I may be wrong, but I just don’t think comedy can be pretentious, unless it’s striving overly hard to be intellectual. It may not strike you as funny (I love what Coen films I’ve seen) … but that’s a different can of worms.
Jodorowsky … oh my gawd, yes!
Jodorowsky… he’s just over the top really… but I love some of his films.
i have a problem with the whole “pretentious” thing. first of all, i dont think any film can be pretentious. a person can be, but a film, no.
as far as labeling filmmakers pretentious, it would have to reside on the level of personal interaction, for the claim to make sense. if its on the level of their films, i dont think the label holds. a filmmaker can be pretentious when talking about his films, or himself, or any subject in general. but a piece of art is what it is. its not pretentious, and a person can’t inject pretentiousness into a work of art.
i have a problem with the whole “pretentious” thing. first of all, i dont think any film can be pretentious. a person can be, but a film, no.
as far as labeling filmmakers pretentious, it would have to reside on the level of personal interaction, for the claim to make sense. if its on the level of their films, i dont think the label holds. a filmmaker can be pretentious when talking about his films, or himself, or any subject in general. but a piece of art is what it is. its not pretentious, and a person can’t inject pretentiousness into a work of art.
I expect tomatoes, incoming!
According to Michael Bay, he makes the kind of films that he himself likes to see. His vision is the cinema of violence and mayhem, and he’s happy with it. Michael Bay ain’t no less of an artist next to Fellini, Warhol, Peckinpah, Ice Cube or Oshima.
I expect tomatoes, incoming!
According to Michael Bay, he makes the kind of films that he himself likes to see. His vision is the cinema of violence and mayhem, and he’s happy with it. Michael Bay ain’t no less of an artist next to Fellini, Warhol, Peckinpah, Ice Cube or Oshima.
I expect tomatoes, incoming!
According to Michael Bay, he makes the kind of films that he himself likes to see. His vision is the cinema of violence and mayhem, and he’s happy with it. Michael Bay ain’t no less of an artist next to Fellini, Warhol, Peckinpah, Ice Cube or Oshima.
Pretentiousness is in the eye of the beholder — or whatever sense organ we use to detect pretention. Or is it pretense? I think Kenji’s right, it tends to be more associated with putting on airs, but to one degree or another that’s what art is, and if art is life, then life is pretentious too. Oscar Wilde probably would have thought so. If you believe that there’s some natural, earthy, instinctual realm where we should all live and create exclusively, then art that’s more stylized and intellectual is going to seem to subvert that for you.
i agree. if pretentiousness can even be used to qualify art, i’d say that the two terms are almost synonymous.
A few people mentioned the Coen brothers earlier and I think they should listen to these guys speak. I just heard Ethan Coen (I think) on NPR yesterday talking about his poetry. I think that was the first time I’ve ever heard him speak. He is anything but pretentious. He was too embarrassed to read his own poetry on air, so NPR got William Macey to come in and do it. It was hilarious. The other drivers around me must have thought I was insane. I strongly disagree that ANY of their movies are pretentious either.
Alan “Painting By Numbers” Parker. BIRDY is pretentious shit. Parker is a mediocre talent who thinks he’s better than he is (at least, I get that impression from watching his juvenile efforts).
I heartily second Irreversible. Became sickeningly tired of hearing the praise for a film that delivered little more than shock value. Puh-leeze. Can’t speak for Noe’s other work.
Solondz is the bitch prince of hack city, but I honestly can’t entirely go with it because I think he DOES try to have fun with his work… and I think that’s terrifically important… doesn’t mean I’ll watch him, though.
OK, here we go. I’ve got it. The King of Pretension: Paul Haggis. God, I hate that man. It’s Paul Haggis, ladies and germs. Top that.
Nobody has mentioned Jean-Luc Godard?
Charles Kaufman and that Grondy guy (Be kind Rewind). They’re both just too artsy-fartsy for my taste.
I love Godard and Jodorowsky.
Why Charlie Kaufman has come up so repeatedly in this forum is a disgraced. The man is one of the most creative screen writers working in film today.Adaptation, Being John Malkovich, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind were all great films. Kaufman’s use of Vonnegut-esque humor and beautifully crafted story lines and well developed characters has helped establish him as a true original. I’ve also seen his interviews on Charlie Rose and read a transcript for one on Rotten Tomatoes, and never once was did I ever pick up a hint of pretentious or him being artsy. He always comes off as a down to earth guy and all the films I’ve seen of his were great. I can’t understand how someone can call him or the Coen Brothers or Jodorowsky pretentious but say Jean-Luc Godard, Robert Bresson, or Ingmar Bergman are all artists (all of whom i think are great filmmakers). I have enjoyed films from all of them and each have their own audience.
One could argue it’s pretentious to accuse artists of pretentiousness.
I would define pretentiousness as unfounded delusions of grandeur. For example, if I were to write and shoot my life story blatantly in the style of Fellini, this would be explicitly pretentious. Alas, pretentiousness, arrogance and self-indulgence share similarities though they are fundamentally different. If something can be achieved to a high degree, can it still be called pretentious? Absolutely, as opinions of art are subjective. Regarding the films and filmmakers brought up in this thread, I would consider some of them arrogant (Michael Bay) and self-indulgent (Wes Anderson) — but they’re far from pretentious.
To me, an example of a recently pretentious film is “The Hottest State” which was written and directed by Ethan Hawke. The entire semi-autobiographical love poem to himself is just sickening. Truly pretentious.
Apparently using the word pretentious is pretentious, but i think the guy who invented the word is called Mathew Barney.
Hmmmm…
A few thoughts…
For one, I use the word “pretentious” a lot, but mostly tongue-in-cheek and on myself. “I rather liked that movie… reason reason example reason example… but of course also because I’m pretentious, haha!” I do this mostly because I want people to take that word less seriously, but also because I’m very fucking pretentious.
On the other hand, I do find it refreshing when the word “pretentious” is defined or redefined with a context other than “He did something that was supposed to be intelligent and I didn’t find it intelligent, ergo he, or his film, is pretentious.” YEAH, I really don’t like that assertion. “Pretentious” should be one of those critical no-no words like “boring” and “interesting”, used only with an apology for its use by the author. Then again, to put this on me, I unjustifiably use the word “interesting” in my criticisms, reviews, and summaries myself, knowing full well that I should find a different way of expressing myself. Obviously then my standards on criticism are arbitrary, and anyone else can say pretentious in every sentence of a review and it does no disagreement with me. But then again, I’m really pretentious.
Thirdly, I do like the definition put in hand here, i.e., “1. Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified.” Thanks, Kenji! In that case, there is such thing as a pretentious filmmaker, and his name is Uwe Boll. If you’ve ever heard him speak, either in an interview, or a commentary, or whatever, everything he says is always about how people don’t understand him and he’s underappreciated for the art he brings, and that it’s because people are too stupid to understand him, not because the man can’t even block a simple set-up to save his life, much less direct an entire feature length film with anything nearing the definition “logic”. Of course, me saying that is kind of pretentious, especially since I specifically watch his films so that I can enjoy hating him.
I also agree with some of the statements on certain filmmakers put on this thread, but don’t agree that they’re pretentious. For instance, thank you very much Bob Stutsman for such a succinct and pointed assessment of Jodorowsky. There’s a lot of love for Jodorowsky on this board, but I never really have anything to say in response to it because sitting through El Topo and Holy Mountain was an exercise in wondering when it would end—literally! By which I mean, the movies are perfectly good for maybe the first hour and a half, empty symbolism and drugged out New Age mentality aside, but then the story gets to the place where it should end, and Jodorowsky decides to keep the film rolling for, oh, another hour or thereabouts. Not cool. The man needed to learn how to end a movie, however I’ve never seen his shorter films so I’m not sure how those turn out. I’ve also seen Santa Sangre, and whereas I feel Jodorowsky is much better positioned to create a horror film, still in places it was bombastic and random—
—but Jodorowsky is not pretentious. Again, confused, I decided to listen to what he has to say, and it essentially boiled down to, “Haha, I directed a movie and it was a wonderful experience, and now girls like me!” Fair enough. FAIR ENOUGH. But then again, there might still be something more to it, I could just be really bloody pretentious.
And in reference to Matt Parks’ “One could argue it’s pretentious to accuse artists of pretentiousness”, YES. I fully agree. I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who uses the word pretentious seriously who wasn’t him or herself incredibly pretentious. But then again, that’s because I’m a judgmental person, and pretentious to boot.
—PretentiousDiB
I saw an interview with Julian Schnabel and he was a huge asshole
Schnabel has earned the right to be “pretentious” if anyone has. You can’t put a N.Y. downtown artist (or just a N.Y. downtowner for that matter) on television and expect him or her to blend in with the cartoons and the commercials. Sometimes pretension is actually just a different range of experience, or a greater comfort with difficult, “big” ideas. But I think the whole word is a bad starting off point for any discussion, because it’s like saying you hate the look of someone’s beard. It’s sort of like, “Yeah, so what? What’s good or bad about the art?”
pah. pretentious. I have to agree with Bobby Wise
“as far as labeling filmmakers pretentious, it would have to reside on the level of personal interaction, for the claim to make sense. if its on the level of their films, i don’t think the label holds. a filmmaker can be pretentious when talking about his films, or himself, or any subject in general. but a piece of art is what it is. its not pretentious, and a person can’t inject pretentiousness into a work of art.”
BUT earlier on this thread…
yikes! @JAKE “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.”
@MIASMA “I heartily second Irreversible. Became sickeningly tired of hearing the praise for a film that delivered little more than shock value. Puh-leeze. Can’t speak for Noe’s other work.”
Irréversible? What’s pretentious about that film? Because it’s told in reverse? Because it’s depiction of sexual violence is a relentless and harrowing juxtaposition with the incredible scenes of love at the end? Because it’s 16mm widescreen with an infrasonic soundtrack ? (I think its circa 17khz)… because it’s edited into one continuous shot?
> there’s no forced dialogue (it’s all improvised), there’s no forced physical performances (they are all improvised), and there’s no forced shots (the whole damn thing is very fluid). And yeah, I’d check out Noe’s other work before condemning that one piece. In a way, it’s very tame compared to some of his other thematic material (abattoirs, incest, etc).
I love Noe. And I love Bruno Dumont. These directors are not pretentious. They actually speak to me of a world I know. I guess that’s always been my suspicion when I hear a decrying of Irréversible— that the people it offends simply have no psychic use for a film about extremes of love and violence, I guess bec. they don’t live that kind of life, or encounter those kind of events. To me it’s a realistic portrait of Paris. I lived there, this shit happens. Real people living in Paris aren’t living Cléo from 5 to 7 or Masculin Feminin, or worse still Amelie. It’s a big assed dirty 21st century city.
I just read Dr. Lemonglow’s review of PALINDROMES (previous page). Well worth reading. Some excellent points there.
Noah Baumbach. I found The Squid and the Whale and Kicking and Screaming both overly choreographed and superficial pieces of work.
T., you know the world of Irreversible? You’ve seen someone bludgeoned to death with a fire hydrant? You’ve sat around grimy little rooms with dirty old men talking about how people are shit? It’s just too much, it’s undigested negativity without being attached to a social context. You think it’s honest, I think it’s dishonest for that reason. Buckets of blood do not equal a compelling vision of the world. La Haine is probablu a better French film. And Masculin Feminin does have some random violence in it, so it really isn’t sugar coated. But the thing is, even if it were like Jacques Demy’s Lola or Irma La Douce, there’s a certain bravery and beauty in building a vision of the world that’s tender and beautiful — that’s just as valid and realistic as something that says we’re all depraved killers and victims waiting to get our brains bashed out. It’s too easy.
And David, The Squid and the Whale is such a human and gut-churning piece of work, it depicts the everyday brutality and madness of family life better than any other film I can think of. I don’t understand why people dislike it. One of the most profound and honest movies I’ve seen.
@Justin
“you know the world of Irreversible? You’ve seen someone bludgeoned to death with a fire hydrant? You’ve sat around grimy little rooms with dirty old men talking about how people are shit?”
YES. It wasn’t a fire hydrant, it was a piece of iron fencing. And it was in London, just outside a pub in Kings Cross. I was 17 years old. The victim was an Asian girl, her attacker was a man the size of brick shit house. I remember being paralyzed with fear, unable to move. I was also half a block away from the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho in 1999 and saw the nail bombing victims eyewitness. I have seen riots in Paris and London. Nothing quite like a truncheon to cave someone’s skull in. I also lived and worked in Moss Side, Manchester for some time in the late 90s (enough said). And I box, so I’ve spent time in the company of violence, and I know and understand the psychology.
And as far as grimy old men go, take a walk to your local alcoholic beverage establishment. Start a conversation.
But this is my point: everyone focuses on the early scenes of violence, and never on the end pieces, which are just beautifully shot and acted, and filled with enormous love for humanity. I’ve also lounged about with my wife in a state of perfect post-coital bliss. Disputing that reality, too? It’s a film of extremes, but it’s a film of perfect equilibrium, also.
Okay, I know London is a very violent, high crimes place. But why does Irreversible have to be told in reverse? Usually you are made to sympathize with characters (through their happiness) before seeing them torn apart and it makes it more involving. I just question how you never exactly get inside the characters, not even through small gestures that distinguish them. It’s a bit like watching rats in a cage — now the rats are fighting over a scrap of food, now they’re fucking. I just saw it as clinical.
Roger Ebert argued that the film’s structure makes it inherently moral; that by presenting vengeance before the acts that inspire it, we are forced to process the vengeance first, and therefore think more deeply about its implications. For once, I agree with the man.
That’s interesting.
I think so too. That’s one of the reasons I really love the film. I think the whole reverse “gimmick” as it often known is not a device, but an actual narrative structure (an inverted classical linear structure no less)… it’s not a device because it’s in the hands of someone who’s using it for a purpose: and its the combination of elements that make it fascinating for me > a purely improvised film? are you kidding me? it stuns me when I think of how difficult that is to do effectively > and with this subject matter? as a director, he’s a master at working with his actors: getting them to embody roles built almost entirely out of trauma > and what we have at the end: just intense beyond measure.
No one ever complains about the acting. Just the rape, the device, the camerawork. Even though it’s widely known that he used (I think it was 17khz but it might have been 28khz, I’ll need to check)… even though he used infrasonics, the known effect of which is to disturb and frighten the human being, many many people still talk about their feeling of revulsion without acknowledging the fact that Noe went so far as to ensure no one will ever ‘get off’ on the film by making it fundamentally sonically disturbing to the human vibrational shell… a kind of back up plan on the terror front. think about other films with rape scenes, or films where a woman is victimized. are there any so horrific, that deglorify any last shred of sexuality in the act, sealing it into vacuum pack where no morality / religion / society can say it is justified on any level? … he makes the act explicit to show that there is no sexuality in it. it’s about power and violence. and he won’t let you go until you have faced that. which is perhaps arrogant of him. but he also knows that all humanity is a dirty voyeur, detached from reality. we walk out of his film because we are not entertained. we allow ourselves daily to be subjected to a mass of invasive and utterly manipulative media > advertizing and misrepresentations of reality > and we don’t ‘walk out’.
Irreversible (the film in and of itself) makes this fact explicit.
the guy’s my bloody hero.
anyway,
So I’m talking to the legendary Biberkopf am I? You are a sneaky bastard. But I’m glad you didn’t vanish.
Kenji
Bob, i agree the non-professional actors as Bresson’s models like some blank canvas does seem quite contrived to me too, though sometimes it does work well, and allows for concentration on other details.