Are the Preferences of Cinephiles Superior to the Preferences of Casual Moviegoers?

Well, there are a lot of things you can do to a potato to satisfy you.

HA! I could follow that up with something filthy, but I won’t.

Scorpio said, It’s easy to say that all our preferences, or opinions for that matter, are of equal value. But I don’t think it’s as clear-cut as that. Neither is there an absolute superiority in preferences and tastes.

I agree with this. However, while you say that some preferences and tastes are not superior to others, my sense is that some cinephile use their preferences as a basis for a film being a good film and/or superior to another film. I’m specifically thinking of the filmmaking—either technical excellence or qualities of an auteur. Are films with these qualities better than films without them—even though the latter might be more entertaining, while the former may not be so great. For example, I just watched Jim Jarmusch’s Mystery Train. It’s a mixed bag, and I don’t think it’s entirely successful. But the film does have Jarmusch’s signature features about it, and that elevates the film for me (plus, I happen to personally like some of these qualities).

On the other hand, let’s take a film like Lincoln Lawyer. I enjoyed the film more than Mystery Train and, honestly, I think it’s more successful in achieving it’s objectives. Therefore, I think it’s a better film. Yet, the filmmaking, while not terrible by any means, is not exceptional and fairly non-descript. They’re aren’t any other qualities that make this a film made by an auteur (however, Brad Furman hasn’t made a lot of films, so…).

So in this case, if the preferences of a cinephiles are “superior”, we could say that Mystery Train is a better film than Lincoln Laywer on the basis that it has more interesting and “auteurish” filmmaking. (That’s not my position, but that’s sort of the question I’m exploring.)

lol

@Odi

Jazz — I agree. Again about potatoes, that’s cool if that’s all you like, but doesn’t mean there’s a whole lot of other food out there that is tasty too.

Absolutely. A part of me does want to draw people to things outside of their comfort zone—only because I think they’ll enjoy it. But if they don’t , it’s no biggee. (As I get older, I have less motivation to do this as well.)

@ Jazz -

Well comparing Mystery Train to The Lincoln Lawyer is a bit of an odd spectacle but let me say this. I believe BOTH films are successful at achieving their objectives however Mystery Train seems a better film because it’s elevated by the themes in the film as well as Jarmusch’s filmmaking technique.

My question is, why do you think Mystery Train wasn’t successful? It wasn’t successful to you but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Jarmusch failed in his objectives (whatever those objectives were).

I should say that I’m up and down with Jarmusch. Mystery Train happen to work for me – I loved the characters, the tone, the sense of place. These are elements that I think he goes for in all his films and in some of his other ones, it didn’t work for me.

(As I get older, I have less motivation to do this as well.)

That’s a matter of learning how to conserve one’s energy wisely. :)

@Santino

It wasn’t successful to you but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Jarmusch failed in his objectives (whatever those objectives were).

That’s a valid point. (Btw, the two films are odd to compare, but oh well.) I haven’t really thought deeply about the film, but my sense is that the film wants to be humorous and present these interesting characters. But for me, I can see that the character are both, but most of them fall short for me. It’s strange. But can we say the film succeeded, if I felt the way I did? (Of course, my reaction is highly subjective, but I don’t think there’s any way around it. On the other hand, I think the film might be better, more successful than my earlier judgment.)

@Odi

That’s a matter of learning how to conserve one’s energy wisely. :)

More like not having that much energy to conserve. :)

^ Jazz, well that’s what I meant too, but I did not want to quite put it that way. lol

haha! Oh, bless your heart

Speaking of which, I just dropped my cane and can’t stoop over to pick it up… :D

Do people agree with these characterizations?

For me, not really. People never fit into clean categories like this. Every person has their own penchants that usually have an infinate number of exceptions and nuances in different cases.

More importantly, can we say that the approach and preferences of cinephiles are superior to those of the casual moviegoer? Or are the preferences merely different?

I don’t think we can say the preferences of cinephiles are superior to those of the casual moviegoer mostly because I don’t agree with your characterizations. I suppose people could try to defend their own values regarding certain films, which would intrinsically indicate that some other opposing values are inferior. I mean that’s what people do all the time on this site right? That’s a description of any thread on this site that tries to argue for the value of a film.

Also this phrase you used is very confusing to me: “A fairly unsuccessful film with good filmmaking”

Isn’t the definition of a successful film one with good filmmaking?

@Riss

People never fit into clean categories like this.

So you’re basically objecting to making any generalization about cinephiles and casual moviegoers?

Isn’t the definition of a successful film one with good filmmaking?

By “filmmaking” I’m specifically thinking of the visual and aural aspects of the film—i.e., editing, sound design, cinematography, composition, etc.; in other words, the technical aspects of the film (although I’m mostly thinkgin about visual and aural—not acting and writing). So a film can be bad or fail to reach its objectives even if the technical aspects of the film are really good. I’m pretty sure you could think of examples.

So you’re basically objecting to making any generalization about cinephiles and casual moviegoers?

Essentially, yes

So a film can be bad or fail to reach its objectives even if the technical aspects of the film are really good.

I would tend to argue that if the technical aspects of the film are not reaching their objectives then they are not good, unless you want to assign new objectives to them.

I don’t like to think of myself as superior just because the films I like are more critically acclaimed than those many of my friends like.But that’s because for them movies are just there to make the time pass faster,to kill the boredom or just provide fun or excitement and for me it’s much more then that … but I really don’t feel like expressing what exactly because it might take a while.

@Jazz -

I understand what you’re saying. And no, I guess you can’t say the film succeeded if you felt that way. But I guess I would prefer something more specific than “the film didn’t succeed.” You know what I mean? But I’m quibbling over petty semantics here and I’m not going to defend a film I don’t feel very strong about.

@Riss

Essentially, yes.

OK. I can’t help but ask, though: you don’t think that—in general—casual filmgoers (e.g., those who go the mall cineplex on the weekends) have a strong preference for good stories and characters—to the extent that if the film doesn’t have these qualities, they won’t like the film. Again, there are exceptions to this, but you don’t think this is valid as a general rule?

I would tend to argue that if the technical aspects of the film are not reaching their objectives then they are not good, unless you want to assign new objectives to them.

Let me ask this a different way. Have you seen a film that looked really good, but you still thought wasn’t very good? That’s basically what I’m talking about.

@Bracko

… but I really don’t feel like expressing what exactly because it might take a while.

Well, don’t le concerns over people having to read lost posts stop you. Some of us will take the time to read them. :)

@Santino

And no, I guess you can’t say the film succeeded if you felt that way. But I guess I would prefer something more specific than “the film didn’t succeed.” You know what I mean?

Oh yeah. And you’re right to be dissatisfied with my response. (But hey, that was just the opening round. I’m willing to get more in-depth, if you’re willing. :)

It’s been awhile since I’ve seen Mystery Train so I don’t have much to say.

@jazz

Re: nothing is superior, preferences are equal, etc.

I’d be interested in hearing you respond to Greg’s post:

The problem is once one moves from simple preference to actually believing that one movie is better than another, then the question of superior awareness or taste comes into play….

…Edit: Or, in other words, there is a difference between saying everyone has the right to their own opinion, which most people agree with, and to saying that all opinions are of equal merit, which it seems most people do not agree with, at least from what I’ve observed.

i agree that the problem occurs only one when moves to absolute value judgments, i.e. X is good, X is bad, X is better/worse than Y, etc. i try to avoid such remarks. when i do utter them i’m misspeaking; i MEAN to say “i like X, i dislike X, i prefer X to Y/Y to X”

i do believe that all opinions are of equal merit

I think that perhaps the filmgoer who goes to the multiplex generally wants to see films that get their mind off a stressful day at the office, a bad time in their life or whatever. And there are independent films for example that I don’t think were done on large budgets to satisfy crowds such as Little Miss Sunshine. Or, if you think of foreign films, you can take a film like Amelie. I do think things are changing in how people view cinema due to things like the internet and film festivals, so perhaps this is making people more receptive to a director like Godard or Tarkovsky or Ozu. Some great films that do not follow the Hollywood path of filmmaking such as The Shame or Tokyo Story or La Notte deal with unhappy topics that do not usually follow the patterns of what makes a good Hollywood movie, at least, not in the formula of what a lot of audiences probably want most of the time. Of course, there are big Hollywood films that do not have a happy ending like Gone With The Wind or in a certain sense, a film like Casablanca where even though Rick is going to leave Casablanca with Louise, he is still is saying goodbye to the woman he loves. I say it’s kind of hard to separate art films from big Hollywood tentpole films because, if you look at the people that work in those films, they tend to crossover. There is the James Bond movie I like parts of called Moonraker. Granted, it does not work all the time. A lot of the film tends to drag. But there are some scenes that I love to watch over and over again and I think this is partially due to John Barry’s beautiful music and Ken Adam’s epic sets. And that is basically a little over the last half hour of the film as well as a few scenes that come before that section of the film. Maybe a cinephile reads a lot of film books and magazines or maybe they can approach a film like Persona perhaps by analyzing it through other means such as how it compares to something like Cubism, (I think I saw that mentioned somewhere, but I can’t remember where), or a Bunuel film to surrealism or whatever. What do you think Jazz? Do you think a cinephile should have themselves armed with actual film knowledge such as reading film books and magazines or can you be a cinephile by just being a well read person? I don’t really know myself. For my two cents, I do think that perhaps a person may not how to approach a film like No Country For Old Men or Blade Runner or The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeiousse based on the fact that they have not been exposed and have not developed their tastes for such films, because they have not been exposed to art films, Hollywood films, bad films, excellent films as a means to compare them with. But, then again, Moonraker is no Citizen Kane or Barry Lyndon or Fight Club, but does that mean it’s not worth watching? And there again, you have films that are sort of between Hollywood and an art film such as the Matrix. In the end, what it probably boils down to though is individual taste and it basically can only be subjective due to the fact that each person sees the world differently from where they are standing.

@Curtis

i do believe that all opinions are of equal merit

But how far do you take that? If someone says Green Lantern is a great film—as in great work of art—and Citizen Kane sucks—as in, a terrible work of art—therefore, GL is a better film than CK, do you think those opinions are equally valid? (Now if “great” or “sucks” means “I really enjoyed the film” and “I really didn’t enjoy the film,” respectively, that’s another story.)

@Hal

First, I think casual moviegoers can appreciate foreign, independent or even older movies—as long as the films have a good story and likable characters. So they don’t just like Hollywood films. Or I should say they like Hollywood films because most Hollywood films are narrative and/or character based. Imo, those two things matter most. A casual moviegoer generally wouldn’t love Moonraker because of the score or set-pieces—although they may appreciate those elements to some degree. Basically, if the story and/or characters suck, other aspects of the film won’t matter. At the same time, if the other elements of a film suck or aren’t exceptional, but the story and characters work, then they will more than likely think well of the film. This is my experience with my friends, family and co-workers (at least the ones that aren’t more than just casual movie fans).

Maybe a cinephile reads a lot of film books and magazines or maybe they can approach a film like Persona perhaps by analyzing it through other means such as how it compares to something like Cubism, (I think I saw that mentioned somewhere, but I can’t remember where), or a Bunuel film to surrealism or whatever. What do you think Jazz?

I think a cinephile’s—or maybe I should say, someone more than a casual moviegoer—appreciation and enjoyment generally isn’t limited to a good story and characters; they’re often interested in more aspects of the film and they can enjoy films that aren’t narrative based. (Again, these are generalizations.)

Do you think a cinephile should have themselves armed with actual film knowledge such as reading film books and magazines or can you be a cinephile by just being a well read person?

I don’t think reading books on film or film theory is essential, but I’d guess it would help one appreciate and understand films. Being well-read—especially in terms of high quality books—can also help greatly. (I’d also include rich life experiences as something that would help someone appreciate films.) Having said that, I think an open-mind, inquisitiveness and thoughtfulness might be more crucial attributes for a moviegoer—serious cinephile or casual moviegoer.

“On the other hand, if people just prefer good stories and characters, that’s not really a problem per se. I certainly wouldn’t say it’s wrong. "

that’s right, preferences are preferences. However, it does become wrong in my opinion when a person assumes that film makers who don’t conform to their expectations of narrative have ‘failed’, or don’t know what they are doing, rather than just accepting that the style isn’t for them. Now i have no issue with someone that can articulate why certain film making styles are ‘defective’, or at least not to their taste, but that generally isn’t the case. Usually it’s just a whinge about how the films are ‘boring’ or ‘stupid’, and for people that ‘think slowly’(my favourite)

@Jazz Thanks for the response. I didn’t mean to put you on the spot or anything like that. Just curious to see what your opinion is. In regards to my comments about Moonraker, do you think some people like many young people might go see a film like Transformers for example, (which I admit I haven’t seen), and not really go for the story or characters but for the special effects? I do think, in general though, that most average moviegoers go to see a movie like you said Jazz for story and characters.

“i do believe that all opinions are of equal merit”

No. The uninformed opinion is worthless.

@Joks

I agree. (Ahem, I hope you’re private secretary is transcribing your posts.)

@Hal

I didn’t mean to put you on the spot or anything like that.

Not at all. :)

…do you think some people like many young people might go see a film like Transformers for example, (which I admit I haven’t seen), and not really go for the story or characters but for the special effects?

Yes, I think special effects and cool action scenes do draw casual filmgoers—but the film also have to be narrative based.

“No. The uninformed opinion is worthless.”

Except who is the “uninformed”? If you, as a cinephile, think it’s merely the casual moviegoer, you’ve proven my point.

“i do believe that all opinions are of equal merit”

I think this is a much more complicated question then the original framing question. Primarily, I think that aesthetic opinion has to be understood in relationship to a wide range of things including class, culture, educational level etc. So, i am not sure exactly what a cinephile is? I guess I am one by most people’s definitions. Partly, I find film and television easier to experience then other media b/c I can do this in my own home and I can experience it at an affordable cost. I love the experience of live theater but I find it too expensive to attend very often. I like Opera and appreciate dance but again the cost of attending makes it prohibitive.

I happen to live in Chicago which has numerous film festivals including a large International Film Festival so I can watch a wide range of films that people living outside of a major city can’t find. Obviosuly websites like Mubi, Fandor, Asia Pacific Films, etc. are expanding the ability of people to sample a more diverse kind of cinema experience. I don’t think my opinions are “superior” b/c I live in this kind of setting and would be inferior if I lived in rural Iowa. I grew up in rural Michigan and I always loved film but I wasn’t as sophisticated.

I also don’t know if one can separate ideology from all of this. When one lives in an Imperialist nation like the US the culture actively discourages people from thinking about the subjectivity of people who live outside our national borders. The whole turned off by subtitles thing has to be seen in this light. Additionally, the Hollywood film industry is so incredibly biased towards a kind of Hetero-normative, Masculine, White Dominant subject that any point of view alternating from this is seen as “disturbing”, “controversial”, “specialized” etc. I think often a poorly made film that reinforces dominant ideology is given a pass b/c people embrace the ideology of the film. My prime example here would be a film like THE BLINDSIDE which is not a well made film by any leap of the imagination but managed to be loved by loads of middle class white people b/c the racial ideology of the film so clearly supported White Dominance. The fact that a film like that could win Sandra Bullock numerous awards is related more to the ideology of the film then to her actual performance in the film.

So, I guess my problem with defining preferences as “superior” or “inferior” and dividing viewers neatly into categories of “casual moviegoers” vs. “cinephiles” is that it doesn’t allow us to really ask questions about where these preferences emanate from. I am entitled enough to work in the non-profit, cultural and academic sectors and I have time to attend film festival screenings and write posts like this on MUBI. Everyone does not have that kind of entitlement. My work week is typically only 40-45 hours (short by US standards). I also can (barely) afford cable television with some premium channels and several streaming services. So, if I have more time to be a cinephile it is not b/c I am “superior” but b/c I belong to the petite-bourgeois class. I would rather compare myself to someone with similar (or more) entitled circumstances and ask why they have different viewing habits. Broadening it to the entire world population makes the question really pointless. I remember, for example, reading when BAMAKO premiered an interview with the director who shared the fact that b/c of globalization movie theaters had virtually disappeared in the country of Mali. Prior to 1990 there were around 350 cinemas in Mali and by the time the film was made there were only 4. So you can’t really compare someone like me living in the global north in a cosmopolitan city with literally too many good choices to someone living without any options to view cinema.

One of the questions I would be curious about is should cinephiles conceive of our love of cinema to also advocate that all people have material and social circumstance where they can also (if they choose) become cinephiles. I have to wonder what this would mean in terms of both preservation and exhibition of film materials.

All I can say is I have a problem with snobbery for obvious reasons, but anti-snobbery is just as bad. For example, I have issues with people who will allow themselves to feel guilty because their favorite films happen to be by Antonioni, Jancso, Bresson, Akerman, and Rohmer and then tell themselves to not be such a snob and that one should be able to appreciate all kinds of films. Thus, they throw Raiders of the Lost Ark on their list of favorites and hold onto the dogma that The Godfather is one of the two or three most important films of all time for fear of being seen as a snob. In other words, should people feel guilty if they only watch films that are cinephile friendly and don’t have a single film they embrace that would be populist in today’s world? There’s nothing wrong with liking a popular film, but people shouldn’t have to feel pressured by society into conforming their tastes with those of the masses.

I have no problem with someone genuinely finding value in a mainstream film, but I do have a problem with people dumbing down the list of films they claim they love in the name of anti-snobbery. But then again, on some level I feel the reason films like Last Year at Marienbad, Red Desert, and Persona, just to name a few, are seen as elitist has more to do with the sort of people who claim to like them and how they were subsequently embraced by a certain segment of society than with the films themselves. Do you honestly think Antonioni sat there and said to himself, “I want to make a cryptic, elitist film exclusively for intellectuals that will only be shown on half a dozen screens across America.”