Because he/she might like it? Sometimes it’s not a bad idea to work some different muscle groups.
They might like something that they’re not used to liking, or that they didn’t know they could like. Yeah, I think those are good reasons.
I guess, if I decided to recommend films that they normally wouldn’t enjoy, I’d have to think of transitional films—i.e., films with enough appealing qualities.
Could we say, generally speaking, that a good film should appeal to people, at least to some degree? (I think this would require a degree of open-mindedness and interest in exploring films a little outside of their preferences, though.)
once they get the hang of it, always always, look beyond obvious taste and push the boundaries, it worked with my friends!
Yes. Because contrary to popular opinion, one can teach an old dog new tricks (i.e. “old dog” meaning people who are no longer in school and are not exposed to new things in the arts as a matter of course).
I watch lots of films I should not like because I take my kids to them. So I see lots of films that I should not and do not like. But Paul Blart, Mall Cop was the best Hollywood comedy I saw in whatever year it came out. A very good movie.
I think there are ways to push boundaries without recommending something you know for a fact they won’t like. There are ‘Bridge’ movies.
If somebody mostly watches mainstream movies, they probably won’t like Rules of the Game and Breathless. But, they could very well like Vertigo, Children of Men, Pan’s Labyrinth, Seven Samurai, etc. Show them those sorts of movies to get them interested in expanding their horizons, and then later they might appreciate Rules Of The Game.
But you guys are dodging the main question: why should they see something they normally wouldn’t like? (And, if you’re going to whimp out and take Matt’s answer, how about expanding on it? ;)
I do Iike the idea of using “transitional” films to ease someone into something they haven’t experienced. It may just be that they end up liking it but didn’t know a particular kind of film existed just because they havn’t been exposed to it. I’ve had that experience in other areas where someone I know has so much enhusiasm for something that I’ve tried something I would never have tried otherwise – and ended up liking it and being grateful to that person for opening a new horizon for me.
F.U.D. seems to work here.
How would you know if you don’t like a movie if you don’t watch it first?
@Lester
Technically, you don’t know, and when you recommend a film to someone else, you don’t know for sure whether that person will like it or not—but you can have a pretty good idea. For example, does not like unhappy endings, especially in a romance. So, if I recommend a romance with an unhappy ending, chances are, she won’t like the film. (There have been some exceptions, though, but hopefully you get my point.)
If one likes a director or actor, they should make every effort to be completists
No. I have a deep-seated antipathy to proslytizers; the last thing. I want to do is inflict me cionematic aesthetic on chums whose idea of theatrical contentment is the latest Hugh Grant rom-com.
I often watch movies that I’ve never even heard of just to make my husband happy. Once he made me watch a movie about a girl and her donkey. Sometimes I like these movies.
If people only watched films they thought they will like they would not watch too many films. There will not be any film culture if people did not risk watching films out of the ordinary.
I think there are MUST WATCH films which are not very known by the “mass” and if they give them a chance they would love them.
Is There a Reason People Should Watch a Film They Might Not Like?
yes, tapping into the shimmering reservoir of life and sucking out all the marrow by expanding exposure
to art beyond the comfort zone. this applies to books, painting, people, food, travel etc etc. it is sometimes easier said than done
@Z
No. I have a deep-seated antipathy to proslytizers; the last thing. I want to do is inflict me cionematic aesthetic on chums whose idea of theatrical contentment is the latest Hugh Grant rom-com.
I hear you. But suppose someone asked you for reasons someone should seeing a film that he/she might not in enjoy. Would you have any response, or do you believe no compelling reasons exist—people should just see what they enjoy, period?
@Francisco
If people only watched films they thought they will like they would not watch too many films. There will not be any film culture if people did not risk watching films out of the ordinary.
Well, there would be—and is—a film culture. In an America, Hollywood produces most of these films. Of course, that’s not satisfying to many of us.
@Alex
I think there are MUST WATCH films which are not very known by the “mass” and if they give them a chance they would love them.
Right. (I’m curious to hear some of your picks.) But are there films that they might not necessarily enjoy, but you think watching them might still be worth it or valuable?
@Brian
yes, tapping into the shimmering reservoir of life and sucking out all the marrow by expanding exposure
to art beyond the comfort zone
I sort of know what you mean, but can you be a little more concrete here?
You might not like any movie…..
The rock is going to roll back down to the bottom of the hill before you get all the way to the top anyway, Lucas.
Fuck rocks…
That would be painful. ^^
Jazzaloha
I occassionally write movie reviews of films for friends and family. When I do this, I base my recommendations solely on whether I think they will like the film or not. But I’m now considering recommending films that are really good, but that they might not necessarily enjoy. Now, I should say that I’m thinking specifically of friends that stricly like mainstream films—they’re basically interested in seeing an entertaining movie. That’s it.
And yet a part of me wonders if I could think of films that are so good artistically, that I could make a case for seeing these films, even if the films don’t entertain them—at least not in the ways they’re used to. What do people think about this approach? If people only want mainstream entertainment, should critics and cinephiles leave them undisturbed, or are there valid reasons for steering them to good films that might not be so entertaining?