Mickey One.
Joel and Ethan Coen
David Lynch
Olivier Assayas, but then I’m disagreeing with most eveyrone else’s examples.
Guys, can you elaborate a little please! jajaja
c’mon, posting the names is just as bad as lists. tell us why!
well if you’re looking for ‘PRETENTIOUS’ films or filmmakers which you stated in your thread heading and not people who ’PRETEND to be something else then I would include:
Ingmar Bergman
Quentin Tarantino
Wes Anderson
But by filmmakers being pretentious does not necessairlly mean anything. They just regard themselves higher than others and this characteristic is easil viewed within their films but does not make their films bad. I personally love the filmmakers that I’ve mentioned with the exception of Quetin Tarantino (I like him but I don’t love him). But I think being a pretentious filmmaker allows room to make films that are actually good because of they are arrogant and they see that they can make better films than others
Who is Charlie Kauffman pretending to be?
Todd Solondz
And since some folks asked for reasons, I’m going long on this one. Real long.
I attended a screening of PALINDROMES, after which there was a Q and A with the director.
His films reveal in stark, unpleasant terms Solondz’ deep and abiding contempt for the American white middle class and its associated institutions, by which he was apparently traumatized while growing up in the suburbs of New Jersey. It’s difficult to say whether he is whining or raging about all of that in Palindromes, but Solondz at least suggests that he has a measureless capacity for loathing. This director is known for crafting some of the more appalling, squirm-inducing moments in cinema, and considering that Palindromes deals with the extremes of the abortion issue, one is tempted to paraphrase Jean Cocteau by saying that Solondz “knows how far to go too far.” But those of us who suspect that such cinematic acts of emotional terrorism are rooted in self-absorption can paraphrase the Sex Pistols: it’s not a movie; it’s an abortion.
But call him on this “cinema of loathing,” and Solondz takes a “who, me?” attitude and rambles on about exploring issues and examining the things that society neglects. No hate, just detached study, he says. Even after hearing Solondz’s erudite, plausible responses to questions after the screening, the impulse remains to wonder if the production of this film was not a wildly irresponsible act. It’s one thing to consistently toss pies in the face of speakers at Trenton Chamber of Commerce brunches, or to roll the yards and egg the cars of every white suburbanite in New Jersey. Symbolically, Solondz does that with each of his films.
Exploiting handicapped children and violating the innocence of child actors is not petty misanthropy, however. It hints at a deranged detachment on the part of the director. (Solondz used the phrase “critical detachment” three times during the Q&A.)
Specifically, one wonders how some of the mentally handicapped actors portraying the Sunshine kids can grasp that their musical routines are cruel parodies, assuming they were informed at all. That’s a minor concern (no pun intended) compared with the motel room anal sex scenes. There are a lot of adults in prison now for downloading images of children having anal sex. Yet by having identical action take place under the sheets, Solondz provides us with an image that we can legally download. The distinction isn’t all that comforting, really.
Granted, we are supposed to be uncomfortable when we view what Solondz is fond of calling “delicate material,” but it seems that responsible adults could find a means of confronting those most troubling realms of the human experience without hiring a 13-year-old girl to assist them in the study. One is tempted also to wager that we could learn all there is to know about date rape without having a single six-year-old child address the matter—even in a work of fiction. But hold on; it’s funny when kids say the darndest things, and a filmmaker hates to lose that.
When asked how he went about auditioning actors for the unpalatable scenes in his films, Solondz said the actors and their parents understood that the film’s “contents must be handled delicately,” while the kids should feel the inherent dignity of the characters they are playing. Cooperation isn’t the same thing as justification.
Indeed, one obvious point—probably THE point—of Palindromes is that adults can make very, very bad decisions about how to interact with children; adults often use children as a means to an end. Put another way, our society does not recognize consensual sex between a child and an adult as anything other than the basest exploitation. Less egregious consensual acts can’t be excused with special agreements, explanations, or arrangements.
On the same matter, Solondz revealed another aspect of his world view. He said that if he had children of his own, he would prefer that they act in his films as opposed to “appearing in advertisements for the Gap or other spots for consumer goods that rob children of their dignity.” The audience chuckled in approval of this facile lefty sentiment. It’s an article of faith among the left (and among hipster film circles in stylistic sympathy with the left) that Americans, in consumption mode, have no dignity, and consequently “products” are regarded as inherently undignified. It’s surprising that Solondz would tip his hand, having declared, “I don’t want to tell the audience my political stance because this lets them off the hook. . . I don’t like making things so easy. It’s easy enough to say you’re liberal —or conservative—but it’s another thing to examine the ramifications and consequences, the full moral dimension of what it means to make such statements.”
The moral dimension here is on full display because Solondz contrives an outrageous equation for that dimension: Using children to mock Christian fundamentalists or portray appalling sexual abuse preserves dignity. Encouraging consumers to drive to the mall eradicates it. Juxtaposed with this view of humanity, Solondz’s opinion on the abortion issue hardly matters. His latest film is about two extremes: pro-choice liberals who offer their child no choice and pro-life Christian conservatives for whom God has already determined everything. It’s a wonderful opportunity for Solondz to display his contempt for everyone at the mall, irrespective of their stand on abortion.
Solondz offered numerous astute observations after the screening. Coming across as a blend of Andy Warhol, Tiny Tim, and an absent-minded professor, he demonstrated a formidable intellect and an alert, engaging sense of humor. He’s not the kind of guy you might want to tangle with in a debate, partly because Solondz, even if he lost, seems like the type who would cheerfully embrace defeat as a learning experience.
He’s also heard every ugly comment imaginable about his work. Rather than say something unkind about him, it’s more constructive to ask a question. In the film, when Aviva tells Mark Weiner that “pedophiles love children,” is she making a semantic point? In other words, is she making the clever point that “pedophile,” being the term for the sexual abuse of children, is a literal misnomer? Because if she is, then we can conclude that Todd Solondz is not a pedophile. Anyone who loves children wouldn’t exploit them.
Another thread to avoid! Yay!
Text Wall, lol.
Doctor Lemonglow…so what exactly is your stance on the matter, i found PALINDROMES
to carry no pretense and to be an intellectual and emotionally evocative film,all actors are compensated accordingly.The film material features a taboo subject in our society deemed illicit that needs to be addressed.One must consider that moral stances are subjective and fluid,holdouts form outdated ideologies as societal boundaries progress and regress.
“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.”- Benjamin Franklin
Why should we avoid this thread? People use the word pretentious incorrectly, and for films more than for anything else I’ve ever heard. It’s the word that describes the films that come from FOREIGN COUNTRIES, and that play at ART HOUSE THEATERS. They’re pretentious because they’re…slow, have little to no music, and focus on what doesn’t seem like a plot.
I’m glad someone posted the meaning of the word, and for that term I’d say any director whoever made a film that they thought was saying something relevant for them, and to others.
Pretending, however, look at Bela Tarr (however it’s spelled). Seriously, why hasn’t anyone pointed at the first frame of Satantango and asked if Tarkovsky directed the scene? Why does he get away with it?
To pretend is not to carry pretense, to pay homage is not to be pretentious.Illiterate uncouth individuals.
well, here’s the sort of definition i’m familiar with:
1. Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified.
2. Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious.
i guess basically trying to attract attention as more important or better than you really are
There are a lot of current film-makers following on from great distinctive masters who are scrabbling round for their own auteurist niche. It’s a shallow “look at me” culture. I like Bela Tarr’s Werckmeister Harmonies and Satantango but there is still an element of mannerism. Unfortunately the scope for innovation has been reduced, the big moves have been made by predecessors, so many directors’ attempts at uniqueness now have a sense of imitation and of ever decreasing circles. What will be the next seismic advance?
Greats like Renoir, Satyajit Ray and even Mizoguchi tended to a less demonstrative mastery- this makes them less fashionable perhaps than they deserve with today’s auteurist obsessions, but is admirable i think.
Now i’ll risk putting my head on the block here, ready for the collective guillotine to descend, and say i have misgivings about Robert Bresson. He’s extremely influential and admired at present and there’s a lot to admire, but i detect an arrogance in his humble style, his erasing of impurities detected in the works of others (eg The Passion of Joan of Arc). And did he really believe in the Jansenist nonsense? I don’t mean predestination alone- free will is surely a myth- but the idea of predestined salvation, and with it exclusivity (not “grace” for all?). I find his style mannered, it appears self-effacing but it draws attention to itself while claiming a moral and stylistic purity. It works superbly in A Man Escaped, the concentration on small sounds and details is ideal for that situation, Mouchette is another i like very much (and a beneficial influence on the excellent Rosetta), he followed his own path in sincerity no doubt, i understand the urge of paring down to essentials, but at times i find him cold and if not pretentious then with all his fastidious cleaning up and fault-finding, his use of “models”, aiming for a distinctive superiority. But i live in hope of the scales falling from my foolish eyes and the true light that is Robert Bresson being revealed to me in all its glory. So many cinephiles whose taste and opinions i respect think so highly of him, the fault must be in me.
Michael Bay/ He Called himself an artist. Do I need to elaborate further?
Yves Zimmerman
Yes..Yes you do need to go further, he might be egotistical,but nore more than a painter/photographer/writer/whateverthefuckyoudowithaliberartsdegree. I abhor Michael Bay but you are wrong.
I think Kenji nails the correct definition:
“i guess basically trying to attract attention as more important or better than you really are”
And why avoid a thread like this? Is an open discussion…
Oh, and Charlie Kauffman is pretending to be more intelligent than he is.
I think most good artists need to be PRETENTIOUS. That is not to say all are. Look at Andy Warhol. the Queen of Pretentious personified. Not to mention a few people here seem to like to post to prove how intelligent they are. But it is that which make them interesting and fun to like or dislike.
“i guess basically trying to attract attention as more important or better than you really are”—“better” is hard to nail down; I might make it more specifically that the word conveys one is trying to make consciously “important” work—to be willfully profound or poignant or self-consciously artistic. Also, isn’t part of being pretentious a sense that the person is self-satisfied?
So, I find all of these characteristics at play in Assayas’s films—along with an ongoing critique of bourgeois sexuality and its represessiveness, which isn’t wrong but smug.
Yes, i think profound and self-consciously artistic is better than “better”. And there’s the need to be admired for intellect. Haneke, Sokurov, Godard, even Bergman and many of the American avant-garde experimental underground aren’t above this. Warhol, well for him i guess it was a bit of a game with fool pompous pretentious critics too. The BBC’s Newsnight programme has its share of critics, reviewers and presenters who are pretentious, who’ll use the word coruscating obviously not knowing its meaning. The look at me aren’t i clever club
Wes Anderson. Hey Wes, a lot of us are familiar with J. D. Salinger … you’re no Salinger.
Okay, you have Daddy issues, got it. Move on.
According to wordnet.princeton.edu, “pretentious” means:
>>making claim to or creating an appearance of (often undeserved) importance or distinction<<
>>pretentiousness – ostentation: lack of elegance as a consequence of being pompous and puffed up with vanity<<
I think ingerent in this is not that certain directors (in this instance) are PRETENDING to be more than they are, but that they actually believe their work is more significant than it is. As such I would include Michael Bay. I’d also include Tarantino, but not Wes Anderson or the Coen’s whose work is too humorously tinged to be pretentious. Nor would I include Ingmar Bergman or the Charlie Kaufman of SYNEDOCHE, NY, because their work are genuinely deeply thought out and profound.
And Zack Snyder defines pretentious.
I’ll say the movie Irreversible. It’s an overtly faux-artsy (really? a wobbly camera swooshing in and out? really?) and unintelligent piece of violence-porn pretending to be a movie.
And please elaborate on how the Coen Brothers are pretentious, because I’m totally confused by that statement.
They think they are funny. And their fans Who may think so pretend to think so seem to feel if you don’t like them your a fool.
The Cohen brothers think they are funny?… well, I remember laughing out loud when I saw “O brother where art thou”. Does that makes me a bad person?
Using some of the defintions of pretentious above, and not wanting to appear too pretentious myself (ahem), I will just add my pick: Jodorowsky. Having just managed to work my way through (and it was work, believe me) El Topo and Holy Mountain, I think the man defines ‘pretentiousness’. If by that term we mean overtly showing and pretending to be ‘profound’, when it is really all an elaborate hoax, then he qualifies. The films boggle the imagination: they are filled with excess, empty symbolism, shock for shock value, cruelty, plotlessness, arcane references – in short, as much bullshit (not to minch words here) as I have ever seen put into any film. Although I would not put Pasolini’s film career down as pretentious, I must say that Salo also qualifies as a pretentious film, in the current context. Again, we have excess, shock for shock value, degradation, torture, humiliation, and the literal consumption of shit all meant to make a ‘statement’ about life under Fascism, but used as a perverted exercize in the director’s own obsessions. Now everyone can pillory me for not acknowleging these fine works of art, but you now have my take on the subject – pretentious fool that I am.
Re the Coen brothers: In spite of the odd mistep – they are prolific, after all – I get far too much enjoyment out of their many fine films to ever put them in this pretentious camp. They are very aware of what they are doing, familiar with the film medium, and too self-ironical and referential to really qualify as pretentious. On Irreversible: Though I personally have a strong dislike for the excessive violence and the whole tone of the film, with the rape scene, for example, going on for far too long – I can see from the remarks of others, why this film is recognized as a work trying to make a statement – brutal as it is – and push the collective envelope, so I won’t put it personally into this camp.
Re Bresson: he is too authentic and honest a filmmaker to belong here, even though I also have issues with his films, like Kenji. My problem with him is how he always bends everything to his aesthetic, which sometimes seems to falsify his conclusions, as he just seems to be tugging at emotions, like a Hollywood type of melodrama. Also, his use of non-professional actors does not always make his movies seem more authentic, but sometimes more contrived. Yet, he was working from an honest vision, so I think we can rule him out of the circle of ‘pretentious’ filmmakers, Kenji. At least, this topic gets us into interesting areas.
I think this topic is becoming too pretentious lol.
Jose Sarmiento Hinojosa
Ok, this may be a controversial post, but I want to read your thoughts on this. For me, filmmakers like Carlos Reygadas fall in this category. They PRETEND to be something they’re not. In this case, i think Reygadas PRETENDS to be Tarkovski, Dreyer, Bresson… especially in Luz Silenciosa, but, he’s not, so his movies comes as a big filmic bluff. Late Nuri Bilge Ceylan (especially Three Monkeys), Michel Gondry and Charlie Kauffman also fall in this category.
This of course, is a very very personal opinion. Any thoughts?.