Karin Albou has made a couple of brilliant and effective films, La petite Jérusalem 2005 and The Wedding Song 2008.
La petite Jérusalem was a …meditation on religion, philosophy, and the weight of romance on the mind of a growing girl.
Why would I care about that subject matter?
What I care about was the craft and the aesthetic emotion produced.
Subject matter means nothing to me.
But is there never a time when you don’t enjoy the film because you’re not really interested in the subject matter? I can respect Pink Flamingos, but if I never watch the film again, I’ll be perfectly happy.
In general, I avoid discussions about War, books about War. But I’ve watched quite a few war films. And there are at least three or four that I was really interested in once I started watching them. But maybe war is too broad??
Subject matter is too broad a term, Jazz. Any subject can be made interesting. To dismiss a film based on its aboutness seems silly. For example, I’m not interested in sports (especially from a spectator point of view) and, as a genre, I don’t like “sports films” but there are more than a few that I can name that are quite good.
@Ari
Sure, any subject can be made interesting, but sometimes not enough for you to care or enjoy the film. This topic started from a discussion about Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, with one person saying he doesn’t like British spy films. Well, I don’t really care for British spy films, either. I haven’t seen the film, so maybe I’ll like it, but I could end up not enjoying the film, even if its well-done.
Btw, are there sports films that were well-made, but you didn’t really enjoy?
I will watch a film about french cuisine if I thing it is well made….
@Bijoux
In general, I avoid discussions about War, books about War. But I’ve watched quite a few war films. And there are at least three or four that I was really interested in once I started watching them.
Some films—because of the filmmaking or the angle the film takes—might work for you, even if you don’t like the subject matter. But can you think of war films that were well-made, but still didn’t really interest you—ostensbily because you didn’t like the subject matter?
Completely irrelevant. “It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it?”
Sure everyone has a little bias, “I don’t like sports films”, “I don’t like spy films”, “I don’t like action films” ect. ect. However these little biases are easily overcome if a film is honest and true. There are many films that are about subject matter that I could not care one iota less about, but the characters and the relationships are so interesting it doesn’t matter.
the “subject matter” of a film is just one element, and not a very significant one at that. It’s like saying, do you care about music in a film? Of course you do, but you can also very easily love a film that hasn’t any music in it at all. The only thing “required” by a film or art in general is that it be honest, or “truthful” in some way.
“Why would I care about that subject matter?”
We’ve not really morphed into such a narcissistic and solipsistic society as to believe that merely because something doesn’t relate to you directly, at an exact 100% ratio, you can’t identify or care about it, have we?
What the hell kind of a person doesn’t care about religion, philosophy or romance?
“Well, I don’t really care for British spy films, either. I haven’t seen the film, so maybe I’ll like it, but I could end up not enjoying the film, even if its well-done.”
Yeah, I don’t understand this criticism of TTSS. I see it as the kind of film that will disappoint people who like British spy films in how it completely dismantles the genre in a satisfyingly unsatisfying way.
“Btw, are there sports films that were well-made, but you didn’t really enjoy?”
Not sure, but I remember my wife refusing to see Raging Bull for the longest time because she said she hated boxing. I said, fuck it, if we’re getting married, you’re going to have to watch Raging Bull (and like it) or the wedding’s off (okay, I’m making this part up), and turns out she liked it. Boxing is a good example. I have absolutely no appreciation at all for the sport but I can think of five or six great boxing films off the top of my head – Raging Bull, Gentleman Jim, The Set-Up, The Champ, Body and Soul, Fat City….
My favorite film seems to be about country music. I could give a rats ass about country music.
^Weird that that was said because I pretty much came on this thread to mention the time I worked at Hastings and recommended a guy rent Walk the Line since he seemed to like biopics and it was still a relatively popular title at that point. He responded, “Nah, don’t care about Johnny Cash,” and I reflexively said, “Well but the movie’s pretty well made and a lot of people really like the performances,” to which he answered, “Be that as it may, I don’t care about Johnny Cash.”
My mother doesn’t like science fiction or fantasy. She says she can see why others do, and understand the qualities, and knows that they aren’t all crap, but that she just doesn’t get into them.
It’s life. I don’t think people should be criticized for just not being interested in a certain topic. We could play this into the wider value systems/specialization concerns (the old ‘I can’t get my friends into experimental film but I can touch base with them on science fiction’ type stuff) but I don’t think it’s too hard to look outward when I’m sure every one of us on this thread can name a movie that we never saw simply because we’re just not interested, no matter what people’ve praised about it.
—PolarisDiB
Hmmmmm. I’ll have to give that some thought, Jazz.
Oh wait, I just remembered. I fucking hate “magic food” movies – you know, Like Water For Chocolate, Chocolat, etc,etc. Actually, I dislike most movies about food. Not sure why. I like eating food.
I guess if it’s a war film that’s not only about war then I’m more apt to enjoy it. So maybe if TTSS seems to deal mostly with the British Spy theme, then it’s understandable why this person wouldn’t like it. But is TTSS a one -note film?? I dunno.
Haha! It’s probably because they play on the assumption that ‘magic food’ (what a great term) is for women and so they amp up the chick flick rote sentimentality without really looking into culturally interesting aspects of food and cooking. There’s two types of food-based movies, that ‘magic food’ type and the ‘ethnic identity around a dinner table’ type, and the latter is a little more interesting but also sort of bewilderingly banal.
—PolarisDiB
@Axel
However these little biases are easily overcome if a film is honest and true. There are many films that are about subject matter that I could not care one iota less about, but the characters and the relationships are so interesting it doesn’t matter.
I’m not clear on the link between “honesty and true” with interesting characters and relationships. I think a person could find the characters and relationships boring, even if the film is honest and true.
@Ari
Boxing is a good example. I have absolutely no appreciation at all for the sport but I can think of five or six great boxing films off the top of my head – Raging Bull, Gentleman Jim, The Set-Up, The Champ, Body and Soul, Fat City….
These filsm aren’t good examples because I would argue that they’re not really about boxing. Boxing only provides a superficial backdrop for most of them. So in the case of these films, saying you wouldn’t be interested like these films because you don’t like boxing would already be off base—they’re not about boxing! Films that are only superficially about a particular subject don’t really count in this discussion.
Perhaps, conventional, but well-done genre films like action, rom-coms or horror would be better examples. If a person really doesn’t like action films, would they enjoy something like Die Hard; or if they hated rom-coms, would they like When Harry Met Sally?
@Brad
My favorite film seems to be about country music. I could give a rats ass about country music.
But it’s not about country music. (See my comments about boxing.)
@DiB
Your example of Walk the Line is interesting. If the person really didn’t like Johnny Cash, could they like the movie? I guess it would depend. If they hated Cash’s music, I think there’s a chance they could like the film, as the movie is more about the relationship between Cash and June Carter. Now if the person also really hated Johnny Cash the person (suppose he knew Cash well), then I can’t see him liking the film—or it would be very, very difficult.
My mother doesn’t like science fiction or fantasy. She says she can see why others do, and understand the qualities, and knows that they aren’t all crap, but that she just doesn’t get into them.
Right. This is an example of what I mean. Now, I bet there might be one or two SF/fantasy movies that you’re mom might like, but she did so because they were well done—while the others she didn’t like were not. Some films transcend what the genre or what they seem to be about, but these films don’t really prove that the subject matter doesn’t matter, imo.
Action and comedy aren’t subject matter though Jazz, they’re genres or methods of expression. I think the boxing example was fine in terms of the original question, but if you want to expand it to ask whether one has to like what one expects the film to show in any form, I would suggest it varies depending on what exactly the objection is, if one can’t stand seeing depictions of violence on screen, then, no, one isn’t likely to enjoy many horror films for example. Subject matter alone though will likely effect what one chooses to see in the first place and possibly will have some lingering impact on enjoyment if compared to someone who better appreciates the subject, but as there aren’t many films which are, in absolute terms, strictly “about” their subject, then most would fit in with the Raging Bull kind of example where the movie is “about” boxing, or a boxer, in the roughest sense, but will almost invariably be about something larger or more encompassing as well.
Sure, they are about boxing but any great film transcends their subject matter.
@ Polaris – Yes, exactly. The “ethnic identity around a dinner table” movies are all banal….. Have you seen Simply Irresistible? It must be the worst magic food movie ever.
@Greg
Action and comedy aren’t subject matter though Jazz, they’re genres or methods of expression.
Yeah, you’re right—although I’m not sure they’re not entirely separate from subject matter. The content of genre films are often very similar.
…if one can’t stand seeing depictions of violence on screen, then, no, one isn’t likely to enjoy many horror films for example.
Right—and I would ask those who say the subject doesn’t matter, how they would respond to something like this.
I think the boxing example was fine in terms of the original question…
I think I still disagree with this. Something like Raging Bull is about Jake LaMotta, who happens to be boxer. That’s really different from a film making boxing the focal point of the film, imo.
I agree with Ari and Greg, almost all great films aren’t really “about” what they appear to be on the surface.
Subject matter is important to me. For a few reasons.
No amount of cinematic genius could redeem a movie about unicorns for me.
But beyond that sort of example, I do think that relating to a movie (not relating to characters necessarily) is important. When I saw TTSS (yeah, I’m the one who doesn’t really care much for British spy movies), I went in with an open mind, knowing that it was a genre I don’t particularly care for. I enjoyed the movie for its approach, visual excellence, and some of the acting. But at the end of the day, my apathy towards the spy genre (and I suppose it doesn’t apply strictly to British spies) kept me at bay.
BTW, I don’t see my above comments as constituting a valid criticism of TTSS. Someone who is more familiar with the genre should probably appraise it long before me. In the context of “Last Move and Rate It” and in the context of my own cinephelia, I don’t think it’s inappropriate to admit a distaste for a certain genre and then at the same turn openly admit that the movie does have merit outside of my personal preferences.
Nope.
Someone here said recently that he/she doesn’t like dance as a subject, but loved Wender’s film Pina, so that’s one clear proof.
“…if one can’t stand seeing depictions of violence on screen, then, no, one isn’t likely to enjoy many horror films for example.”
That would come down to personal preferrences, not just based on genres. Some people may enjoy Onibaba or The Haunting (horror), but would draw the line before watching any slasher/ gory, graphic flick like Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Hostel (horror). Most men enjoy drama in general but will avoid (if possible!) ever seeing any movie based on a Nicholas Sparks novel. Why suffer, really?
Caring for/ or relating with the subject matter; and appreciating film aesthetics- to some it may pose a challenge but it’s not difficult at all to separate those two elements IF one approaches a film with an open mind, imo.
I count L’Aventura as a personal fav, eventhough I can’t relate to any of them upper class characters and couldn’t give two sh!t$ about their upper class dillemas.
I agree with some of the others who said their main concern is whether the film is well-made; subject matter is generally secondary for me. I’m willing to leap into just about any subject matter as long as a good movie can be found there. (I have preferences, of course, but I can’t think of any topic that would automatically dissuade me from seeing a film.) Is this where I quote Ebert’s old saying about how content is neutral; it’s not what a film is about but how it is about it?
It’s worth noting how a well-made film will inspire me to care, at least momentarily, about subject matter that previously disinterested me. In fact, that might be one measure of a film’s worthiness. One of the great pleasures of watching films is experiencing that unexpected spark of newfound curiosity—it’s one of the reasons why I love going to film festivals and walking into movies totally cold.
re: OP
Nope.
Yeah, I mean I generally loathe politics, but that didn’t stop me from getting into In The Loop, or The Thick of It, because they are well casted quality comedies in the end, regardless and in many cases in spite of the “content” they happen to be dealing in.
Now when the content by is something you enjoy or relate to personally, that is just a bonus. Not “required” for me by any stretch. In fact, kind of the point in a lot of ways…. films have the power to show you a window to a world you never imagined yourself caring about yesterday?
Personal affection v. appreciation.
I feel I can appreciate a good movie regardless of subject matter (unicorns notwithstanding), but for me to love a movie, I have to have some personal connection to the subject matter. I won’t make any bones about being attracted to movies with religious subject matters.
I can understand people saying that they can’t like or appreciate a film even if they’re not interested in or dislike the subject or content of the film. However, I have a harder time believing that it never matters—that it doesn’t sometimes prevent one from getting into a movie.
Jazzaloha
In another thread, Meg asked this question, and wondered if we ever discussed this. I don’t think we have, and I think it’s an interesting question. Personally, caring about the subject matter sometimes does matter in terms of how much I personally enjoy a film, but it doesn’t (or shouldn’t) matter in terms of appreciating it—i.e., a film can be great even if I don’t like the subject matter. (I don’t think I can think of a film that I thought was bad just because I didn’t care for the subject matter.)
Now, sometimes a film can be so interesting or well-done that I might end up enjoying it, even though I don’t generally like the subject matter. I’ll try to think of some examples. In the meantime, I’d love to hear people share examples of hteir own.