Apursansar, no one is saying that they have to be, but come on.
You just got home, it’s been one of those days. You grab your remote, crash on the couch, turn on the TV and Ghostbusters is on AMC. Are you telling me that would rather not watch that than walk up to your collection, stand there for 10 minutes trying to decide what to watch, give up and put on the last thing that’s in the player?
Law: well, I respect that. I was just trying to make you see my point of view.
@apursansar: so your philosphy is that if you engage in the act of consumption (of anything), the thing you are consuming should be top-shelf in that category? Do you make yourself Sushi anytime you want a quick bite, because life is too short to eat a sandwich? Do you refuse to look at contemporary photography, because there is Henri Cartier-Bresson?
You see I’m exaggerating hugely, but still…
And I would. Any excuse to go to Asia, you know…
Of course, I´m not trying to be that much of an elitist, and since I´m living together with a couple of friends does it happen quite frequently that we sit together and watch a film which I wouldn´t consider to be that profound and insightful. I´m just saying that there are lots of alternatives one can find among artistic films, and one therefore doesn´t have to repent to give up on films one enjoyed when one was younger.
I can enjoy a great steak and a McDonald’s double cheeseburger. The enjoyment of one does not cancel out the other. I wouldn’t want to presume anything about someone that I’ve “met” on an internet forum, but it does surprise me to think that there are people who only want to watch weighty dramas and existential think pieces. Part of the appeal of cinema for me has always been the wide variety of experiences that I can have with it. From ridiculous comedies like Back to the Future to metaphysical meditations like A Man Escaped; from big epics like Lawrence of Arabia to grand melodramas like Madame de…, they all please me.
" Do you make yourself Sushi anytime you want a quick bite, because life is too short to eat a sandwich? "
If the sandwich tastes bad to me, yeah I would eat sushi all the time (if I can afford it). Yes, I would rather watch Ariel than Ghostbusters.
And that’s all i’m saying, a person can like any movie and still be able to enjoy a great one.
Nicely said, Nathan.
All I am saying is that, people can like whatever they want but people who cannot enjoy Tarantino are not elitists and have reasons for their choices.
Yes of course.
And being elitist is not bad per se, it just can be overused…
Like not being able to enjoy Ghostbusters…
i love Ghostbusters and Mahjong and The Killer and The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting on the same scale of greatness
(the academics can sue me…)
yes,deliberate silliness and artistic dwelling can be mixed and/or exist as cinematic advances BUT…
mentioning 4-5 films of the same caliber (Oscar baits,IMDB fanboys etc) without knowing the inner scope of things in a particular art (cinema in our case) isn’t just amateurism but a stubborn attitude..i’m an amateur however,why should i focus and divide U.S.A. and World?that’s for the philistines and only..
thus,i prefer to criticize silliness/artistry without borders and yet,Americana is all over the place in most of these threads dammit….
I called for the division of the US and the rest of the world just so the people that kept shouting Eternal Sunshine wouldn’t be ridiculed. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, their opinions are just a little narrow.
All in all, the issue here is the distinction between art and entertainment (personnally, I would even add experimental as another distinction): You don’t watch The New World, The Sun or Bakara in the same mood that Die Hard, Back To the Future or Ghostbusters. So, how can they be mixed in the same top list? Whereas the first aim for esthetic, new angles, new ways of expressions, the other’s goal is to entertain.
To me, it is obvious that, like in theater, music or litterature, there are some pieces that fulfill both artistic and entertainment aims, but not of them of course. For instance, I consider 2001: A Space Odyssey as a great masterpiece, cinema as an art, but on the other hand if I try to watch it with friends at 4AM, half-drunk after some birthday party, I fall asleep and anybody would do the same, whereas I would be totally awake in front of Indiana Jones and The Temple Of Doom. Does it make one or the other better? Nope. But they’re not on the same league, not even the same sport.
Prefering one kind of cinema (artistic or entertainment) is one thing. Considering the other unworthy of any credit, no offense, but it’s snobism.
Very well put, Joe.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that one of them is unworthy of any credit.
“But they’re not on the same league, not even the same sport. "
yes,they are,they’re called CINEMA and i have the right to say Die Hard is better than Eyes Wide Shut or that Nikita is better than Fanny and Alexander…
unless cinema isn’t a sport but a genre,sigh…
No, there’s different classifications, even if they’re unspoken. I can say that Chasing Amy is a great movie and 2001 is a great movie too, but I can’t compare to the two, simply because there’s no comparsion. 2001 is perfect, Chasing Amy is just okay. People can agree with me, but they know that I mean that they’re great in their own ways.
If that makes any sense at all.
I’m sorry, it’s late…
“2001 is perfect, Chasing Amy is just okay”
sure man,it can also be the other way around,yet…what i’m trying to point is that for everyone,variety should exist,true…we cannot strictly position these two movies amidst a list of “greatest” or any other kind of criticism that would bring them opposed to each other..
for my part,i can honestly say i enjoy 2001 more than Amy or Nikita (the original of course) more than Fanny but that doesn’t mean it’s a fair comparison and i certainly don’t make any objective stance,but in MY case,i can’t change that…..variety is vast :)
Alright, I concede. You’re right.
I’m just glad somebody on this damn site admits the greatest of Ghostbusters.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Do i really have to choose from the 2000s? This decade has been terrible!
I guess Mullholland Dr if you twist my arm.
This decade has not been terrible but extraordinary, and I could name about 50 films which I consider superior when compared to the shallow surrealism of Mulholland Dr. I think that some people should rather start to get to know world cinema instead of lamenting that there´s nothing out there which is simply not true.
Ok so name 5.
I forgot i like Werckmeister Harmonies quite a bit.
I can name five films from THIS YEAR that are better than Mulholland Drive:
- The Baader Meinhof Complex
- Still Walking
- Three Monkeys
- 35 Shots of Rum
Here´s the requested list of 5 films which I consider better than Mulholland Dr in almost every possible way:
DEVILS ON THE DOORSTEP (2000)
VIRGIN STRIPPED BARE BY HER BACHELORS (2000)
SYNDROMES AND A CENTURY (2006)
STILL WALKING (2008)
“I can name five films from THIS YEAR that are better than Mulholland Drive”
and you come up with Baader Meinhof and Ceylan’s “weakest” film???
I personally like Mulholland Drive quite a bit, but nevertheless I can name five films of the 2000s from the small African nation of Burkina Faso that are as good or better.
Lol – I like that. Which ones from Burkina do you mean?