“when I see a film now (especially a newer one), I feel a little letdown. It’s like going on a tour for great bbq and then coming back home and no longer being satisfied with the local bbq.”
Aha.
I found one approach to that —> watch a lot of purposefully shit movies. b-movies, epic failures. Watch Gigli and Poultrygeist. Then watch a recent small cap arthouse fare from France. SUDDENLY ALL THE BETTER!
(only half joking here).
—PolarisDiB
@Greg
By “totality,” I basically mean appreciating a film as a whole. This means understanding a film on its own terms; it means getting a good understranding of what a film is truly about and what its trying to do—and then judging and appreciating the film in relation to this understanding. When the film achieves what it sets out to do, when the components and details work together to serve what the film is about—and when this is done in a competent way—the film is generally satisfying to me. (Generally speaking, this approach works outside the idea of expecting a film to function like older films because it attempts to judge a film on its own terms, not the viewer’s.)
We can look at details of the film separately from the whole—and this can be satisfying in some way, but if that’s going to be the primary way I enjoy most films from now on, that’s a discouraging and disappointing thought.
Yes, Jazz, and that is pretty much what all viewers think they are doing. I mean it isn’t like the average viewer is going in to watch a film in it partiality. You spend more time thinking about it than most viewers of course, but the basic situation is the same. The point then is that just as you might see things a less educated viewer might not grasp in a movie, further exploration of some other ways of looking at film might show you things you didn’t notice before in your own personal “totality” of the film. The idea of “totality” is largely illusory in that a film doesn’t have a single and set “meaning” to be uncovered as much as a variety of potentialities.
^ Jazz, have you been seeing a lot of movies that you feel like didn’t accomplish what they set out to do? Or just that what they set out to do was not as great as some of the other movies you’ve already seen?
I kind of went through a time where I had more or less exhausted the really big game movies that make top 100 lists and stuff (leaving out a bunch of notable ones that just don’t sound interesting to me), and kind of went through a slump when not every movie I watched was earth-shatteringly brilliant. But then I started just thinking about whether or not movies set out what they accomplished and started exploring different movements and countries and stuff. And generally not expecting every movie to be incredible. There’s just so much stuff out there that I’ve never seen, and every time I’ve gone through a slump, I’ve always found something to get me back in. Most movies I see now I think are at least good, and that definitely wasn’t always the case.
@Greg
Yes, Jazz, and that is pretty much what all viewers think they are doing. I mean it isn’t like the average viewer is going in to watch a film in it partiality.
In my experience, I think a lot of people don’t really care much about what a film is really about. They stop at whether they liked a film or not—and one can be clueless about a film if they stop at that point. (I don’t always go beyond this point, myself.)
If you mean that I might be missing details and aspects of a film that might deepen my understanding of a film, I completely agree with you. That’s always a possibility. I’m not sure if that’s a different way of approaching films, though. Basically, you’re saying that I should always be open to learning something new about a film—I agree with that, but, again, I don’t think that’s what Matt had in mind.
@DFFOO
Jazz, have you been seeing a lot of movies that you feel like didn’t accomplish what they set out to do? Or just that what they set out to do was not as great as some of the other movies you’ve already seen?
More the latter, I think. (I should also add that I haven’t found a lot of films that satisfy my personal preferences—which is not quite the same as a film setting out to accomplish what it set out to do.) I really think I’ve hit a point of diminishing returns. And I’ve also seen a lot of the great films—and I’m not watching the great ones I haven’t seen, yet.
Most movies I see now I think are at least good, and that definitely wasn’t always the case.
Are you not seeing a lot of films in the theater? And if you are, are you being really selective? (Actually, I’m pretty selective—but that means I rarely go to the theater! :(
I’ve had these symptoms too on and off, one time when It hung around for a couple of months, I quit feature length films altogether and watched only TV, rewatch theWire, X-files, Breaking Bad until I was all charged up and thought I got my mojo back and until my friends wanted to go see Transformers Dark of Moon and down the drain went all the therapy.
@ Aditya I.P. It’s like I’m having severe ADD.
You might find this article interesting …I know I did.
You’re wrong Jazz. You’re confusing the question with the “answer”. You’re “aboutness” or “what the film is trying to do” may not match theirs anymore than Bordwell or Carney’s “aboutness” may match yours, that doesn’t mean it isn’t being considered though. People base their assumptions on the “aboutness” based on their previous experiences, interests, and capabilities. They mostly go to Hollywood films and watch them for what they believe Hollywood films are “supposed to” provide. They want action films to be actiony and have plots that make sense, characters that they are interested in and for the film to work as a whole to give them whatever feeling they hold as central to the film going experience. Many may not seek subtext or some second level “aboutness” but the films they tend to go to don’t tend to require such exertions to be appreciated for some “about” even if another can be argued existing along with it. For many films they will develop much more in depth readings of “surface” text than some of us more interested in subtext. One only need to look at the deep involvement into things like the Star Wars mythos or various discussions about Inception to see involved interpretations of the surface actions and “logic” of the world the film creates. What is being discussed may be different, but the interest in a sort of “aboutness” is not.
The sorts of discussions and ways of looking at films many of us engage in here are a sort of specialized territory that is as much creating its own separate aboutness or have aboutnesses made for this tiny niche of viewers as it is somehow seeing a film in the “right” or “true” way. In essence, there is no aboutness, there are aboutnesses. A film is only trying to be itself, it has no goals, it is insensate. We supply the “trying to do” part based on the same things as everyone, based on our knowledge, interests, and experience. Ours is the more intent and may be a closer match to that of the filmmakers, but the films themselves will be silent on such things allowing only that their half of the conversation remain constant and open for someone to supply the other half, a half over which the films have no control.
Continuing to invest oneself further in film language or study can help to change to nature of the conversation. It isn’t about focusing on details in place of the whole, but in simply seeing more of the whole all the time which may provide greater engagement with what one didn’t notice or notice in the same light previously. It doesn’t change the nature of the relationship between the film and the viewer, it just changes the awareness of the viewer allowing them to become more aware of what was already present.
@Greg
So if the film itself doesn’t fall in line with a viewer’s expectations, would you say the viewer really understood what the film is about? If I watched Robocop expecting an action film, based on my experience of previous action films, and missed the satire, would I have understood what the film is really about? Personally, I don’t think so. If a viewer never go beyond their expectations, experiences, interests, etc.—which is what I think happens quite a bit—then I don’t think they’re really getting to the “aboutness;” and they’re not judging the film on its own terms.
When I saw Hero, based on the first twenty minutes, I expected and wanted to see a conventional kung-fu movie. When the film didn’t meet these expectations, I felt disappointed, and I had a negative reaction. Only when I put those expectations aside and tried to figure out what the film was trying to do, did I begin to understand and appreciate the film. So I don’t think I really understood what the film was about—and if I didn’t really care to understand what it was about and what it was trying to do—I wouldn’t have gone beyond my unmet expectations.
As for a “film’s goals,” to be clear, I mean this in a rather broad way. Films try to be funny, serious, satirical, political, etc. They can conform to convention or go against it. Films have a certain “attitude” towards the content. There may be multiple goals and we can interpret the films in different ways (although I think interpreting what a film is really about is fairly limited.)
I also don’t think there is one “right” or “true” way of seeing a film. But I think there are appropriate or inappropriate ways of interpreting what a film is about.
A film fails or succeeds only in accordance with measures outside itself. A film simply is a collection of more or less organized images and sounds to which we attribute meaning via convention, analogy, inference and resemblance to other things to which we are familiar. A film can only fit what the viewer brings to it, the viewer is the measure, not the film. A viewer can only “understand” a film to the best of their abilities and history. That may shift over time allowing for a different understanding, but it is nonetheless a limit which cannot be breached. Your “about” is concordant with your knowledge, interest, and abilities just as mine is limited to mine. Those two “abouts” may mesh or may not, which can be seen in all manner of discussions here or elsewhere about movies where people are disagreeing. There is no inappropriate answer since there is nothing to be inappropriate to other than oneself. The film doesn’t care or have an opinion on the matter. We allow that some people may know more about these things than others of us and may therefore give their opinions more of a hearing, but unless those opinions can find some surer footing of felt experience they are simply matters of faith and without “meaning”. To be sure, convention, experience and detailed explanation can suggest certain possible readings of films, but those readings, while they may hold true to those who “feel” them are “proof” of anything, they merely reaffirm the system and perhaps may lead one finding an alternate experience of their own if attended to and embodied.
So are you saying that a film can mean anything that a viewer wants it to mean? That all opinions and interpretations are equally valid? You don’t think films, given their structure and content, limit the number of valid interpretations. Again, I’m not saying there is one and only one valid interpretation, but I am saying there isn’t an infinite number of valid interpretations. Some interpretations are more plausible and compelling than others, right?
A viewer’s knowledge, interest, expectations, experiences, etc. definitely influence, and even limit (to a degree), a viewer’s understanding of a film—but they’re not trapped by these things. A viewer can appreciate and respect a film, even if the viewer isn’t interested in the film’s subject matter, right? A viewer can put aside one’s expectations (as I did with Hero) and proceed to understand the film on its own terms, too.
But in my experience the average viewer isn’t interested in doing things like this. They mostly care if they liked the film or not. If they didn’t like the film, that’s it. They rarely try to understand a film after that. Now, maybe if they’re arguing with friends about the film, the conversation will get them to reexamine their opinion and understanding of the film. But without that prompting, I imagine the typical viewer wouldn’t examine such a film in that way.
“Doesn’t further attention to detail, form, and other analytical possibilities bring out more in the film suggesting that the less examined “totality” isn’t as total as it might appear.”
Yeah . . . actually, Jazz, what Greg’s saying is part of what I was getting at. I wouldn’t limit it to just “learning about”, though. I think that, as long as one is open to such, you are continually re-tuning your sensibilities.
@DiB
I found one approach to that —> watch a lot of purposefully shit movies. b-movies, epic failures. Watch Gigli and Poultrygeist. Then watch a recent small cap arthouse fare from France. SUDDENLY ALL THE BETTER!
That’s classic case of the cure being worse than the disease.
@Matt
Yeah . . . actually, Jazz, what Greg’s saying is part of what I was getting at. I wouldn’t limit it to just “learning about”, though. I think that, as long as one is open to such, you are continually re-tuning your sensibilities.
OK, other analytical possibilties. You’re talking formal film (critical) theory? When I’m at my wit’s end, I’ll consider this—but not a moment before then. ;)
Not necessarily, though that certainly might help.
I’m a movie-a-day gal myself. Once in a while, especially if I’ve been binging on too much, I’ll just hit a wall. Sometimes you just have to stop for a while. Or switch gears and watch something totally different. Contrary to one of the prior comments, maybe you’re not be watching enough TV. Palate cleansers can be important.
“That’s classic case of the cure being worse than the disease.”
It’s more likely to burn you out more than make other movies seem better in comparison. :)
—DiB
Actually, I would tentatively agree with Polaris’ earlier suggestion. I may not go so far as to watch movies I know will be absolute crap, but I will watch stuff on the lower end of the quality scale just to keep things moving. A couple of weeks ago I watched Goon. I enjoy hockey and I think that Alison Pill is cute. That was enough to get me to watch it even though I knew it would be lame. And it was lame. But it does help me to see something like that, where my expectations are very low and they are met. Then when I go watch something like Emporte-Moi, a forgettable coming of age movie, I find myself appreciating all sorts of things that I may not have if my viewing habits were different.
Mixing it up really does help.
@DiB
It’s more likely to burn you out…
…and induce suicide…so how is that helpful? (That’s not the kind of help, I’m looking for, young man. ;) .0
@Nathan
Actually, I get desperate for certain films or I want to go to the movies with my wife, so I occasionally end up seeing films I’m not really interested in. (I’m also starting to watch kid movies with my children.)
Are you not seeing a lot of films in the theater? And if you are, are you being really selective?
No, I almost never see movies in the theater. So far in 2012, I’ve only seen two movies in the theater -I watched Cabin in the Woods in the theater without having read any reviews or even watched the trailer because I knew it was a horror movie that Joss Whedon was involved in writing, and my fiancee and I both like Joss Whedon. It exceeded my expectations and I liked it a lot! The other one was Whores’ Glory, which I discussed my reasons for seeing in the “Does hollywood hate adults?” thread. I was similarly not disappointed.
I don’t see movies in the theater unless I think it’s gonna be really good, so maybe that’s something that helps, too.
EDIT: Just remembered an exception – A theater was playing Fulci’s House by the Cemetery on my birthday, and I saw it with some friends after drinking a little because it was my birthday and I like horror movies and I like Fulci. I didn’t think the movie was very good (even in a Fulci sense of “good”), but I thought it was at least a fun experience that was worth my time and money.
@DFFOO
I don’t see movies in the theater unless I think it’s gonna be really good, so maybe that’s something that helps, too.
Same here. (I’ve seen only twelve films in the theater. Part of this is that I don’t have the time, but not having very many films I want to see is another big factor.) I find this situation pretty depressing myself.
@Aditya
I feel a little bad for derailing this thread, so I wanted to try and steer the conversation back. Here are my ideas about what could be causing “viewer’s block:”
1. You’re burned out. You’ve seen a lot of movies in a relatively short period of time. If this is the case, this shouldn’t be a major problem. I suspect taking a break from movie watching will remove the block.
2. Overwhelmed by choice and convenience. If you’re watching films on netflix streaming or something similar, perhaps the availability and ease of watching a film causes you to be impatient with a film. (When you see a movie at a theater, you can’t really switch movies, not easily anyway.)
greg x
Jazz, the thing is everyone thinks they are getting the “totality” of the typical film when they watch it, even the most uncultured viewers. Are they though? Doesn’t further attention to detail, form, and other analytical possibilities bring out more in the film suggesting that the less examined “totality” isn’t as total as it might appear. Beyond that, furthering one’s appreciation of different aspects of cinema production and criticism doesn’t necessarily detract from a film as it can also open new opportunities for engagement.
I mentioned before the notion that I see a lot of the desire for Hollywood movies being more in that people are trying to hold or recreate feelings they had from other films they saw when they were younger. The same but different is what the call seems to be. That way to me seems doomed to fail as it denies something of the essence of growth and change in people. I recognize the desire and I am not immune to wanting it in some forms, but to cling to tightly to it is to try to freeze time. That’s why getting more from movies isn’t necessarily a problem with the movies themselves as the movies of today serve roughly the same function, with more competition, for the young of today as movies of your younger days did for you. So the issue might be in expanding your own horizons more than in the movies not doing what they are “supposed to do”.