“But this still leaves the question of why you don’t want to talk about some films you love unanswered (not that you have to tell me, but I’m just wondering)”
As I said, it’s a personal relationship that I have towards the film. It’s not that I don’t want to talk about the film – I’m quite happy to discuss almost any film – but rather I’m not that interested in arguing or debating the merits of certain films (or even contemplating that said film could be terrible). For example, people can dump on Where the Wild Things Are all they want. It’s not going to sway me and actually, I’m not that interested to know why they hate it. I know why they hate it. And their reasons don’t interest me. This may sound completely arrogant and elitist but the way that this movie made me feel, the emotions that it erupted in me, is something no one can take away from me. Now of course if I have additional intellectual arguments that I could make about a certain film, fine. But for some films, the emotional reaction is so large that it trumps any analytical evaluation that I might be able to provide.
I know this sounds super over-dramatic but there you go.
“the two aren’t mutually exclusive, though, right?”
Depends on who you ask.
@Santino
It’s not that I don’t want to talk about the film – I’m quite happy to discuss almost any film – but rather I’m not that interested in arguing or debating the merits of certain films (or even contemplating that said film could be terrible).
Oh OK, I _think_I know where you’re coming from. Basically, it sounds like a situation where you really love a film and you don’t care if it’s good or bad in a more objective sense. You’re not interested in hearing argumetns against the film, because those arguments won’t change how you feel. Makes sense, and I don’t think it’s melodramatic.
At the same time, does this mean you don’t like talking about these films at all? I mean, say you’ve just seen the film and you’re bubbling over with enthusiasm. You wouldn’t want to talk to someone about this? Or suppose someone asks you to explain why you loved the film, wouldn’t you relish the opportunity? If the answers are affirmative, this is really different from the Axel’s point (not that that matters too much).
“Basically, it sounds like a situation where you really love a film and you don’t care if it’s good or bad in a more objective sense. You’re not interested in hearing argumetns against the film, because those arguments won’t change how you feel”
Yes.
“At the same time, does this mean you don’t like talking about these films at all? I mean, say you’ve just seen the film and you’re bubbling over with enthusiasm. You wouldn’t want to talk to someone about this?”
It depends on the film. Immediately after I saw Blue Valentine, I didn’t want to talk at. Not just about the film but I didn’t want to talk in general. I really just wanted to be alone and have silence. Of course after a day or so, yeah, I’m happy to discuss the film and talk about what I loved about it. Certainly no harm in that.
@Santino
OK, got it.
@Matt
Depends on who you ask.
FWIW, I don’t think that feelings and analysis aren’t mutually exclusive when it comes to experiencing or evaluating movies or art. In fact, thinking of them separately seems strange, not to mention diminishing the experience.
“I don’t think that feelings and analysis aren’t mutually exclusive”
You mean you don’t think that they are mutually exclusive?
I’m not saying that you have to choose one over the other.
“thinking of them separately seems strange, not to mention diminishing the experience.”
That’s OK. You don’t have to decide right now. Take it home with you tonight, drive it around for the rest of the week. Then we’ll talk.
You mean you don’t think that they are mutually exclusive?
Ugh, yes.
That’s OK. You don’t have to decide right now. Take it home with you tonight, drive it around for the rest of the week. Then we’ll talk.
OK, and if I forget to bring this up, I’m sure this will come up at some point in the future.
“A good critic wants rewarding experiences in movies, just like everybody else. But we’re even more greedy, we want to intensify it and prolong it, so we continue the process of involvement. But any process of involvement in anything is ambivalent, as art is also a process of detachment. Or, in other words, if you want to go on thinking about film, the only way you can do it is by, in a sense, detaching yourself from it and bringing another area of reference to bear on it. So I’m also resituating the original experience of the movie. And resituating means altering. Preservation becomes alteration. Very dialectical.
So, the process of prolonging the film experience is primarily intellectual—i.e., not emotional? I’m not sure I buy that. During the post-viewing reflection and intellectual manipulations, are one’s emotions and feelings largely absent? Perhaps, they’re not as intense and vivid while watching a movie. On the other hand, can’t the emotions and feeling intensify as one’s understanding increases. When the lightbulb goes on, it often brings heat, if you know what I mean.
But I suspect much of the discussion comes down to semantics of the words feelings, emotions, as well as thoughts and intellect.
prolonging = altering
So, this quote doesn’t really refer to the thinking vs. feeling question, right?
It’s saying something similar in different terms:
if you want to go on thinking about film, the only way you can do it is by . . . detaching yourself from it
Oh. I understand that “prolonging=altering”—but I thought this could apply to both feelings and thoughts.
I don’t understand why one must necessarily push aside or detach from one’s self when thinking about a film? Is this because the feelings “evaporate” while thoughts can be maintained? Even if this were true, the act of thinking doesn’t necessarily cause a detachment from one’s feelings (self)—or so it would seem to me.
“I thought this could apply to both feelings and thoughts. I don’t understand why one must necessarily push aside or detach from one’s self when thinking about a film?”
It applies to both, sure. But the point about emotion was that there’s will always be an emotional response that necessarily precedes an intellectual one. But yes, it is a reciprical thing where an emotion response can be followed by intellectualizing, which is then followed by an emotional reponse that is somewhat different from the intial emotional response, which may lead to further (somewhat different) intellectualizing . . .
Wait. I’m assuming that when you say “detaching yourself” you mean pushing aside one’s emotions. Was that a wrong asumption?
Pushing them aside, yes, but not on a permanent basis. It’s just that the intermediate intellectual process transforms your initial emotional experience into something somewhat different.
The emotional response we have to films is the precise reason we need to discuss and intellectualize them. Many films use emotional responses to try to hide poor filmmaking and scripting. How many films have you enjoyed while watching it only to have it all but disappear from your head entirely by the next day? There are great discussions waiting after any of these movies. We get to try and figure out how we were manipulated. We can see that the film is not as good as we initially felt. But we also can appreciate how we had the wool pulled over our eyes (or hearts in this case). The only way we can identify this manipulation is to learn the language of film and study the techniques of acting/directing/photography/screenwriting. Maybe I’m an odd duck, but I find that knowing how a movie/scene/shot is acheived does not diminish my appreciation of it. I find my respect grows. I enjoy feeling something and later realizing that something as simple as a music cue or close up pulled that emotion out of me.
Jazzaloha
Oh, OK. (Aside: the two aren’t mutually exclusive, though, right?)