I mean the third paragraph. Damn the lack of an edit function!:)
@Fraser
But I think both statements are accurate, and they speak to a fundamental difference in both films. What criteria do you think I’m missing?
Well, I think we can talk about unity or wholeness—the way the film brings the various components of filmmaking (editing, cinematography, etc.) to achieve a desired end. We can also speak of unity in terms of the different scenes in the film and how they come together to form a whole. Others: originality, timelessness, influence.
Moreover, I also believe that we should look at the film’s objectives and what it’s about, but that’s another story, so I’ll leave that on the saide.
You haven’t given a reason why my analysis isn’t fair to either film.
Well, I’m not completely sure I know what you mean “intellectually understanding people from a distance.” If you mean an understanding that is short of “getting inside the head” of the characters, then you may or may not be right. I haven’t seen the film in a long time, so I can’t comment with authority. However, I can say that getting inside the head of a character, seeing form their viewpoint is not the only way to understand human beings. Are you saying we can’t learn anything if we stepped back and observed various characters and their interactions together? What about the environmental factors—both from a macro and micro perspective? Seeing the world through an individual certainly would help us gain a deeper understanding of that individual, but it may say little about society or even human beings in general. Personally, I think there are other valuable ways to understand human beings—individually or in groups—and I certainly think there are other important questions—e.g. why are we here? does God exist? what are the implications of his existence or non-existence? is there meaning in life? what is the nature of man? what is beauty? etc. (I’m also not entirely convinced revealing profound truths about human beings is essential for a work of art to be great, but, once again, that’s another story, that I’ll leave to the side.)
The point which everyone is ignoring is that elitism is actually good. Why would one want to be “ordinary” and second-rate? Why would anyone intelligent want to watch/read/experience/praise rubbish? Elites rule.
Nothing wrong with wanting to enrich your experience. Why does that take on such a singular, judgemental and isolated journey to some people though.
Yes because it’s a cowardly position, and often intellectually dishonest.
there is nothing ‘silly’ about being an elitist, if by elitist you mean recognising levels between things, acknowledging the existence of a hierachy in the field of artistic achievement which is non-democratic(in terms of skill, praise, awards etc). it only become silly when it’s totally exclusionary. but one can just as easily say ‘i enjoy Role Models a lot but it isn’t art’, without facing criticism.
I’ve noticed that most anti-elitist—-strong ones with combative personalities—tend to come from countries like America, Australia and Canada. i.e pseudo egalitarian nations without particularly strong cultural or intellectual traditions.
it’s great for their public image to defend mass culture to the point of absurdity, but it does get a little tedious after a while.
Having said that, some of them do have noble intentions, i must admit, but it’ s difficult to separate the genuine ones from the knee jerk reactionary types.
Should I be content to let people think Nashville is the height of filmmaking art?
Actually, it is.
Ah Z, I could agree with that if you said it was one of many heights.
Thus, it is the gross vague generalities that causes me to ask:
Is stoopididee a good thing?
and for the record, i love Casavettes and Altman. i just prefer J.C.
This thread is silly.
Wait wait wait wait. Let’s not get confused here.
An elitist disregards the opinions of those below them, and makes an instant assumption that the person is somehow inferior because of their taste.
A true art lover accepts the opinions of those below them, and has enough humility to step back and realise that their own is just an opinion too, and so could in all probability be false.
So, an elitist could love exactly the same films as a true art lover. The difference is in the attitude.
Solved?
I don’t know if elitism is always inherently good. Elites in Hollywood greenlight stuff like “Paul Blart” all the time because they think that we want to see it. When it succeeds, they just do more of the same. With that said, the intent of a film like Paul Blart is nothing more than escapism. If it succeeds, then it possibly paves the way for the same executive to front the money to distribute a smaller and more challenging film. There is an interdependent relationship here between the two.
and @Malik. Yes, this thread topic is discussed too often. They should make a Godwin’s law but for Mubi threads.
MUBI’S LAW
“As an Mubi discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving elitism or Tarantino approaches 1.”
“A true art lover accepts the opinions of those below them, and has enough humility to step back and realise that their own is just an opinion too, and so could in all probability be false.
So, an elitist could love exactly the same films as a true art lover. The difference is in the attitude.
Solved?"
not sure. To me the ‘true art lover’ of your definition could also be a soft elitist. i.e non-snobby, but still recognising categorical difference. that’s where i position myself.
People don’t like elitists, or to the inevitable expansion intellectuals, because they are insufferable twats. Very seldom does the fact that people are ‘anti’ them have to do with taste rather it is attitude. And the only time people care to be around insufferable twats is when they offer something useful to balance out being, well insufferable.
We’ve had discussions on elitism before. For me, a form of elitism which needs to be combatted is the idea that one culture or nation is superior to, should dominate and exclude others. Someone wanting to promote a beloved film from a neglected country, say, in the hope the pleasure can be widely shared, along with broad horizons and a decent geographical spread is not elitist but the opposite, i.m.o. The term elitist is often applied by media with a vested interest in maintaining a status quo which is profitable for those with power, but which undermines choice while re-enforcing an exploitative and discriminatory world view. We see the damage done by the Murdoch press’ relentless propaganda, aimed at getting the working class and poor onside for policies which actually harm them, alongside general dumbing down. Or is it snobbish and elitist to talk of dumbing down? I think it’s more so to make condescending assumptions as to the level the less educated or working class for instance can aspire to and appreciate; often it’s mainly about custom, not potential receptivity. British people aren’t used to subtitles or even dubbing, but non-Anglophone nations cope well enough with films not in their own language.
Elitists don’t bother me and I don’t bother them.
It is merely a matter of getting past the form to understand the content.
It is somewhat elitist to assume the working class has no control or free will over what art they consume, whereas you do. This could be another way for you to state your superiority, though veiled in supposed empathy. Why not treat people like human beings instead of looking down on them like children?
It is merely a matter of getting past the form to understand the content.
Oh, don’t open that can of worms!
I get the sense that some are lumping in anti-elitists with relativist and I don’t think that’s an accurate comparison. Many of us who feel (for example) that John Ford is a far superior director to Andrei Tarkovsky are not afraid of value judgments, but recognize that different criteria can be used to rank different filmmakers. Which criteria one chooses to embrace is a subjective one based on what one seeks from film going.
In any case, there are a multitude of film criticism theories, and an elitist, to me, is one with a very narrow definition of what theories are proper and acceptable. This does not mean that it is elitist to claim certain films are better than others.
People seem to be thinking of elitism in two different ways, and it might be useful to distinguish them:
1. On one hand, elitism refers the idea that the some works of art are better than others; not all works of art or aesthetic judgments are of equal value. Elitism, in this sense, is anti-relativist.
2. On the other hand, elitism can refer to the denigration of another for their (inferior) opinion about art. In this sense, elitism would be snobbery.
There are some people (relativists) who oppose #1, but my sense is that there doesn’t seem to be many people like that on mubi. The majority of complaints seem to be directed at #2. Personally, I would defend #1, but oppose #2.
Elitism, in this sense, is anti-relativist.
Uh….
“2. On the other hand, elitism can refer to the denigration of another for their (inferior) opinion about art. In this sense, elitism would be snobbery…..
…..my sense is that there doesn’t seem to be many people like that on mubi. The majority of complaints seem to be directed at #2. Personally, I would defend #1, but oppose #2..”
That’s what I said a page and a half ago!
If by elitism, we are thinking of the belief that there are better and worse things, more talented and less talented people, better artists and worse artists, then I am a hardcore elitist and proud.
Not everything is subjective. There are better works of art than others. If you don’t believe this, the logical conclusion of that belief is arguing that Beyonce is a more talented musician than Beethoven.
Shakespeare is a great artist. So is Beethoven. So is Mozart. So is Bach. So is Tarkovsky. So is Kiarostami. So is Picasso. So is Rembrandt. Whether you enjoy or understand their art doesn’t make it bad. Only the most arrogant of people could believe that their opinions matter so much that great artists can be dismissed out of hand because of their preference.
Without an understanding in better and worse works of art, arguments about whether some seven year old who filmed himself taking a shit is a better artist than Da Vinci are taken seriously. Is that the kind of world anyone wants to live in?
“If by elitism, we are thinking of the belief that there are better and worse things, more talented and less talented people, better artists and worse artists, then I am a hardcore elitist and proud.”
That’s not what I take to be an elitist. And I don’t believe that’s what the majority of MUBI members who complain about elitists are complaining about. See my post on page 1.
Agreed, Yakult. It’s all about Jazz’s second definition of elitism. Nobody’s going to called elitist by championing a great work of art (at least, not here.) Elitism and open-mindedness are incompatible, which is why the more elite one behaves, the narrower their definitions get.
Elitism and open-mindedness are incompatible…
Not sure how the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.
^If there’s a wide ranging potential for membership to your “club,” the “club” can’t be all that elite.
The open-minded club is very elite, imo.
Claus Harding
Is “Paul Blart, Mall Cop” as great a cinematic achievement as “The Seven Samurai”?
If someone comes up with a well enough worded argument, I shall forevermore give up the notion that there are such things as good and bad.
I shall live a “subjective-friendly” lifestyle. To wit:
I shall partake of McDonalds’ Big Mac, a Taco Bell Supreme Something or a similar grease-and-cheese-laden delicacy and proclaim it as worthy as the finest dining in the land.
I shall cheer heartily at the conclusion of films where thrilling, well-choreographed explosions free my mind from wrestling with the terrible conflict as to who the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ are.
I shall acknowledge that my bias against “Kick-Ass” is merely a product of my own elevated sense of self, and in re-watching said epic, I shall find the finer points in Chloe Moretz’s portrayal of a murderous child in Batman/Lolita getup to finally allow me to raise her work, and the film, to the level they deserve.
I will no loger hew to the failed logic that says that because you cannot act, you cannot carry a film. I promise.
I shall seek out, learn, and finally realize what so many are advocating: that video games are nothing more than feature films in disguise.
I shall find out who, or what “X-Men” are.
I shall find out, who, or what, Kim Kardashian is. She must have done something important as they keep showing pictures of her. I don’t know if she can act, but maybe she can carry a film.
The learning curve never ends…..