it’s easy Law..it’s the only way out for people who didn’t want to agree with that particular art-house film’s theme or fluidity…
i find it easier to distract myself from a famous Hollywood film for instance like Patton because truth be told,Patton doesn’t give any food for though…whereas in Claire’s Knee (since i’ve heard many arguments over that art-house film,especially the word pretentiousness) even if it has the dullest moments a movie can have,i still take this any day for a re-watch and for the joys of YES,NOTHINGNESS over the contagious dialogues and chatty inflammations of Schaffner’s deliberate “coherence” in film-making..
no matter how decent Patton is as a film,mainstream cinema’s ability to bore me was a lot more possible than art-house’s TALENT!!!
what i also love Law is the adjectives towards specific films..for art-house it’s pretentious,for blockbusters it’s garbage and for b-movies it’s cult….seriously,this is ridiculous…a well-put thread Law and i hope that more people finally understand that whoever doesn’t get it the first time around,either watch it again or simply don’t criticize it!!!
i think that’s the main reason most people hate Ulysses other than autheors themselves,haha :P
Well put Dimitris. One thing that really annoys me is people who say they didn’t “get” a film – I mean, what is there to “get”? The events have all just played out in front of you and the ambiguities are obviously meant to be ambiguous. And an appreciation of cinema seems to be a rare thing, with audiences being too quick to condemn and label.
In answer to Law’s first question, Edward D Wood Jr’s work could be seen as faux-pretentious, particularly if you think him to be one of the worst filmmakers of all time, as many do. Tim Burton’s Ed Wood certainly upholds this stigma. Coincidentally, I find Burton’s Sweeney Todd, as a film and a concept, very pretentious, with the stylised, artsy approach feeling incredibly forced and spoiled further by too much reliance on VFX.
Also, as a side note, my personal favourite depictions of pretentiousness in cinema -
Who Is KK Downey – A Canadian production I saw a screening of at the BIFF earlier this year, a brilliant depiction of contemporary hipster pretentiousness.
Mr Bean’s Holiday – Yes! I know! A God awful film, don’t judge me for having seen it. But the scenes with Willem Defoe are an amazing example of pretension in cinema.
Spaced – Granted, it’s a tv series and not a film, but is scattered with references.
Ironically, I don’t think these first three posts are really talking about prentiousness, yet they are kind of pretentious posts. Oh, Internet!
Shotzi, care to salvage the thread and talk about pretentiousness then?
Josh (another Josh?!), Edward Wood does seem like a good example of this. But perhaps he was really trying his best to express himself and put his emotions on film, only to be weighed down by lacklustre acting and poor directorial skills.
“The adjective “pretentious” is often thrown around discussions on film,”
From what I’ve seen, it’s more frequent that the people talking about the films are called pretentious, not as much the ones who made the films… just my observation though.
If one attempts to talk about “Stalker” or “Marienbad”, to pick only two, the pretentious traps are already set. Good luck trying to avoid them.
Lona makes a great point.
I don’t think pretension is about art winning or failing or anything like that, it’s about showing off, being pompous, acting as though something is more important than it actually is. Michael Bay bragging about how important Transformers 2 is is pretentious. That dude who made Boondock Saints is pretentious as all fuck, as was his ridiculous movie. It assumed an importance that it did not deserve. Is The Seventh Seal pretentious, though? It depends on who you ask. It’s subjective, just like the quality of any movie ever has been.
There you go, Law. I tried.
i consider subjectivity to be a more hostile word than pretentiousness…subjectivity can also lead to one-dimensional thoughts more than 1 times…
if Art is subjective,i suggest we ask Dante,Homer and Chaucer then how they managed to stay on top shape all these centuries that have past…
Maybe the term “wilfully obscure” describes what many mean when they think of a film as pretentious? Last Year in Marienbad for my money may have a message, and a story to tell, but it is wilfully obscure in its telling, or maybe even pretentious. Maybe Lorna has a point and its the people talking about film who show pretentiousness (moi?). But as Shotzi says
“…it’s about showing off, being pompous, acting as though something is more important than it actually is.”
rather like Von Trier believing he is the best director in the world. But back to Laws original point, naming a film that is very obviously a deliberate and unsuccessful attempt at art? Well, Inland Empire I would suggest is definitely a deliberate attempt at Art, it’s less of a movie more of a work of art. It could be seen in a gallery rather than a theatre. And it’s successful. (and wilfully obscure!)
Criticising Godard. Well only really having seen his sixties movies, all I can say is that creating films that that offer an obscure take on the failings of capitalism and the need for a revolution of the proletariat always struck me as rather pompous and self important. But Bergman, he made beautiful movies, albeit sometimes a little wilfully obscure..
Godard is a classic example of pretentiousness. This is from my review of Le Mepris on one of my blogs:
Cinematically Joean-Luc Godard’s Le Mépris (Contempt) is beguiling: the elegant camera of Raoul Coutard; the stunning use of primary colors, reds, blues, and yellows; and the mise-en-scene in each of the major locations, a studio lot, an apartment; and the windy paths and a geometric home on the glorious isle of Capri – each partner’s isolation symbolically played out on the terrazzo roof-top… But Godard’s conceit is overblown. The husband is no Odysseus, and the loss of his Penelope, would have happened if not then later…
Fritz Lang sprouts poetry and philosophy that is profoundly irrelevant… The whole thing is drawn out too long and the use of Eisenstein-like cuts to mythic sculptures is vacuous, as is the grandiose Delerue musical motif, which waxes and wanes in a belabored attempt to add the drama that is missing on the screen. And all those cuts to Bardot naked on variously-colored flokati rugs with her pert behind on view are just too Playboyish… Though Godard does reach some clarity in the final scenes at the gas station and the brilliant cutting from Camille’s letter to Paul writ-large to the tragedy that ensues.
Personally, I think people use the word pretentious too much. Plus, in a way, if being pretentious is sort of a self-awareness of trying to create art then couldn’t you argue any director who tries to make something ‘artistic’ is pretentious? I don’t think most directors, writers, painters, whatever makes something without any thought that what they work on isn’t art.
I tried to touch on this in this failure of a thread. It was supposed to be much less about The Girlfriend Experience and more about movies attempting to be arty merely for the sake of being so. But it sort of died before it even got started.
Is that the same as being pretentious? Somewhat, I guess. I think something only is called pretentious when it claims itself to be high “art” and fails miserably. Then it becomes a copycat of everything true art is, without any of the magnificent qualities of a masterpiece. It’s a shadow of what is really art. A misunderstanding of what art really is trying to accomplish. Only then would I possibly call something pretentious.
And now I can’t think of a single film that would fall into that category.
Birdy is pretentiousness writ large (and you could probably level that accusation at any Alan Parker film).
not really,the only pretentious (and utterly boring to be honest) Parker film i’ve seen till now is Life of David Gayle…he’s actually more mainstream than pretentious and he’s probably one of the good mainstream directors working till now (i feel however his downfall has already began..)
either you like it or not,Godard will forever stay in the memories of cinematic disorder….unless we still think Richard Lester films can overcome those of Godard’s,oh please….
How do we know what is pretentious and what is not? How do we know that Life of David Gayle or Birdy are not truly faithful expressions of Parker’s thoughts and emotions?
I propose staying away from the word pretentious. If one dislikes a film a lot because it feels artificial, then it is bad to you because it appears artificial. To call a film pretentious, to me, is directly criticising a filmmaker’s character while offering little insight on the film. Feel free to violently disagree though.
haha,i like what you say that Law but honestly,i haven’t seen many criticizing mainstream films like those of Parker’s as being pretentious…it’s mostly the Art-films that suffer from those derogatory remarks,haven’t you thought about it for a bit?even Ron Howard is saved by the word of pretentiousness which arguably is a worst word than badness is but wouldn’t be interesting if the dice rolled over for the opposite side for once,the mainstream’s side?wouldn’t that side feel “lower” in its character with the adjective pretentious in its reviews?
the answer is..none would dare to actually say it because it wouldn’t have any point..
it’s easy to call an Art-film pretentious because it won’t really produce more money than the typical budget anyway (and possibly less!!!),so the target is set and ready to launch,hitting a mainstream blockbuster this way won’t do damage AT ALL because it’s a sure cash from the producers and hell,the audience believes all hypes!!!
Use of the word “pretentious” is the clearest indication going that your’a fucking moron.
Law: I agree, I haven’t thought of a film itself as pretentious ‘cause it’s only expressing the director.
What’s interesting is that I don’t think that word is used in any other artform than filmmaking, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a book, painting, or music labeled that. Why does film receive all the abuse? ;)
Josh S.,it’s mostly the art-house films that receive this label,that D’Ambra dude has fallen to the trap already,i haven’t seen any critic calling Apollo 13 or Braveheart pretentious movies…..
and if there are,they’re not as many as with the New Wave films of every single era and country…it’s as if mainstream films evade that word in a magical way..
David, I admit that the word has the whiff of philistinism about it, so how about Kale’s “forced profundity” then? Is that better, or just a synonym?
Could we not discuss the gap between intent and interpretation as the space where pretentiousness might exist? For example, I have seen Michael Snow’s “Wavelength” three times. I’m not going to explain what it is, anyone here should know that already. Each time it was a fascinating encounter. I have never seen Warhol’s “Empire” in its original form. I understand its structural intent but don’t feel the need to subject myself to it. I got that from the edited version, thank you. And I can live with that. I wouldn’t think to call it pretentious, however. But that’s me.
The word is meaningless. Nobody uses it for the same definition. They only ever use to condemn a film they don’t like without ever having to give any real criticism of it. There are “willfully obscure” films, and “arty” films, but, so what? It’s an art form, is it not? Paintings are allowed to be arty, literature is allowed to willfully obscure, but all film has to be down to earth, and obvious in it’s message? That’s absolutely ridiculous, on a level I’ve rarely ever seen.
“Wavelength” and "Empire are completelty different films. The former is under an hour, has a plot and characters, and is easily digested. It echoes “Blow-Up” in many ways. It also has tons of subtext as the man who dies isplayed by Hollis Frampton, the woman who discovers his body is Amy Taubin, and the “Richard” who she calls about the body is Richard Foreman.
“Empire” was designed as celluloid wallpaper. It’s a gallery installation more than a movie one woudl be required to sit down and watch from start to finish.
“They only ever use to condemn a film they don’t like without ever having to give any real criticism of it.”
Precisely.
pretentious: attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.
It’s because of the actual definition that I am led to think that it is the film-discussers who are pretentious (when the word is appropriate). I don’t think that any filmmakers are, to be honest (not even Bay). I think there is a very large difference between having an ego/confidence in your work and being pretentious… and I certainly don’t think it makes sense for a film in itself to be referred to as pretentious… that just doesn’t even make sense, really.
The word “pretentious”, like so many other words on this site, is easily tossed around without any real explanation as to what the writer means. But isn’t that the nature of this forum? We toss around adjectives like “great”, “awesome”, “boring”, “mind-blowing”, “stupid”, and “horrible” without really backing our claims up. Most of us aren’t professional critics or teachers, and we don’t always have time to sit down and write completely lucid arguments for any given movie. So, we use these handy terms to give other readers a general impression of our stance on those films.
Accusing a film, or a person. of pretentiousness cuts a bit deeper. It assumes that we understand the motives and intentions behind the work. We pretend that we understand where a director or writer is coming from, and then blast the film, or the person, for their supposed self-importance. I don’t think it’s totally inappropriate to call something pretentious, but I think we ought to use caution when we do so, and we should be careful to recognize the limitations of our own knowledge when it comes to the minds of others.
Watching the films of Godard, I’ve always felt that he might be a bit pretentious. That doesn’t mean that I’ve hated all of his films (though I have hated some). He’s always so intent on “subverting” common film grammar elements that it becomes gimmicky in my opinion. It’s an art that doesn’t have much to say. Everything he ever needed to say about the nature of film grammar and conventions, he said in “Band of Outsiders” and “Contempt”. After that he’s only repeating himself horribly. But there’s little doubt in my mind that Godard wants you to take him seriously as a pop artist. There’s supposed to be plenty of meaning to his films, but all I can find is empty gestures and novelty tricks. But, as I said earlier, I do like a number of his movies, and my opinion of him is drastically limited in the fact that I don’t know him personally. Nor to I really understand his intentions or motives. I do, however, perceive a number of his films as pretentious.
Pretentiousness, or any of the other terms listed above, need not be applied strictly to art films. Many of the message films of the past like, “Gentelman’s Agreement” and “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” strike me as equally pretentious. The ideals they express are high minded, but the art itself is so low. Oftentimes, by cramming the message down the viewers throat, they reduce the significance of whatever moral message they may have had. But again, it’s not easy to judge where any of these filmmakers are coming from, and so on a critical level (say, if I were writing something like a review of any of these films), I would never put the word “pretentious” into the mix. It’s too hard to defend and define, even if it’s what you really believe.
I agree. It’s a reach-for word which allows one to shut down further discussion. It also, in a curious way, allows the person using it to appear superior to the thing itself. Which is…wait for it…pretentious.
Dimitris: I know, it’s as if mainstream cinema often falls below the radar of criticism either ‘cause most people don’t care if it’s well-made or critics dismiss them outright. I guess this is what film criticism comes down to: art = pretentious/overrated, mainstream = $/mindless entertainment
I think Abel hit the nail right on the head there. A clear definition might also help here:
[From Wiktionary]
1. Marked by an unwarranted claim to importance or distinction
Von Trier is certainly covered by this. And, dare I say it, even QT.
I think a better word for most discussions would be ‘shallow.’ If we agree that all great filmmakers are trying to create great art with great ideas then we can probably agree that all film of worth have pretensions, some filmmaker’s ideas are more shallow than others.
@Tony
I could find 5000 essays that list the same scenes you describe in Le Mepris and find them wholly convincing. I think you’re barking up the wrong tree from the start if you think the characters are all about a 1 to 1 comparison with the Odyssey.
Be careful there, Bower, you could open a door. Why not Kubrick, then? Or Greenaway? Why would they get a pass and not QT and Von Trier? Just sayin’…
Law
The adjective “pretentious” is often thrown around discussions on film, with many renowned “art films” often denounced as deliberate attempts to be arty. Personally, I find this very grating. I believe that no established filmmaker ever deliberately attempts to make their film as purportedly “artistic” through artificially conjured devices. Thus I try to never use the word in describing a film. Of course, this is the opinion of one uneducated and relatively new film fanatic. I would like to know what others view of pretentiousness.
But that aside, my key motivations revolve around two questions:
1) Can you name a film that is very obviously a deliberate and unsuccessful attempt at art?
2) Can those who criticise the likes of Godard, Bergman and other well-known filmmakers as pretentious defend their stance and offer explanations?
Where do you lie on the spectrum of opinion on pretentiousness? I am stuck on one extreme end and would very much like some perspectives.