DON’T feel it’s critical. We should be able to understand the film without knowing their intentions for the specific film. (I do think knowing a director’s general philosophy and approach can really help one understand his/her films, though.) However, figuratively speaking, I do think knowing the “intentions” of a film is really crucial to understanding the film itself. All films have some objective or intention. It could be to deliver a message, but it may not be. It could present a character portrait; it could want to provide a fun ride—with thrills, scares or lots of action; it could want to move viewers with a sad story; it could want to poke fun at a group of people or a political ideology, etc. I would argue that all films want to do something in this way. This is what I mean by saying the film has intentions and objectives.

@Flani

I have already done this, though admittedly not in great detail. For instance, you often like to say that a big part of how you judge the artistic quality of a film is if it has “achieved what it set out to do”, and as I wrote to Jirin earlier in this thread, “saying that a children’s film is a great work of art because it entertains kids can hardly be a thorough appraisal, in that it probably raises more questions than it answers, specifically in matters of taste and demographic.”

But I agree that Jirin’s example isn’t a thorough appraisal, man. That’s hardly a helpful critique. What I hear you saying is in this thread is that you can’t respect my approach because it’s not based on serious theory. That’s not really helpful. How about describing the way theory would make my approach much better? Or better yet, how about describing the approach that is presumably superior to the one I’m presenting. (If you’re game, I’ll start the thread.)

Btw, towards the end of our conversations via PM, I really thought that are approaches were pretty similar or at least we agreed on many things. Based on what you’ve written in this thread, either I’m remembering that wrong, but you forgot about most of our discussion.

Sometimes the expression of processes differs much more than the processes themselves.

Yes, and the better “proof” in any case is in application rather than argument about how to begin.

@DiB

On that fundamental principle, you better be damned sure that if I’m going to be discussing movies, I’m going to be discussing my personal favorites.

That’s fine. I don’t want to give the impression that I oppose people writing about their favorite films.

What I mean is, few people these days ever, really, discuss arts, philosophy, politics, or media on the basis of what it achieves, but rather on the basis of the conflicts it creates. Very few people say, “This director intended to do this and it succeeded in this way,” most people say, “This director does this, which is against my personal values and incompletely represents this specific thing I know about a tangential issue.”

I agree with this, and what I prefer to see—and what I’m trying to achieve with the approach I’ve developed—is to understand and appreciate the film on its own terms—versus taking reacting to a film without really trying to understand and appreciate the film.

Ergo, when someone says, “That movie is my personal favorite”, I tend to actually listen more simply because that person will be willing to discuss how the movie affected him or her, communicated, how the person appreciates what it achieved and why.

But people fail to understand a film’s intentions in this scenario as well. They focus on certain aspects that really appeal to them or misread the film by projecting themselves onto the film—while failing to get a deeper understanding of the film as a whole. What I’m saying is that people reject a film, while evaluating it on its own terms, but people also really like a film without fully evaluating it on its own terms as well.

Plus, when people wax poetic about their favorite film, if you don’t share the reasons they loved the film, then what they’re saying becomes far less compelling. For example, suppose I really, really love Joseph Gordon-Leavitt—to the point where I love almost any film he’s in. Well, if you don’t feel the same as I do, if I’m gushing about how great G. I. Joe is because of JGL, you’re really not going to care about what I’m saying, right? Maybe you might be interested in why I like JGL so much, but once you understand this about me, how seriously are you going to take me if I say that Premium Rush was the best movie all year?

When people say, “Whether you like it or not, Citizen Kane is still a very important movie,” I’m less interested in the conversation because those people are indicating, silently, that they feel rather detached and unintrospective about it.

Well, based on this description, I wouldn’t be interested, either. But if the person was really enthusiastic about how great CK was—as Roger Ebert was when he does his frame-by-frame analysis at film festivals—then I would be really interested in hearing this. I feel the same way he does—even though CK isn’t a personal favorite of mine. (Just because something is NOT a personal favorite, that doesn’t mean that one has a clinical relationship to the film.)

The argument “One million fans can’t be wrong” isn’t the same argument as saying that a band has consistently engaged people over generations..

FWIW, it would be interesting to discuss the differences between the two (but I don’t think I could do this right now).

We also have to redefine ‘like’ as being more than just, “Yeah, I liked it. I mean it was good, and I was entertained” to also include those movies that make us feel like shit, challenge us, beguile us, give us the howling fantods: engage us.

Good point. “Like” in the way I’m referring to isn’t just enjoyable, but something that resonates with someone because it aligns with the person’s interests, preferences, experiences, etc. The Cassavetes’ example is a good one. Fans may not enjoy the films, but they really like them because it matches with their worldview, ideas about art, etc.

• It’s not to say, “The movie is was greatly influential to >>>>” or “Well it’s well regarded for <<<<<<”, it’s to say, “I don’t know, as I was watching it I couldn’t help really relating to how ______”. Wow. You just acknowledged a moment in time when the artist was communicating to you, touching your interest and your thoughts and maybe even your heart. Fuck getting around to the next Criterion on my queue, I’m gonna fucking rent THAT movie.*

I’m genuinely interested in hearing if other people have a similar reaction to DiB. That’s not the way I react—and maybe that’s because the examples I’m thinking of come from good friends whose tastes I know fairly well. It’s not that their tastes are bad, but rather their tastes are pretty different from mine. If I tell them how much I loved a film, I don’t think they react the way DiB describes—for the same reason.

Matt said, Sometimes the expression of processes differs much more than the processes themselves.

Yeah, especially via the internet.

@Flani

Which is what genuine art appreciation is all about as far as I’m concerned. In order to appreciate an artwork on its own terms (as opposed to its place in history or whatever) you really need to feel it.

I agree. My approach doesn’t exclude feeling and one’s emotional or felt reaction to film is oftern an important part of the evaluation. (I thought we resolved this issue a long time ago!)

If I wasn’t on a phone right now I’d totally quote Dib’s entire post and add only a ‘Well that’s just like…your opinion, man!’ memes.

Just like everyone gets something different from film, everyone gets something different from criticism. And people do tend to write a lot better when it’s something they’re passionate about. It does get very tedious hearing people question each others’ motives. It’s an ad hominem debate tactic meant to negate somebody’s argument by suggesting impurity of motive. Our culture has trained us to feel that way, we’ve been so bombarded with marketing conspiracy revelations that we have lost the distinction between someone trying to persuade us toward their point of view and someone trying to trick us into adopting it. But really most people are just trying to market us their genuine feelings, and being accused of having ulterior motives is the most obnoxious thing imaginable.

The difference between giving us your direct feelings and wrapping them in institutional language is more an aesthetic choice than a factor of intelligence or meaning. Institutional critical language is a good tool to express one’s feelings within a framework that a certain crowd will recognize, but then it should only be usd when directed at that specific crowd, because anyone else is alienated by it.

@JAZZ

“Just because something is NOT a personal favorite, that doesn’t mean that one has a clinical relationship to the film.”

That’s interesting, because to me that is exactly what it means. You respect it, but you don’t love it. If you love it, then how is it not a “favorite”?

So are you saying that all interpretations are acceptable? You don’t think there are some interpretations that are not valid because they’re too off-the-wall, based on a misreading or lack of a understanding of the film? Have you never interpreted a film and then later realized you didn’t fully understand the film?

I think all interpretations are “acceptable”, though I personally do not accept them all. The thing is, I don’t know everything, and I’m not always right. So even though there are some interpretations out there that I would not deem legitimate, doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t valid. I could very easily be wrong.

This whole notion of these “precious personal favorites” that are completely unique to the individual and inconceivable to anyone else is kinda ridiculous, I mean for me that is the whole point of film and websites like this one, you get to communicate about films that struck that certain chord you were so sure you alone appreciated, it turns out a ton of people love the same film for the same reasons. And what is a “great” film but one that strikes one of those special nerves for a ton of people, while simultaneously being “important” (technically, thematically, whatever.)

It’s the nerve part that is crucial to being a great film, the “important” element matters much much less, if at all.

@Axel

That’s interesting, because to me that is exactly what it means. You respect it, but you don’t love it. If you love it, then how is it not a “favorite”?

I’ll answer this by describing my definition of a favorite film. My favorite films are ones that resonate with me on a very personal level—they align perfectly to my tastes and preferences—regardless of how well-made the film is or whether it succeeds on the terms and conditions it sets for itself. In other words, it may be a great film or not.

I can be excited and passionate about a movie—just because I get excited about artistic excellence. These films may or may not align with my personal preferences, tastes, interests, experiences, etc. When they don’t match up well with my personal tastes, experiences, interests, etc., then I might be excited by the artistic excellence, but it may not by a favorite film.

Seven Samurai and Psycho are both artistically excellent films, imo. But the former aligns with my interests, tastes, beliefs, etc. more than the latter. So I consider SS a favorite, while Psycho is just a great film. I’m enthusiastic about the excellence in Psycho, but the film doesn’t line up with my personal tastes, etc. (For one thing, I don’t care for horror films.)

Does that make sense?

I think all interpretations are “acceptable”, though I personally do not accept them all.

Just so that we’re not stumbling over a semantic issue, let me be clear that by “unacceptable/invalid, etc.” I don’t mean that I advocate chiding people when they have an “invalid” opinion. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and they have a right to express that opinion. In this way, I would agree that all interpretations are acceptable. But I’m not using “acceptable/unacceptable” in this sense.

The thing is, I don’t know everything, and I’m not always right. So even though there are some interpretations out there that I would not deem legitimate, doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t valid. I could very easily be wrong.

Sure, that’s unavoidable. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t assign more weight and validity to some opinions more than others right? Moreover, this assignation isn’t purely subjective, right?

This whole notion of these “precious personal favorites” that are completely unique to the individual and inconceivable to anyone else is kinda ridiculous, I mean for me that is the whole point of film and websites like this one, you get to communicate about films that struck that certain chord you were so sure you alone appreciated, it turns out a ton of people love the same film for the same reasons.

Of course that happens. But that doesn’t always happen, does it? Have you seen the S&S lists from individual directors? They have some choices, that I find peculiar—not stuff that would necessarily get a lot of agreement on.

And what is a “great” film but one that strikes one of those special nerves for a ton of people,…

That’s true, but here’s the key question: why did the film succeed (or fail) at striking a chord in a lot of people? Films can do this in cheap ways that we wouldn’t admire or consider to the film’s credit, right?

Also, when a film really resonates or fails to resonate with us, we shouldn’t automatically credit or blame the film. We should first understand our response. For example, if I really love CK because my father was a newspaper editor and this was the first film we saw together (i.e., I have strong positive associations with the film), that really doesn’t speak to the artistic excellence of the film, right? Or , alternatively, suppose I had an abusive father who was a newspaper publisher and I hated CK for this reason? Again, this reaction says very little about the actual quality of the movie. These examples may seem ridiculous, but our preferences, experiences, interests, moods, the time in our life, etc. can impact the extent to which we respond to a film or not—more than the actual merits of the film. For me, I like to be aware of these factors, especially when I want to know if a film is really good or not.

@ JAZZ

These films may or may not align with my personal preferences, tastes, interests, experiences, etc. When they don’t match up well with my personal tastes, experiences, interests, etc., then I might be excited by the artistic excellence, but it may not by a favorite film.

I take issue with this stance, because like in your CK example, this implies that by having some kind of coincidental similarity with subject matter of a film, a person can appreciate it “more.”

Great and/or “favorite” films are such because anyone, from any “background” can be completely, utterly, hopelessly enamored with them, and on a very deeply personal level.

Your logic implies that by nature you can never be as “deeply and personally” affected by a foreign film as opposed to someone who had a “literal” connection to that film’s subject matter / culture. This idea seems to me to go against the whole idea of “experiencing something outside of ones self and ones perspective”, and I do not think there is a ceiling on how personally this can affect you based on your own personal life experience.

I reject the notion that someone who “spent time in the service” could claim to have a capacity to appreciate The Thin Red Line on a more personal level than a civilian, like myself. I have never been to New York and couldn’t give two fucks about “theater”, but I cannot find the words to even begin to express how much Synecdoche, New York affects me on the most intimate level. This is precisely what makes these great films, imho.