I love every film that has won Best Picture for the last decade except for Chicago!
@wampa/jasper
No I wasn’t implying you don’t create. What I meant is that you shouldn’t give credence to the stupid things other people say, especially on the internet. I’m the smartest guy I know and I’ve intentionally said stupid things on the internet, even on this forum, plenty of times. It’s my way of contributing to absurd realities of the world. The idea that someone might second guess what they feel, what they know is right, thrills me. It thrills me like I imagine a person who creates a poem, film or song is thrilled when someone acknowledges their art. Your post in a small way is my art and I relish what you might one day learn from it. It’s society’s inspirational quote to teach you a valuable life lesson.
“@ Mike Spence, that’s a pretty fucking good point.”
Thanks. I also think that it is natural for some to progress more slowly in forming a personal system of evaluation than others. I am sure Jasper is correct in his assertion that some people instantly like arthouse fare because it makes them feel more outside the mainstream but I think many of the people I respect on this site tend to favor the directors they favor because they think they are great. It happens that many of these directors are outside of the mainstream and I think their is a connection to me made with someone saying something no one wants or is prepared to hear, and therefore being an outsider and the idea that anything that is popular must be deeply compromised.
I also think many of the people who might come off as “pretentious” on this site do enjoy some mainstream stuff but they are a bit more concerned than others with distinguishing, for themselves, what is fun and entertaining vs. what is profound and lasting. I am sure that if you question anyone who posts something nasty about a popular filmmaker you like you can tell pretty quickly if they are just trying to be hip or if they simply have strong, considered opinions.
Sorry for the double post but i realized i didn’t elaborate on the beginning of the previous post. There is so much art and entertainment out there that sometimes, when we are just learning about something we have only an inkling as to what we like about it and what it is doing to us. This can lead some, including myself when I was younger, to declare a movie, novel, etc., a “masterpiece” when we don’t really understand it. This is especially true when you are watching a slew of difficult art films and such in a short time span and were previously only familiar with mainstream fare. The hope is that, as you grow more discerning, you will revisit these works and learn to truly appreciate them.
I am not saying that is everyone’s experience but it is common and it is natural.
I’m with Spence on this one. Sure, I have a problem with those who eschew all things conventional for those “un”, but I also have a problem with the reversal of this; i.e. those who determine worth by popularity and lucrative meanderings. As the OP said, the key is to find balance. There are many wonderful commercial films as there are some wonderful “arthouse” films (I prefer the term “unconventional” instead of “arthouse” but people tend to use them interchangeably, so that’s just a semantic preference of mine). I admit that I personally tend to favour unconventionality over traditionalism, but there’s also the wonderful aspect of familiarity and nostalgia that is often overlooked in more experimental or “intellectual” cinema, so there are “downsides” and “upsides” of both (depending on your perspective).
On top of all this, there also seems to be those who favour “classic” films over “modern” ones, not for their worth or value necessarily, but simply on account of when they were made, as if films nowadays are inferior to those that have come before. Of course there are instances where this is true, but it’s not a rule and certainly not a pattern that one should adhere to. There are quite a few great modern films as well as those before many of us were born.
Once again, I think the OP summed it up rather nicely with the word “balance” – that really explains all and is wise advice for all of us.
i dont think that a good movie depends on the amount of money or the amount of publicity is used to create it, it definitely goes into play in regards to how it does in the theaters, but “paranormal activity” for example was made with what, like 50,000 dollars, and yet it beat out films that had multi-million dollar budgets in the box office, if a film really speaks to a mass appeal, then it wont matter if its “art house” or Warner brothers.
“if a film really speaks to a mass appeal, then it wont matter if its “art house” or Warner brothers.”
Yes, but if a film really says something new or unconventional, it will likely never make more than a couple of million dollars in the U.S..
I remember when I was younger thinking how interesting it was that a film like Seven, with such a dark and complex them about how twisted we can be inside, was a triumph of independent thought over commerce. I now realize that the cynical ideas Seven celebrates very much appeal to a sizable number of people. The film appeals to latent fears many have of their fellow humans. It is the films that avoid easy happiness or darkness that often go unnoticed and unappreciated while offering the greatest rewards for those who are lucky enough to find them.
Blindness comes in many forms.
For every bitter, dyed-in-the-wool classicist who feels cinema has gone to hell “since Renoir stopped making films”, there is a dumpy slacker who wears his nihilism as a badge of honor and for whom “Clerks” is some sort of anti-Citizen Kane.
I would say that “perspective” is what helps separate different people when it comes to whether one can call them ‘cineastes’ ‘film lovers’ ‘movie buffs’ or whatever terms you wish to use.
Someone goes to see “Misery”. They come out, and they call the film “great.” They were entertained, put on the edge, they got their money’s worth. As far as their cinematic universe is concerned, they have seen a ‘great’ film.
I like “Misery.” It is one of the best King adaptations; it is unsettling as hell and well acted. It is a good commercial film which is very entertaining, and which holds up well on repeated viewings. I could never call it “great” but I think my above opinion of it is quite fair, and one of these days I’ll pick it up on Blu-Ray.
I can’t call it “great” because I have perspective beyond the first viewer. I have seen a lot of wonderful films from different countries and I know to some extent where “Misery” fits in that scheme, simply because I watch a lot, and I watch a lot of different stuff, including silents.
The first viewer has thoroughly enjoyed his evening, and why should he want more than coming out happy?
The second viewer (me) has also thoroughly enjoyed his evening; he too comes out happy… with a sense of perspective.
It doesn’t have to be more than that.
After reading this thread my guess is that a lot of the people posting are on the younger side (say teens to late 20s; but that’s just a guess). I’m 40, and I wanted to perhaps offer a slightly different, more sympathetic perspective. I definitely relate to the idea of liking something mainly because it’s intellectual and hip, while outright rejecting the mainstream; I definitely succumbed to that pressure when I was younger (and sometimes still do). My guess is that a lot of people who like the arty films also take pride in being part of an elite. I’d be surprised that wasn’t at least partially appealing. I know it was and, to some extent, still is for me. Because of that, admitting that you don’t like the “right” films, while liking too many of the “wrong” ones can get you booted out of the club. There is also often a significant level of fear at work. There’s fear in admitting that you don’t care for Stanley Kubrick, just as there is fear in liking Forrest Gump. We all know the films/directors that we should like and those we shouldn’t. So one can easily avoid these difficulties by simply liking all the art films while rejecting all or most of the mainstream ones. I think this happens a lot, but I don’t know if getting pissed off is the appropriate response. I understand that these people can be annoying, but pissed off seems to be too extreme. Besides, is there no one guilty of this? I know I’ve been guilty of it—especially when I was younger.
My point is that being honest with yourself and others is a difficult endeavor—especially, in this case, where you really care about being sophisticated. (The people who don’t care at all about being intellectual/sophisticated have no hang-ups with saying what they like or don’t like.) And I think discovering what you really like or don’t like—whether it is hip or not—takes time and courage. I know it’s taken me quite a while to get comfortable openly admitting what I like and don’t like.
Just some two cents from an older guy.
Please try to separate “taste arguments” from academic discussions, film discussions or art discussions.
This site is meant for arthouse, real or not, pretentious or not, big profit or none, (that’s what we’ll have to find out) so read, watch arthouse films and prepare yourself instead of being biased against them.
Is this the correct social network for you?
who said i was biased against art house films? Have you seen how many films I’ve rated on here? I was simply saying that i appreciate a balance in taste.
And besides the criteria of what we should talk about on the forums is really up to anyone on here. It’s not like what i had to say was off topic. I’m sorry I didnt read the rules.
Oh and “I love you man” is on the auteurs, so would you rather I take on an acedemic discussion with that?
Actually, I wasn’t (am not) sure who Javier was referring to.
oh…..well, mabye I jumped the gun on that one. My bad.
I would just like to thank Jazzaloha for his two cents as it is a perspective I too share but sometimes find lacking around these parts. Former members like Sepesy and Stutsman used to make similar comments and I think it’s nice getting an “older” perspective. Without trying to bait or accuse anyone directly, I will state very generally that most people I’ve talked to (both in life and on this site) who wholly reject mainstream art for lesser-known fare tend to be younger people while older people (let’s say people over 35-40) tend to be more forgiving (for a myriad of reasons). I don’t mean to imply that if all you love is Godard and Cassavetes that you’re somehow naive and need to “grow up” but just that at some point, the antagonism subsides.
I personally have gone through various stages myself with my relationship to cinema and what I appreciate and since I’m only 28, I know I’m in for plenty more ups and downs. But I’ve come to a realization (and this happened in film school, when I started actually making my own films) that there is stuff to be learned from many differents corners of this beautiful art form. I think once I came to this conclusion, I began to enjoy cinema a lot more.
well put fredo
Jasper, I think passion is somehow there (I mean in film appreciation). So taste is too. You mentioned the word: criteria. It’s necessary to stablish it talking about and posting on artistic values in films. In this site, “rating system” made of one to five stars or “favorite films” box, both could be interpreted as user’s taste. But not always. My post a few minutes ago was an open invitation to separate (I should add now: keep safe, or hide, “taste arguments”) in order to find out (or think or re-think) what makes film(s) really relevant or pertinent.
Since a lot of trendy people piss us off sometimes, let’s think about art forms, appreciation and culture politics. There are “qualified” users here, people who work on film and art. Let’s just learn from them.
@Fredo: Thank you for the encouragement, young man. :)
Just another thing, too. Jasper spoke about balance, and by that I understood him to mean that movie fans should like—or what I would say, do like—a variety of films—some mainstream, some not. I don’t think there is a person who loves only the more serious arty films, while hating the more commercial films. There’s a line from the 1001 Movies You Must See that’s apropos: even lovers of find dining crave a hamburger every once and while. And I think if people are honest with themselves, they will find that there are some accepted classics that they really don’t like—even hate—and some films panned by critics that they love. That’s the reality.
There was one thing that I realized that was somewhat reassuring, namely many sophisticated individuals genuinely like commercial films (music, books, etc.). In other words, disliking an accepted great movie or liking a purely commercial one, doesn’t necessarily mean you’re unsophisticated or unintelligent. As I learned and read about individuals I admired, I often found this to be the case. Moreover, if you have to feign or exaggerate your feeling for a film just to be hip, then you’re not being real. It’s empty and fake. To me, it’s much more important to be real, than to be hip.
Again, just some food for thought.
“I don’t think there is a person who loves only the more serious arty films, while hating the more commercial films. "
Maybe no one hates all commercial films but some have less respect for anything commercial and often for reasons far more complex than simply trying to be hip. I am not sure this “balance” people are talking about is necessary. If someone only enjoys the greatest art and avoids everything that is commercial they are ok in my book. It’s almost impossible to avoid the commercial trappings of life while great art is difficult to find and more rewarding to the soul, not because it makes you cool, but because it opens you up in ways popular works do not.
“There’s a line from the 1001 Movies You Must See that’s apropos: even lovers of find dining crave a hamburger every once and while.”
Also, to return to my earlier point, the real problem is that too many people only eat burgers and never enjoy a good steak. Applying this analogy to films indicates to me that we are allowing our minds to become as flabby as our bodies. Taking it even further there are many people who slather so much sauce onto their steak that they never really taste the meat. They are eating A1 with a little steak in it and missing out on the rich taste of the meat. Spinach without butter sauce may taste horrible to people because they have become so used to the comforting yet dulling qualities of butter they have lost a taste for real food.
If someone only eats burgers and never enjoys fine dining they are worse off than those that only eat fine dining.
Self-deleted.
If I’m going to call a metaphor weak, I oughtn’t stretch it beyond it’s own breaking points to do so.
“Even if you research well known ‘serious’ directors, you hear about some pretty interesting tastes like how Bergman liked Spielberg, Bresson liked Bond films, and so on.”
Tarkovsky really liked Terminator
Mike said, “Maybe no one hates all commercial films but some have less respect for anything commercial and often for reasons far more complex than simply trying to be hip. I am not sure this “balance” people are talking about is necessary.”
I’m not saying it’s necessary so much as it’s reality. I agree that “some (people) have less respect for anything commercial for reasons far more complex than simply trying to be hip.” That’s undoubtedly true. Generally, I have less regard for commercial films, and I don’t enjoy a lot of them. But the point is that I do enjoy some. Likewise, there are some highly regarded non-commercial films that I really don’t care for. That’s just how things are. Balance, as I understood it, means that one actually all kinds of films—not just the super arty ones. And more importantly, one should be free to like whatever they like. To be more specific, I don’t think any of the people here should feel guilty about liking a commercial film or not liking a particular auteur or well-respected movie.
Mike also said, “Also, to return to my earlier point, the real problem is that too many people only eat burgers and never enjoy a good steak. Applying this analogy to films indicates to me that we are allowing our minds to become as flabby as our bodies.”
If be “we” you mean the people at this site, I’d disagree. My sense is a lot of people here get their share of “fine dining.” I suspect you mean the “masses,” and you’re probably correct. Most people miss out on a lot of quality films. But I guess I don’t see this as a big loss for them. I mean, people live very fulfilling and productive lives without seeing great movies, right? Maybe I’m just selfish: as long as I get to see great films, then who cares about the others? :)
jord
@Wampa1.
only true thing in this whole thread