@JAZZ- Good thread. This actually reminded me of the RENAULT lad- he might had similar dilemma judging from those topics he started in the past. He’s definitely a curious one.
What you described as fear is a natural feeling, or say a reaction depending on the kind of crowd one run around with. Peer pressure, perhaps. It’s not really worth worrying about, as long it doesn’t keep you from exploring art in general.
I’ve got no qualms filing my Three Stooges or Death Wish Series dvds next to the art house ones, even though I often get the occasional raised eyebrow from ‘those’ friends. Same thing with Jazz- I actually also enjoy the more mainstream fusion from the ‘70s to the present ( popularly called ’Smooth Jazz’ ) that many jazz enthusiasts tend to ignore or despise. Yeah, Grover Washington Jr. or Spyro Gyra next to Sonny Rollins and Count Basie, no problem!
@Noel
The real test is if you could admit to liking Kenny G. If you can do that, then you’re truly fearless! :)
No shit! Yes I like Kenny G.!
Nah, I never care for him, BUT I do own one of his record from the late ’80s- a little too soft for my taste, but I see he does have that distinctive commercial sound on saxophone.
I like David Sanborn though, as well as Earl Klugh, Al Jarreau and Lee Ritenour… and yes, I often get a stick for it from the jazz purists.
It’s interesting to look at the way subjective truth can feel so timeless when we are with others. If one is going to speak at all, one feels pressured to phrase any contradicting opinions with a tone of openness to the possibility of being wrong. As in, “Maybe I need to watch it again to really get it”, “I guess I just wasn’t in the right frame of mind”, “Maybe I need to digest it some more”, etc etc…
So much of our lives with others take place within the realm of abstract ideas, and since the sound that makes a word could really mean anything at all, the assumed meanings and values of abstract ideas in an actual conversation tends to reflect the power structure of the people in that conversation. One feels pressured to express oneself using these already given meanings and values, and so when one likes a film because of a reason that one believes is given no value by the others, it becomes difficult to say what one wants to say.
The Nietzschean solution is to have the strength of will to appropriate the meanings of words for one’s own ends, even if it means that one will not be understood. The Lyotardian solution is to find some creative way of sharing one’s own experience without compromising one’s beliefs, so that previously unspeakable positions become speakable.
The Nietzschean solution is to have the strength of will to appropriate the meanings of words for one’s own ends, even if it means that one will not be understood. The Lyotardian solution is to find some creative way of sharing one’s own experience without compromising one’s beliefs, so that previously unspeakable positions become speakable.
most of the time, i don’t have any idea what my ‘own end’ or ‘unspeakable position’ is regarding a film. it’s in the negotiation…all those intra’s and inter’s that have been floating about here lately….between various factions and values of the everyone else humming and hawing that i discover even my initial reactions to a film i’ve just viewed…if i watched film in a void…well….between the seeing and the speaking…sometimes far too much ground to cover on my own resources.
if you asked me right now, do i like ham?….i just wouldn’t know, even before i’d thought about the social implications and potential dietary prejudices of the person that asked me…
but that’s just my opinion….i could be wrong…maybe i just need to think it over…..over a frightful cheese sandwich :P
Yes, I think you’re saying something important. I guess that’s one of the reasons we are here talking about film at all – the incredible mental liberation of seeing someone else put feelings that we didn’t even know we had felt into words.
It can get too dogmatic at times in artistic realms, like a horror movie, sometimes you can quaver in fear.
A poster just told me if I don’t like Tchaikovsky I don’t like melody.
And it stung!
Jazz: isn’t that one of your major fears?
“fear of …not liking sophisticated works of art”
If the artistry eludes you, the very thing that is appreciable of its being regarded as a ‘sophisticated work of art’ eludes you as well.
To me, if an artwork is truly a great piece of art – if it can be called sophisticated – there is something there – it’s essence perhaps – that one must ‘get’. The implicit fear this entails is that one may not ‘get’ the artwork. A fear that others experience a spark – a moment where the artwork and one’s consciousness meet – while this spark escapes you. A fear that there is something to be experienced that you are missing out on. A fear that you are inadequately prepared for this experience.
Maybe ‘fear’ is too strong a term – as could be said of any of the ‘fears’ discussed in this thread; perhaps concern is more fitting. I’ve never actually been ‘afraid’ of anything mentioned in this thread.
@SONNY- “A poster just told me if I don’t like Tchaikovsky I don’t like melody.”
Good thing this is an online forum ‘coz that poster needs to get…
I’d take Gershwin, Jerome Kern or Ennio Morricone over Tchaikovsky any day.
or Wagner and Mozart.
“that is not to say that fear about what others think doesn’t have any influence on me. It still does; it’s still something that I have to wrestle with from time to time, but a lot less so.”
I’m not sure “fear” is the right word, but nothing wrong with valuing the opinions of people you like and/or respect. Or with trying to understand and sympathize with views other than your own.
My fear of not understanding artistry stems from my desire to be a part of it.
It’s been a dream of mine for years now to make films. I want to make films that are considered, you know, art. To do so, I try and watch as many films as I can but…half the time, I don’t immediately perceive the things that elevate them from “simple film” to “art.” If we’re going to be honest here, I have to admit to this: I didn’t find The 400 Blows to be anything more than it appears to be. And I’m not saying the movie is devoid of any worth to me – that’s ridiculous. I realize it’s considered art, but I could never understand why. 400 Blows has always represented, for me, the lack of the ability to perceive things as art.
If I don’t understand these films, what makes them great or what makes them art, I don’t think I’ll ever honestly be a filmmaker. That’s my fear of not being able to appreciate films. I see lots, but half the time I don’t understand what makes them legends. I’ll always pretend like I understand (hah), but that comes from a desire to relate to filmmakers rather than…regular people.
It just scares me. When I see things like Last Year at Marienbad, I know I’m not SUPPOSED to understand it in the first place, so I don’t worry. But when I see relatively simple films and don’t fully appreciate them, I worry. I come here a lot in search for discussions on what makes certain films…well, masterpieces, and sometimes I think my opinions just conform to what people on here think because you guys see things I don’t.
I don’t know.
Siddiquo, canonical films wether “simple” works or not are not supposed to be universal, meaning not averybody have to like them. I’d say: pay attention to the films that really mesmerize and interest you and learn from there.
“but I could never understand”
Don’t worry about it too much. Every statement about art comes with the implied preface “I don’t fully understand the work, but . . .”
@Kamran
Oh, OK. I do feel anxious not appreciating the great films—because it suggests that I lack sophistication. I guess, I interpreted your remark to mean fearing the inability to appreciate artistry of any film, on any level (even lesser expressions of artistry). Does that make sense?
@Matt
…but nothing wrong with valuing the opinions of people you like and/or respect. Or with trying to understand and sympathize with views other than your own.
Absolutely—as long as this isn’t happening because you’re ashamed of your own opinions or scared what others might think about you because of them. I felt a kind of fear about admitting to certain things I liked or didn’t like and felt pressure to modify my opinions because of this fear. Personally, I think a lot of cinephiles know what I’m talking about, but if not, I know it happens with me.
@Siddiquo
I realize it’s considered art, but I could never understand why. 400 Blows has always represented, for me, the lack of the ability to perceive things as art.
FWIW, my response would depend on what you mean by “perceive things as art.” You sound like you have to also think the film is great. If this is what you mean, I don’t think you have agree with the canon. You can disagree with the canon and still be a good filmmaker, not to mention an intelligent person with good taste.
Or maybe you mean that you have to understand why others feel the movie is great. I don think you have to understand what makes a film work and not work in order to be a good filmmaker, but I’m not sure if this is the same thing as understanding why people like The 400 Blows. Now, if you can list reasons why the film isn’t great, I definitely don’t think you need to “appreciate” these films.
_ I come here a lot in search for discussions on what makes certain films…well, masterpieces, and sometimes I think my opinions just conform to what people on here think because you guys see things I don’t._
But if these people can’t help you see what they see, then conforming wouldn’t be a good thing. Maybe that’s obvious, but I think it’s worth pointing out. You should say you think something is great just because other people do.
I think reading great contrarian criticism over the years encouraged me to rely on my own judgments. Even though I largely disagree with this assessment, the sheer fact that Jonathan Rosenbaum loathed Dr. Strangelove so much made it seem possible to take issue with so-called canon films and/or directors. The older I get, the more I think about the future state of criticism/appreciation and where my own judgments will fall in that context. Will I be one of the folks who saw Citizen Kane for what it was? Will I be one of the discerning cinephiles able to see the kitsch value of Showgirls or the sharpness of Sirk? I have a weird anxiety about being on the wrong side of history… and it seems like there are quicker turnarounds for overhauls of taste these days.
@Patrick
I have a weird anxiety about being on the wrong side of history… and it seems like there are quicker turnarounds for overhauls of taste these days.
Sometimes I think about this. I recall the critics who dismissed great artists like Thelonious Monk. No one wants to do something like that. However, that may happen—you may dismiss a film or a filmmaker that later proves to be pretty terrific. But my feeling is that you can’t control that. All you can control is how honest you are and how much thought you put into your opinions. Do the best you can, be real and let the chips fall where they may. That’s my approach, anyway.
(Jazz’)
2. For me, fear usually doesn’t manifest itself in such a blatant way—e.g. I keep silent about films I love that everyone hates or I express an opinion that is completely the opposite of what I feel. Instead, fear often will cause me to alter my opinions in a subtle way. For example, to this day, I still don’t understand why Rules of the Game is so highly regarded. I don’t hate the film, but my feelings are sort of neutral. But I noticed that when it comes to rating the film, I generally give a slightly higher score than it probably deserves. Part of this is because I might be questioning my own judgment and part of this has to do with protecting myself. Similarily, a film I dislike might become a film or filmmaker I disdain—if it’s a film respectable cinephiles seem to despise (e.g. Michael Bay).
I have a private Criticker collection called ‘Seen but not rated’. It contains about a dozen films that I’m ashamed for not having appreciated (and about 150 more that I’m ashamed for ever having watched). As a Bergman fan, Through a Glass Darkly presides as the most salient. But I don’t shout about the odd Fellini or Kubrick, either. “I watched it on my laptop” , I’ll attest, “it hardly counts!” ; “there was broad daylight reflecting on the screen!” ; “a persistent itch!” ; “the pillows with which I normally shroud the blinding LEDs were being washed!” I’ll cry. They were sitting on the square hedges outside, awned by the warm glow of an attendant streetlamp.
But, that’s ok. The piano that faces me isn’t grand, Satie on its stand: easy. Lager dischevelled beneath a 10" vcr combi, held aloft by an orange and black metal table from Aldi. I am quite lazy and uneducated, certainly compared with many here, but I’m also very proud of the things that I do like, whether or not I can rationalise how the taste that I have came about, or whether it took any effort.
I’m not going to sharpen my pitchfork at the first sight of pretension, pretence, pretending, self-delusion. Hell, I wouldn’t begin to admit to disliking Paths of Glory — or to say that I could overlook the abhorrent editing in I Am Sam because I was moved by a spastic — I wouldn’t admit to such things without the whimsy and prosody and labored, awkward good grammar with which I am writing. (I can’t seem to differentiate between cowardice and passion).
Anyway, I think you could get Rules of the Game. At least you didn’t try to set fire to it (Stravinsky suffered similar treatment). It went in my ‘Seen but not rated collection’ until I enjoyed it much more on the second viewing (then rated it, sheepishly). It didn’t change my life or anything, though. Third time’s a charm, but it has this Oscar Wilde society shtick with which I have trouble sympathising—I always liked Shakey, with wild-fire, brimstone and stabbings! Voltaire would call me a barbarian, and he’d be correct in doing so. But the tragedy in La Règle does compute; feels pervasive and classical and other words I don’t completely understand but mean to say that a complex construction of character and story resulted in a visceral reaction of a quiver and a kind of guttural sadness a writer would have to describe. “Please, Lisette. Am I crying?” I’ve seen so many films now, that I know that this can be created by serendipity or brilliance alone (or melodrama, like that Asian film with the Architect and the Alzheimer’s wife—don’t watch that film).
And while I’m running around swinging my dick with abandon (like some flailing penis lasso)—having cast-off the clothes of newness and timidity—I will posit that people enjoy Fanny and Alexander quite so much because it is grand and accessible—unlike many Bergmans; which I think are all the stronger with subtraction. I also think Amadaeus was a terrible film, and I’m waiting for everyone else to realise this. I couldn’t believe, I was shocked at its acclaim. That’s when I realised everyone was mad, insane, bonkers. I ran down the street, knocking on peoples’ doors "_You’re insane_, " I would whisper, stroking their fingers.
Be whoever you want to be. It’s okay if you’re gay.
I have similar feelings, but it isn’t manifested in fear. Rather it is apathy. I’ve ‘created’ at least 2 dozen topics I would like to discuss, but ultimately never hit the New Topic button because I have zero desire to be on the defense the entire time or worse I’ve already heard the rebuttal so my natural ‘glibness’ gets the best of me and try to turn the discussion into something else, albeit in a incredibly snide way. It doesn’t help that I’ve been slowly learning throughout my life that I’m extremely terrible at communicating what I’m trying to say to other people which is why most the conversations I have are to myself.
@Paulofilmo
Uh, wow. Feeling good, huh? :) FWIW, I didn’t care for Fanny and Alexander, too; but I did like Amadeus (although I haven’t seen it in ages).
@Malik
I think you should hit the new thread button, man. If you think it will start a good discussion, who cares if you leave the conversation? ;)
Well, my thinking on this is that “fear” or perhaps more accurately anxiety comes primarily from either worry that one doesn’t or won’t understand enough about a film, particularly a challenging one, to “get” it or that one might miss seeing something groundbreaking for what it is. That is to say that there is a concern of not being “elite” enough for certain kinds of films and simultaneously a concern that one isn’t hip enough to catch the next big thing. This can manifest itself through either self-doubt and a reluctance to talk about a subject for fear of looking uninformed or being “wrong” or in an aggression towards the new or different or to alternative ways of viewing. If someone knows one thing well they may be very reluctant to set that aside and look at alternatives, and they may feel threatened by ideas that could pose a threat to their known worldview. This can lead as much to lashing out at those that raise differing points of view as it does to turning inward and not participating in the discussion. There is, of course, no clear answer to these concerns as some of the ideals being held on to may indeed be of greater value, in some sense or to some people, than those challenging them, even as at the same time there is an inherent conservatism in seeking to cling to the old instead of embracing the new, this is where the value of discussing or seeking to untangle the meanings or purposes of each film individually and as part of a larger whole comes in, and is why more voices need to be heard as the few who act as gatekeepers to culture have agendas and viewpoints that may not reflect a more complete understanding of the world or art. That art criticism has been dominated by such a narrow band of individuals, and thus a narrow way of thinking, is something that may need challenging as there are undoubtedly built in prejudices at play.
To play off what Greg X said, I think one of the problems of the cultural gatekeepers is that they manifest themselves in the forms of ratings, lists, and awards. Yes, like many film lovers I have all my ratings, lists, and awards too (and I sure ain’t getting rid of them), but I still think they pose two problems.
The first is that we fail to remember that they suggest consensus not agreement. You can look at a list like the TSPDT top 1000 and think that those are the touchstones that everyone is supposed to like. But that’s not the point at all. I guarantee that every academic, critic, historian or plain old film lover has hatred or at least apathy for one of the films in the top 10. When you put hundreds of tastes together this is the list you get, but we forget and think that as individuals we’re supposed to reflect all of those hundreds of tastes. This is why it never made sense to me to criticize a critic, say Ebert cause he gets a lot of it, for disliking a certain great film like A Clockwork Orange or Blue Velvet. He’s not required to love everything.
Secondly, these things suggest permanence. A film is declared “The Best Picture of Year X” and thus it will always be. And so we think of our position or our rating of a film as something that we must defend with vigor. But the experience of a film isn’t really something that’s quantifiable. Consider going through an art museum and mentally rating all the paintings on a 5 star system. That would be ludicriuos. Differint paitings speek to us differently depending on our mood and our place in life. Imagine if we felt comfortable with films doing this? If someone asked you “Do you like The Godfather” and it was an acceptable answer to say “maybe” or “sometimes.” Personally, I always felt apathetic toward Sunrise until I fell in love and got married. Now it moves me. Does that mean I didn’t “get it” before? I always understood what the film was attempting to accomplish. I understood that someone who more empathized with the characters would probably enjoy the film more. Now that I do, I do. Was that my fault for not transcending my biases? Was that the film’s fault for not appealing to an audience more diverse in their life experience? Was it either? Should either myself or the film have been expected to really do either of these things?
I don’t know and I don’t have the answers to all of these questions, but I ask them, in the hopes that the next time I find myself bored and frustraed by Bresson I won’t feel like such a doofus.
I had so much fun watching Unstoppable in the theatres last year. I don’t even care what anyone else thinks. I saw it twice. Haters can suck on my ballsack. I think it’s really important to have a varied and balanced film taste.
I never liked Casablanca.
I prefer to read Bukowski’s short anecdotes more than his poetry.
Chet Baker sounds best in trumpet than singing sounding like a girl.
Le Samourai is not a samurai film.
I can no longer appreciate Ginsberg’s works after the whole NAMBLA thing…
@RobertTIN
Good post.
I would agree that our judgments aren’t set in stone—that we change as people and then our judgments often change as well. Still, I think our judgments in the present moment are valid and valuable, too. Moreover, I think examining these judgments to see if deficiencies exist in the film or in ourselves worthwhile—at least if we are interested in art.
@Rick
FWIW, I enjoyed Unstoppable. To me, it’s the best marriage of Tony Scott’s style and a script.
@Noel
Le Samourai is not a samurai film.
Heh.
I don’t give a shit if someone doesn’t think that something isn’t sophisticated but sometimes when I’m bored I like to rub that very thing into their face and prove them wrong.
One of the things I like to test folks is proclaiming my admiration for certain hair metal bands and their cheesy 80’s videos, specially when I’m having a discussion with someone who claims to like “unique” alternative bands.
Having spent most of my time and money on making music, having being involved in the music biz and having met many different people in that area, I know that there’s actually very few who have a general anthropological overview of different music-cultures, have an opinion which recording of Mahler’s 5th sounds the best and discuss about ’Trane’s moving harmonies. These folks are almost exclusively hard-core musicians who are extremely good at what they do and don’t bullshit about silly superficial sub-cultural hierarchies.
Usually when someone starts talking about superiority of whole movements over another, which most of the time is about that all the shit they dig is deep and artistic while putting down whole genres of music as childish, then I pick one the easiest victims – hair metal and prove it to be great achievement of post-modernism. It’s amazing how throwing out even the simplest text book facts and making a simple summary on the fly can make someone shut his pie-hole.
I remember feeling embarrassed after watching American Psycho because I had an interpretation that differed WILDLY from my friends who were all movie buffs too. Honestly, my take on the film was probably just wrong. But after I kept wondering how I could have gotten the narrative so confused.
The only film I have ever come close to bullying someone for liking is Moulin Rouge and I just inexplicably hate that film.
Also, speaking about fear and music appreciation – I don’t really like Bob Dylan. I recognize his importance, influence and songwriting talent and all but I only care for a few of his songs. People look at me like I’m a philistine whenever I admit though so I keep it to myself!
@Post
But after I kept wondering how I could have gotten the narrative so confused.
For me, while I’m watching a film, I’m often developing a hypothesis about it and sometimes I get locked in and can’t see beyond it. So even when the film starts going against the hypothesis, I’m sort of trapped, if you know what I mean. Another way of saying this is that sometimes we’re on different wavelengths of the film—maybe because we’re at a different place in our lives from the characters or themes in the film so our reading is sort of off. Oh, and sometimes we project our own feelings and experiences onto a film, too—and sort of see more than what is there.
I don’t really like Bob Dylan
I’m not a fan, either. I think everyone has their “Bob Dylans”—and I would go so far as saying that people who don’t are a little suspect to me. Btw, this realization was really liberating for me. The realization occurred as I started hearing about well-respected filmmakers or artists who would admit to liking something trashy or not like one of the great works of art. I remember reading that Martin Scorsese didn’t really get Rules of the Game and that struck me—and gave me comfort and confidence. I sort of noticed more well-respected expressing similar things after that, and that has helped a lot.
Jazzaloha
@Kamran
But have you really been afraid “of the artistry” alluding you? I mean, I can see if you’re a little concerned, but afraid? I don’t think I’ve felt that way.
@Siddiquo
Glad you liked the thread.