several times during its 165 minutes, I awoke in a panic, only to find that the same thing was happening onscreen as was happening when I closed my eyes. (Seas roiling; Russians brooding.)
that’s hilarious…and sounds vaguely familiar :P
I haven’t read the article, yet, but I’ll comment on this:
Forever after, rather than avoiding slow-moving films, I’ve viewed aridity as a sign of sophistication.
Uh, no. I think saying that slow-moving, arid films are sophisticated is going to far—just as fast paced, wet(?) films are not unsophisticated.
Also this As I get older, I find I’m suffering from a kind of culture fatigue and have less interest in eating my cultural vegetables, no matter how good they may be for me. I don’t fool myself that aspirational viewing no longer has anything left to offer, that I’ve somehow absorbed the lessons Tarkovsky couldn’t teach me all those years ago. Yes, there are films, like the 2000 Taiwanese drama “Yi Yi (A One and a Two),” that enrapture me with deliberate pacing, spare screenplays and static shooting styles. I’ve watched “Yi Yi” five times and never once dozed off over 15 cumulative hours of low-key Taiwanese domesticity.
@Jazz – If you read the article, that’s not exactly what he’s saying. In fact, what he’s saying is similar to the questions you ask in your Fear and Film Appreciation thread
@RWP- Ha! That sounds judgey. I’ve always been pretty open about my loathing of taste policing in both academia and cinephilia. I consider my appreciation of high/low culture without qualification and indeed problematizing the distinction in the first place, a strength. But, as a film critic the author makes interesting points about balancing ‘aspirational viewing’ with his job and going outside one’s comfort zone, and deciding what you really want to spend your limited time watching.
I agree in general that films stay with you longer if they give you time to reflect and absorb them. But, it’s not hard to come up with tons of exceptions on both ends of the spectrum.
“…deciding what you really want to spend your limited time watching.”
And may I add to that: “and doing.”
I eat a lot of rice and broccoli. I know it is good for me and I like it too.
I used to like donuts, other white starch foods, and fired foods.
I’m starting to sound like Mike Spence here, so I’ll stop.
Yeah, who wants to have their taste policed?
But that isn’t the real issue. The issue is knowing better and not practicing or taking responsibility for what you know.
The reason to write that article (not gonna bother to read it – papers are full of them) is to pander to those in the back pews – NYTs wants their subscriptions.
Is that the world we want to live in? No, don’t let ’em bullshit you, everyone wants to be in the front pew.
true story: I went to the link above and scanned the article to find something I found interesting- “I looked for the good parts” and found nothing. something about yi yi. a list of directors he like that includes soderbergh. the original poster excerpted the best parts, I decided, then moved on. then I realized to me his article is much like solaris was to him. boring. oh well. Does he really think it’s courageous to call solaris boring? Or is he just admitting that he’s been too insecure to be honest as a paid critic? I don’t get it, but then I really didn’t try to get it, did I?
@2+2 – I see what you did there. Pithy.
@RWP – I don’t think so. He was trying to be honest and has gotten a lot of vehement criticism for it from people basically calling him a fraud or a philistine for admitting that he can’t bring himself to care or even understand some of the films that all film critics are supposed to like. You can see from the article that he still is open minded about films outside of his comfort zone and is quite moved by them but more choosy about his time as well and has become less hard on himself for doing so.
“Is that the world we want to live in? No, don’t let ’em bullshit you, everyone wants to be in the front pew.”
That’s pretty much what he’s saying.
….too insecure to be honest as a paid critic?
Bingo.
Be who you are – if you like crap, say so – but be prepared to defend that crap.
If you can’t, then you don’t know who you are and you don’t know crap.
People really should be less hard on themselves for not being in great shape physically either. (ha ha, ha ha ha ha)
Is there a point in discussing this if no one is going to actually read the article and just riff off of what others who also have not read the article wrote?
Post — touche’ — no, there isn’t. I’m getting off this thread. I can’t focus right now…. adios.
@ Kyo trying to be honest and has gotten a lot of vehement criticism for it from people basically calling him a fraud or a philistine
Geez that’s the thing – if he wasn’t a phony, other people’s crit wouldn’t matter to him.
It’s funny how people like to think being who you are is easy.
Liking crap isn’t easy, just ask anyone who does.
Again, if you know better, why persist? why make your life difficult?
Now I’m starting to sound like my father…
@Odi- hey, that was NOT directed at you!!
@RWP – fair enough. This thread was a mistake.
/thread.
Tarkovsky bowled me for six with Solyaris. Still only seen it in miniature version.
Kyo – no, for you I’ll read it, but what are we working towards?
OK, I read the article.
They (critics) love the experience of watching movies that I find myself simply enduring in order to get to the good part — i.e., not the part where you’re watching the real-time birth of a Kazakh lamb, but the rest of your life, when you have watched it and you get to talk about it and write about it and remember it.
These lines really resonated with me. Indeed, it reminded me of the thread, Many Good Films Are Difficult to Watch
Here’s what I wrote in the OP:
I don’t know if this is true with anyone else, but there are many really good films that are not enjoyable to watch. They’re not enjoyable because they the subject matter is depressing or too dark (although that can sometimes be the case); rather, these films are often slow and even boring at times. I often have to be in the right frame of mind to appreciate them. I just saw three recently that fit the bill: Werckmeister Harmonies, Spirit of the Beehive and Movern Callar. All of the films were at least good, imo, but this “goodness” is mainly appreciated after watching the film, when my understanding of the film becomes clearer after analyzing and thinking about the films. In a way, this is sort of strange; it’s almost more interesting to think and discuss the films than watch the films themselves.
Having said that, I’m not sure about the point of the article. It sounds like he’s saying he’s getting tired of seeing films that are not enjoyable to watch—even if they might be good or important in some way (i.e., crucial to understanding the cultural landscape). Or is he suggesting that these slower, contemplative films aren’t really good, in his opinion, but he’s saying they are out of fear? At one point he says he feels guilty for not watching (or not wanting to watch?) certain films, but, later, he seems relieved at the approach of not seeing some films because he wouldn’t enjoy them.
My two cents, and I don’t know if this is relevant. I think, conceptually, separating what you like from what is good can offer some relief or peace of mind. You might like like slower paced films, but you can also recognize that preference doesn’t make a film good or not. So, you can watch these films and not feel guilty about saying you didn’t like watching them, but at at the same time, you can find a way to appreciate the film on its own terms, too.
After I started eating more healthy foods, I’ve found the same unhealthy foods I used to like less and less satisfying. I used to hate the taste of wheat bread — now I find white bread just plain bland.
Now that I’ve read the entire article…
Different people watch films for different reasons, and get different things from them. The movies he says he likes are good movies, they’re just fast paced, very accessible ones. There’s nothing wrong with that, and he shouldn’t be ashamed to say that is his taste.
…But, I get the tone from the article that he’s accusing the people who champion these films of pretending to like them to seem smart. That is full of crap. Why can’t he just say “I’ve realized I prefer fast paced films to slow paced ones”?
@Jirin
But, I get the tone from the article that he’s accusing the people who champion these films of pretending to like them to seem smart
FWIW, I didn’t get that sense, myself. Maybe I shoud read it again.
I was pretty much going to post exactly what Jirin just posted. So yeah. Pretend this post is his post all over again.
There’s definitely a seperation between what you recognize to be good or important in some way and what you truly like and appreciate. Critics especially, which seems to be the point of this article, should stop fooling themselves and everyone else should stop playing along. Film criticism and analysis, not to mention individual “cinephiles,” would be far more credible if everyone weren’t hiding a secret love for 1950’s-era American Westerns and equally cliched Film Noir.
(The above has been edited).
cliché’d Film Noir
What is wrong with noir clichés?
I’m a whore for noir and I admit it.
In general though, critics especially should stop fooling themselves and everyone else should stop playing along. Film criticism and analysis would be far easier- and more credible- if everyone wasn’t hiding a secret love for stylized Westerns, cliché’d Film Noir or what have you. People need to be honest.
Could you maybe cite a example or two? If you’re going to accuse people of dishonesty, you need to provide some concrete examples.
But, I get the tone from the article that he’s accusing the people who champion these films of pretending to like them to seem smart.
That is undoubtedly true for some, though. I find it interesting (if not surprising) that people would be offended by this article.
“Could you maybe cite a example or two?”
I’m not accusing anyone of dishonesty. It seems pretty obvious however that no one alive can have impeccable taste. I often get the impression that people cover up certain views to protect their reputation in whatever social sphere they operate inside.
I had the same feeling reading the article as Jirin: “But, I get the tone from the article that he’s accusing the people who champion these films of pretending to like them to seem smart…”
“I’m a whore for noir and I admit it.”
That’s my point.
There’s really nothing to be offended by in the article, as it really offers nothing.
@ BK
:lmao
Also, I didn’t get the sense he was accusing other people. If anything, he seems to want to appreciate these films as much as his friends do. He was just being honest about his own experience. If you find that offensive, then that’s just insecurity talking.
Post-Kyo
Interesting article from NYT. The author was on CBC (canadian public radio) defending his views.
Eating Your Cultural Vegetables
EXCERPT:
…In college, a friend demanded to know what kind of idiot I was that I hadn’t yet watched Tarkovsky’s “Solaris.” “It’s so boring,” he said with evident awe. “You have to watch it, but you won’t get it.”
He was right: I had to watch it, and I didn’t get it. I had to watch it — on a laserdisc in the university library — because the intimation that there was a film that connoisseurs knew that I’d never heard of was too much to bear. I didn’t get it because its mesmerizing pace was so far removed from my cinematic metabolism that several times during its 165 minutes, I awoke in a panic, only to find that the same thing was happening onscreen as was happening when I closed my eyes. (Seas roiling; Russians brooding.) After I left the library, my friend asked me what I thought. “That was amazing,” I said. When he asked me what part I liked the best, I picked the five-minute sequence of a car driving down a highway, because it seemed the most boring. He nodded his approval.
Forever after, rather than avoiding slow-moving films, I’ve viewed aridity as a sign of sophistication. Part of being a civilized watcher of films, I doggedly believe, is seeing movies that care little for my short attention span — movies that find ways to burrow underneath my boredom to create a lasting impression. I still remember watching Derek Jarman’s 1993 “Blue,” a movie that’s simply 79 minutes of narration over a screen colored an unwavering deep blue. (It’s available on DVD — “enhanced for wide-screen TVs,” thank goodness.)
Thoughts?