I agree that’s not an excuse for directors like Bay. Bay basically makes up for lack of plot or characterization through a whole lot of eye candy.
But, if you’re trying to define some sort of universal quality of films separate from your own subjective experience of them, and be equally fair to all kinds of quality, you’re trying to be more of a custodian of film than a fan of it. You’re trying to appreciate film instead of enjoying it, and in my opinion, there’s no point in watching film just to appreciate it.
The best romantic comedy in the world could come out tomorrow, and I still would not like it better than an above average scifi thriller. Because I like scifi thrillers, and I do not like romantic comedies, and I am not going to try to suspend disbelief of my personal subjectivity and watch the romantic comedy just because it’s the better made film.
So you’re saying Jirin you would define yourself as a sci-fi fan FIRST and a fan of FILM second?
“But, if you’re trying to define some sort of universal quality of films separate from your own subjective experience of them, and be equally fair to all kinds of quality, you’re trying to be more of a custodian of film than a fan of it. You’re trying to appreciate film instead of enjoying it, and in my opinion, there’s no point in watching film just to appreciate it.”
Yeah, I don’t get people like that. If you make a distinction between “appreciate” and “enjoy” and are incapable of enjoying a film, I really don’t have any time for you. I don’t really believe in absolutes and using art that way.
Prescriptive? Hmm, not really. Well at least not consciously. Cinema for me doesn’t need to have a set of rules that define when something is a Film or when it is not. Just yesterday I watched Tsai’s “Rebels of the Neon God” again in a double feature with that new Mission Impossible. I know, weird pairing but although I liked the Tsai film much much more I didn’t dislike the Hollywood-ish-action-thriller-that-uses-all-those-well-known-and-woren-out-formulas in return. I may sound like a woman now but in general I just try to be open about those things. Again, at least consciously. What my subconscious thinks, that I don’t (want to?) know.
@Axelumog
Not at all. I’m just choosing not to suspend any disbelief that I or any human am capable of judging films completely fairly.
I could reject one form of my personal taste, and say ‘Ignore the fact that I enjoy scifi more than romantic comedies’. But then I’d just adopt a different form of personal taste, the kind of movie that appeals to me artistically. I could reject that, and the next one, and the next one, and I’d just end up with my own personal opinion of what constitutes objective quality. Which, I am arguing, is equally subjective as just saying “I don’t like romantic comedies”, except more sneaky.
That’s why I would say judge each film based on what it is trying to accomplish, but don’t make any effort to separate out your subjective opinion from ‘absolute quality’, because the more you try the worse you will fail.
“Implying they set out knowingly crafting a flawed entity but did so “intentionally””
Here’s the point I’m getting at, though? Where does the judgement of “flawed” come from?
To use a dumbed-down example. If I set out to paint a picture of a horse, and you look at it and find it in no way looks like a horse, nor evokes any kind of horse-ness, you can critiique it, obviously, on this basis—which speaks to intent, but it’s not using it as an “excuse,” it’s saying the horse looks like a horse, or doesn’t. I’m still starting with an idea of “should be”, but it’s really put forth by the artist in the context of the work itself.
If I come to a film with the idea that a good film doesn’t use takes that are too long, or takes that are too short, or non-professional actors, or uses professional actors, or is overly concerned with montage, or overly concerned with mis en scene, or that anything vaguely postmodern is bad, or that anything vaguely postmodern is good, or all 3-D films are artistically bankrupt—those are all prescriptive judgments.
@ JIRIN
That’s why I would say judge each film based on what it is trying to accomplish, but don’t make any effort to separate out your subjective opinion from ‘absolute quality’, because the more you try the worse you will fail.
Interesting, for me it’s very hard to say what any filmmaker was “intending”, what I can say is whether or not a film appealed to me, and why.
@Axel
It’s hard to say “This film is good but it doesn’t offer what I look for” because if you say that, you admit that what you look for in films is…
…not necessarily an essential element of a good film. For example, I really enjoy excellent hand-to-hand fight sequences, but a film that doesn’t offer this—including an action film—can still be a good film. What I think constitutes a good film—that is, a good work of art—versus what I find entertaining and enjoyable are not necessarily the same thing. Sometimes a film can be good and I don’t really enjoy it. That happens because when the film doesn’t suit my tastes or preferences; or maybe it has qualities that turn me off—e.g., an actor or subject I don’t care for; or the film might remind me of a bad experience. None of these qualities make a film bad—although I might not enjoy the film because of them.
What any artist worth their salt should be setting out to do is to make a quality film that is at least worth the time spent to experience it. If you aren’t setting out to do that…. What are you doing?
Answer: making a film that is important to you. I guess that, for the most part, if the film is important to the filmmaker, then the filmmaker believes that it is worth other people’s time. Then again, that may not necessarily be the case.
@Axel
Interesting, for me it’s very hard to say what any filmmaker was “intending”, what I can say is whether or not a film appealed to me, and why.
Forget the filmmaker. Instead think of what a film was “intending.” Blazing Saddles, Silverado and The HIred Hand are all Westerns, but they all have different intentions and objectives; they differ in what they’re about, and if we took the time we could make some determination about the intentions and “aboutness” of each. (This doesn’t mean that there is one and only one correct answer, btw.)
It’s a very sad thought to me that good films exist out there that I’ll never be able to enjoy because of some personal bias. Call me an idealist, but I believe if a film is Good and True, it will shine forth and connect with me past all petty biases or “preference”!
For example, I am not in general a very big fan of japanese anime, most of it that I have seen is chalk full of clichés and stereotypes, and a lot of them seem to play it very safe and follow the same blueprint (teens in high school, ect.)
However, hot damn if Neon Genesis Evangelion isn’t one of the greatest pieces of television available, inside or outside of anime. It is literally a masterful work of art, and guess what… it’s about teens, in high school, fighting in giant mecha robots. About as generic on paper as it gets!
Point being, regardless of my personal preferences, AND regardless of what the filmmakers may or may not have been “intending”…. When something is good, it’s just good, and nothing else matters!
When it comes to ccc – or any other kind of film – is the (perceived) intent of the filmmaker paramount to you?
Yes. Is that what you meen by prescriptive? Or the opposite?
Everyone likes to think that they like Quality…
I was sort of talking with someone off this site—this is someone whose primary interest in film is in genre fare, cult films and the like. I had suggested he check out our competition as a way of discovering some new films and he said this:
“Quality is for film school.”
Which is the precise moment I stopped talking to him.
Since Scampi doesn’t seem to be around at the moment, and since I think I was the one who tossed the concept out somewhere in the course of the CCC thread, I try to answer that, Riss.
It’s basically a concept borrowed from grammar (on the idea that there’s such a thing as “film grammar”)—the distinction between descriptive grammar, which focus on how a language is actually used, and prescriptive grammar, which focuses more on normative practices and how a language should be used.
The question of what was intended came up specifically regarding the use of relatively long takes in Meek’s Cutoff—whether the intent of the long takes was to take advantage of aspects of the relatively fashionable CCC or whether the idea was actually to approximate the experience of walking through the Oregon high desert (in other thread on the same film, there was a similar discussion regarding the aspect ratio of the film—whether it was done simply to distinguish the film from other films, or whether the intent of the squarer aspect ratio was to approximate the limited visual field caused by wearing the bonnets that women were wearing at the time).
“Quality is for film school.”
Someone hasn’t read Robert Pirsig’s latest, Zen and the Art of Mubi.
@Axel
Call me an idealist, but I believe if a film is Good and True, it will shine forth and connect with me past all petty biases or “preference”!
But have you never been wrong about a film? I mean, have you seen a film that you thought wasn’t very good, only to change your mind later? In my experience, my personal preferences, biases, which include being in the right mood or seeing a film at the right (or wrong) moment in your life can interfere with your understanding and appreciation of a film; these things can prevent someone from experiencing a good film.
Similarly, many films get better after I’ve analyzed and thought about it—including getting input from other people via discussion or articles. Had I not taken the time to understand and analyze the film, I would probably not have thought so highly of it. Therefore, the “goodness doesn’t just shine through,” but often requires some time and effort on my part. Now, there are times when the goodness does shine through, despite my biases, my mood, etc., but, in my experience, that is not always the case.
So I don’t believe that if a film is good, people will appreciate it. The viewer’s openess and attempt to understand the film on its own terms are crucial factors—without which a person may watch a good film without really knowing it.
Fair points as usual Jazz, but I think what you are talking about are just obstacles, and have little to do with the actual film itself.
What mood I’m in and my personal biases/preferences can color my glasses certainly, I am only human after all. But, I strive very hard to have my glasses as least colored as possible, with the goal being to leave myself open to the widest range of experiences within reason. (sounds great on paper right?)
Now some films are “risers” in that they seem more favorable after some time has passed (you’ve had time to stew on it, discuss it with others ect.), and some films do the opposite (sinkers)… But this is wholly different than me not liking the film because I had “personal issues with the content” or “my mood was bad”, and I think the difference there is significant.
(FWIW, I want to respond to some of the other posts, and I hope to do that soon.)
@Axel
Fair points as usual Jazz, but I think what you are talking about are just obstacles, and have little to do with the actual film itself.
That’s precisely what I’m talking about. My comments relate to your remarks about a good film “shining forth.” My point is that sometimes a good film doesn’t overcome the obstacles that an individual has. I’m also suggesting that the viewer can and should not only be aware of such obstacles, but he must also work around them. In other words, viewers bear some responsibility in appreciating a film. You sort of express something similar when you said, “But, I strive very hard to have my glasses as least colored as possible, with the goal being to leave myself open to the widest range of experiences within reason. (sounds great on paper right?).”
Now some films are “risers” in that they seem more favorable after some time has passed (you’ve had time to stew on it, discuss it with others ect.), and some films do the opposite (sinkers)… But this is wholly different than me not liking the film because I had “personal issues with the content” or “my mood was bad”, and I think the difference there is significant.
I think all of these things are related in that they are external to the film. The film hasn’t changed—yet it seems better or worse over time; it can be good or bad depending on one’s mood, personal taste, biases, etc. What this suggests is the “goodness” or “badness” of a film doesn’t always shine through, that our determination of a film’s quality can be clouded or distorted by the type of factors I mentioned above.
It’s certainly unavoidable and worth noting, but bears little in discussion relating to film judgement, because let’s face it… if you had a “bad viewing” or had some personal issues that clouded your perception, you’re not really fit to judge said film.
It’s very important to be aware of oneself and to know when you find yourself saying “oh that really didn’t agree with me… but I was tired and in a bad mood so I shouldn’t be too hasty in forming my opinions”.
Now of course some form of personal “bias” will always be present, this is again, unavoidable. But I’ve found that as long as you fight to keep your “personal shit” to a minimum, keeping an open mind ect, most quality films can overcome these petty bias and preferences.
Not all the time though, unfortunately. And like you said, these are ultimately on you, the viewer, not the film… to decide the degree in which you let these factors influence you.
Now of course some form of personal “bias” will always be present, this is again, unavoidable. But I’ve found that as long as you fight to keep your “personal shit” to a minimum, keeping an open mind ect, most quality films can overcome these petty bias and preferences.
I agree. But I just want to point out that “personal shit” isn’t the only obstacle. Sometimes you just don’t understand or connect with a film, for more benign reasons. Writing off a film at that point is tempting. But if the film is good, getting at the “goodness” often requires effort on the part of the viewer, and I think some people reject this idea—because if the film is good, then the film shouldn’t require any effort. Based on my experience, I don’t agree with this. I feel so strongly about this that I don’t believe in judging a film until I have a good understanding of it—knowing what the film is about, at its core and what it’s trying to do. I don’t think you can really know if a film is any good without really having a full understanding of it.
Btw, I think we basically agree.
@Risseleda
Is that what you meen by prescriptive? Or the opposite?
Matt summed it up nicely I think. What I meant by prescriptive is that you have a pre-conceived notion – a set of rules if you like – that a film must adhere to for you to enjoy it or think that it’s good. For example my wife has this notion that a film must have a satisfactory conclusion, which for her means that any questions which were raised throughout the course of the film must be resolved somehow at the end. If there is no resolution to the issues raised in the film then for her the whole time she has invested in watching it has been wasted and she gets annoyed. For some people it’s that a film must present some sort of truth to the characters or events in the film, and for others it might be that there is a certain proportion of the film devoted to action, or not too much talking, or that events must happen in a linear fashion etc etc. The list is endless I suppose. I believe we all have some sort of notion of what we’re looking for from a film even if only because often we know a little bit of what the film involves before we see it, through trailers or word of mouth, so in that sense having certain expectations of a film can be unavoidable. A lot of the time when I talk to people who have expressed a dislike for a certain film it seems to me that the reason they disliked it was because it didn’t adhere to what they liked to watch, rather than that the film failed to acheive what it set out to do.
I can see both points of view when it comes to the filmmaker’s intent. Much of the time the filmmaker’s intent is pretty clear, even if not expressed directly by them in interviews etc. However, a lot of the time the filmmaker’s intent is not fully knowable or is ambiguous – many filmmakers dislike explaining what their work means, and prefer to leave it up to the audience to decide for themselves, and some filmmakers are deliberately obtuse with the material they’re presenting. So a lot of the time we’re dealing with our own interpretation of what the filmmaker’s intent really was, and judging the film accordingly (and sometimes unfairly because we may be way off the mark), or we may have hit on exactly what the filmmaker’s intention was. The problem then becomes the many different interpretations of the filmmaker’s true intent that people attach to a given work, and how we separate which interpretations are ‘valid’ and which can be discarded. It’s therefore hard for me personally to place the filmmaker’s intent as paramount over other things I may take from the work on a personal level – especially if I get the feeling the filmmaker is taking the piss for whatever reason – some avante garde stuff comes to mind here. It’s tricky sometimes – and therefore interesting to me :)
A lot of the time when I talk to people who have expressed a dislike for a certain film it seems to me that the reason they disliked it was because it didn’t adhere to what they liked to watch, rather than that the film failed to acheive what it set out to do.
Ok. Here’s a case where I respected what the filmmaker set out to do, and thought he did very, very well, but I’d be uncomfortable watching again: Dead Ringers.
I can objectively watch a film whose subject matter is horrifying for me, and still praise it even if I personally would have trouble not squeaming if I had to watch it again.
The most important thing to me with a film is whether I found it effective, professionally done, and able to keep my attention long enough for me to watch the whole thing. The last is the most non-objective thing on my list, and has a lot to do with whether the style of the filmmaker is interesting to me, that’s important, and also whether the material grabs me — for example, some kinds of comedy I find funnier than others, some kinds of drama I find too shallow or too over the top. That’s all very personal, and stands apart from the technical and story-telling skill of the filmmaker, which I think can be judged with less emotion.
I hope that answers the original question…
(not squeaming could also be Elmer Fudd saying not screaming)…
You squem at Dead Wingers?
I don’t want to watch Salo again and I assuredly agree that Pasolini accomplished what he set out to do.
Almost, Ben, lol!
@Hal
Maybe it depends on how experienced a viewer of films you are. The less films you see, the less of a fine line you can draw between other types of films.
I think this is true. Seeing more films generally enlarges one’s conception of movies and what constitutes good movies. At the same time, if the individual only cares about personal enjoyment and pleasure—versus caring about movies in general—that can really limit one’s understanding and conception of cinema.
@Axel
Someone’s work is critiqued, and then as a justification they might say…. “Well, my film really was just trying to demonstrate [THIS], so any flaws not pertaining to that really aren’t the point / are justified….”
But we can test this claim—does the film support the claim? Are there multiple aspects and parts of the film that back this claim up? If so, the claim has validity.
@Santino
But if given the choice between an alternative – a filmmaker with high aspirations who fails (think Meirelles’s Blindness) or a filmmaker with low aspirations who succeeds (think G.I. Joe), which would you prefer? I’ll take the former.
I guess it depends on how you define high or low aspirations. I would say Lincoln Lawyer had relatively low (or modest) aspirations. It wasn’t trying to make a profound statement, break any filmmaking rules, etc., but it was a fun movie and succeeded in what it wanted to do. On the other hand, Darren Aronofsky’s The Fountation was more ambitious, but I don’t think it really worked and came across as pretentious, imo. I definitely would prefer the former over the latter. (Btw, I don’t think G. I. Joe succeeds as a film.)
Yeah, I don’t get people like that. If you make a distinction between “appreciate” and “enjoy” and are incapable of enjoying a film, I really don’t have any time for you. I don’t really believe in absolutes and using art that way.
No wonder we don’t always agree. ;)
But you don’t see a difference between films that you personally enjoy and films that you may not enjoy so much but you appreciate and respect a great deal? Technically, both reactions could be described as “enjoyment,” but I like separating them because to speak as if there is no difference can be confusing and problematic. Sitting through Werckmeister Harmonies was not enjoyable. I fell asleep several times, and tried several times to finish the film. When I finally finished, I was pretty confused and didn’t really understand the film. It took some time and effort to really process the film before I understood and appreciated it. Only after this process did I conclude the film was very good, if not great. At that point, you could say I “enjoyed” the film, but not while watching it.
And that enjoyment is really different from watching something like The Incredibles, for example. There is no effort when I watched this film, and I enjoyed the process of watching the film. The film had features that personally appealed to me (e.g., great fight sequences, clever use of the super powers, great animation, etc.)
The “enjoyment” of this film seems very different from the “enjoyment” of the former. The word “appreciation” seems to fit my reaction to Werckmeister Harmonies while “enjoyment” seems to fit my reaction to The Incredibles.
@Jirin
The best romantic comedy in the world could come out tomorrow, and I still would not like it better than an above average scifi thriller. Because I like scifi thrillers, and I do not like romantic comedies, and I am not going to try to suspend disbelief of my personal subjectivity and watch the romantic comedy just because it’s the better made film.
You prefer an average sci-fi thriller over the best romantic-comedy—that makes sense. But can this romantic-comedy be a good—or even great—film?
I could reject one form of my personal taste, and say ‘Ignore the fact that I enjoy scifi more than romantic comedies’. But then I’d just adopt a different form of personal taste, the kind of movie that appeals to me artistically. I could reject that, and the next one, and the next one, and I’d just end up with my own personal opinion of what constitutes objective quality. Which, I am arguing, is equally subjective as just saying “I don’t like romantic comedies”, except more sneaky.
We’ve discussed this before, and I still don’t agree with your position that any and all criteria for judging a film’s goodness/badness is equally subjective. I probably don’t have the knowledge or ability to explain my position, but I believe criteria isn’t absolutely subjective because the conception and definition of art isn’t absolutely subjective. Calling my company’s business plan art doesn’t make it so. We have a common understanding of what art is (although there can be slightly different definitions, within the same ballpark), and based on this understanding, we can arrive at some understanding or definition of good art versus bad art. We could then come up with a range of criteria that is valid, which could help us know which criteria weren’t valid.
JAZZALOHA: Sometimes you just don’t understand or connect with a film, for more benign reasons. Writing off a film at that point is tempting. But if the film is good, getting at the “goodness” often requires effort on the part of the viewer, and I think some people reject this idea—because if the film is good, then the film shouldn’t require any effort. Based on my experience, I don’t agree with this.
Here’s the thing though, for a filmy to truly qualify as “great” in my book, it needs to have both. It needs to grab me, it needs to stimulate me on (ideally) an emotional, and intellectual level at the same time, while I watch it. THEN it needs to leave me wanting more, leave me thinking about it, talking about it, wondering about it. Keeping me awake at night, posting up a storm on message boards… ect.
I think a truly all time film needs to have something about it that connects while you watch it. I’ve never had it where I watch a film, I’m completely appalled/turned off/not engaged/bored or whatever, and then I find myself thinking and thinking and thinking and reading about it and oh wait it’s actually an amazing film.
Now I have had it where I watch something and I think it’s ok, it’s decent it had this one element that I really liked…. and then the more I thought about it the more I realized wow there actually might be something really special going on there, and then you go back and have an amazing second viewing and all is right in the world.
BUT there are certain films out there that offer “the whole package”, and most of them are my favorite films of all time. Now as opposed to these films that only offer you half the equation (let’s call it short term – long term, short term is something that pleases you during the viewing but you forget about it 5 seconds later, long term is something that is less enjoyable up front but has “legs” and the more you think about it the better it seems.) these films will attack your emotional and intellectual senses during the viewing, AND leave you pondering the film for days and days and years and years and years…. Synecdoche, New York is a great example here. It’s a Kaufman script so you know it’s very layered and complex and has depth from an “intellectual” standpoint, but my second viewing I was shocked at how affected I was by the film on an emotional level. It just completely wrecked me.
Now can I respect and appreciate the “short term” and “long term” films for their strengths in those respective departments, but certainly something must be said for those special films that manage to be both short, and long term at the same time.
@Axel
Here’s the thing though, for a filmy to truly qualify as “great” in my book, it needs to have both. It needs to grab me, it needs to stimulate me on (ideally) an emotional, and intellectual level at the same time, while I watch it.
But does that mean your estimation of a film has never grown significantly—to the point that you eventually thought the film was great— after watching it—either a few hours later or seeing it a second time years later? Maybe it’s just me, but this isn’t uncommon. Like I said, I’ll see a film and I won’t be entirely sure what it’s about—it’s as if I’m a little confused. This mostly happens with non-Hollywood films. I mentioned Werckmeister Harmonies, but this has occurred with other films like Movern Callar (not great, but good)
THEN it needs to leave me wanting more, leave me thinking about it, talking about it, wondering about it. Keeping me awake at night, posting up a storm on message boards… ect.
But if a film doesn’t have this effect, how can you be so sure that the reason stems from the film’s mediocrity and not something else—e.g., you just weren’t on the same wavelength; weren’t at the right moment in your life; had the wrong expectations, didn’t pay close attention to a few crucial scenes, etc.? Here’s another way to think about this. Don’t you think that sometimes a film has this effect because it falls in line with where you are in your life; the experiences you’ve had; the kinds of things you have been pondering? Or maybe you and the filmmaker see the world in a similar way? All of these things refer to what I mean by being on the same wavelength of a film. Now, sometimes a film doesn’t stay with you because there’s nothing there, but it seems highly plausible that sometimes a film doesn’t stay with you for the type of reasons I mentioned above.
I think a truly all time film needs to have something about it that connects while you watch it. I’ve never had it where I watch a film, I’m completely appalled/turned off/not engaged/bored or whatever, and then I find myself thinking and thinking and thinking and reading about it and oh wait it’s actually an amazing film.
It depends on what you mean by “completely appalled, turned off, etc.” There are different degrees of this. I agree that even if I’m bored or really confused by a film, I have to feel sense that there is some coherent meaning or value to the film—but, for whatever reason, I’m not getting. If I get the opposite feeling—a strong sense that there isn’t anything meaningful, that the film is an incoherent mess—then I don’t think I’ve ever thought those films were great at a future point.
On the other hand, if we count my film watching in my teens and twenties, I’m pretty sure there were films that I thought were utterly boring, etc., but later made a 180 degree turnaround.
Now can I respect and appreciate the “short term” and “long term” films for their strengths in those respective departments, but certainly something must be said for those special films that manage to be both short, and long term at the same time.
I’m totally with you here. These are truly special moments—moments I live for (but unfortunately are too rare for my liking).
@Jazz -
" I would say Lincoln Lawyer had relatively low (or modest) aspirations. It wasn’t trying to make a profound statement, break any filmmaking rules, etc., but it was a fun movie and succeeded in what it wanted to do. On the other hand, Darren Aronofsky’s The Fountation was more ambitious, but I don’t think it really worked and came across as pretentious, imo"
Well, you got me there. :)
:“But you don’t see a difference between films that you personally enjoy and films that you may not enjoy so much but you appreciate and respect a great deal?”
Sure, no I agree. I can respect The Thin Red Line even if I didn’t like it. But what I guess I was trying to say is that it sucks for people who can’t enjoy a film but rather just appreciates films. You gotta be able to sit back and just enjoy a movie from time to time.
“Only after this process did I conclude the film was very good, if not great. At that point, you could say I “enjoyed” the film, but not while watching it.”
We’ve talked about this before and I still think this is a little weird. The only way I’ll buy it is if you then say you went back and rewatched Werckmeister Harmonies after you decided it was a good film, and enjoyed watching it. Has this happened? Have you rewatched the film and enjoyed the watching experience. I don’t know you can faithfully say you enjoy a film until you’ve actually watched it and had an enjoyable experience watching it. I’ll need more compelling statements or fiduciary evidence admitted into the record for me to think differently on this.
Such a grey area here though, I don’t understand this sitting back and enjoying a movie from time to time.
For me enjoying a movie is getting all of my worldly senses RELENTLESSLY ASSAULTED for 2 hours. Now, I’m sure for some people just like sit back with a beer and “enjoy a movie” every now and again but I can go jerk myself off anytime I want, know what I mean? This whole “sometimes I just want to be entertained” thing I just don’t get.
To each his own I suppose!
Santino
In a perfect world, a great film is one where the filmmaker has high aspiration (define that however you like) and succeeds in those aspirations
But if given the choice between an alternative – a filmmaker with high aspirations who fails (think Meirelles’s Blindness) or a filmmaker with low aspirations who succeeds (think G.I. Joe), which would you prefer? I’ll take the former.