i thought that’s what we were doing here. world cup etc. does he want us to only watch films that are on dvd or what? there are ways of seeing rare films and he must know that by now. no one is denying him anything the rest of us have. i am done with this. this guy just annoys me. i solemnly swear i won’t look at this thread again
Ruby said, but come on, this guy has been here for years. he’s still pushing this stuff. he isn’t gonna change. if he thinks we’re such a bunch of snobs, why is he still here? because he’s a troll, that’s why.
Personally, I don’t think he’s a troll—as he seems to genuinely care about the issues he brings up and wants a dialogue about them. He does have his pet issues that he repeatedly brings up, but I can’t chastise him for that, as I’m the same way. But I don’t think Pisces and I are the only two like this. Look at the Tarantino thread or those overrated/underrated threads, for example. There are certain subjects that people like to discuss repeatedlyl (almost obessively), and yet some loathe those threads. Imo, these threads are largely harmless. People can easily avoid these threads if they find them dull or annoying—and I don’t think they’re doing anything to harm others or the site. I’m open to being wrong about this, but, right now, I can’t see any problem, except that it may annoy some people.
The fact that it annoys people isn’t enough to scold or harass someone, though. There are threads, posts that annoy me, but I think I need to just accept them, and just pay attention to the threads/posts that I find interesting. Having said that, there does come a time when certain threads/posts should be stopped—as they’re cross the line—where individuals are harassed or the threads mess up the site (e.g., porn trolls).
I don’t think Pisces’ threads qualify. Indeed, if you look back at the threads he’s started, they’ve actually lead to some good discussions—and that’s something we need more of, imo. So, I don’t think we should chase away someone like Pisces, but I understand if others disagree.
Fleurare said, I think if we discover something that the majority of people we know have not heard of, we feel priviledged to have discovered something rare or unknown. We feel “cool”, I suppose. I think it is silly for people to dismiss Hollywood films just because they “only watch” obscure films or something like that, or to say that something is better just because it is “obscure”… but I think most people like discovering things that they feel others are yet to discover and might not wish to spread the word about those “secret films” because they want to feel smug and satisfied liking something that they know is not well-known.
I think this definitely does happen—but I don’t get the sense that this happens a lot here, not so much now anyway. But, look, if it does, I don’t think it’s a good thing. Perhaps, it doesn’t stifle the promotion of cinema to the degree that Pisces claims, but the attitude doesn’t help the situation, either.
I want to say something else that might get me in trouble. I think part of the problem has to do with age and maturity. I think those in their teens and twenties are more susceptible to this type of thinking. I’m not saying all of them think this way, but they can be a little more susceptible. The good thing is that, in time, (and here’s where I might sound patronizing, but I don’t mean that), people get past this attitude. Of course, that’s not always true, too—older people can have this attitude as well. Still, I think once people age and get more comfortable with themselves, I tend to think this problem diminishes.
That’s not to justify the attitude, but I think it’s understandable. I don’t think those just becoming more serious about films, should be chided for liking the more critically acclaimed and accessible arthouse directors. But I think we have a pretty wide-consensus about that here. Is there anyone who disagrees with this?
Not to continue this thread (please don’t beat me, Ruby :P) but really, a good film is a good film. If you find one others have not heard of, then share it! So other people can appreciate it too. That’s the whole point of an audience, isn’t it?
Yeah, but there is the coolness factor (because you’re part of an elite), as Fleurare mentioned. You probably didn’t experience that because you grew up exposed to a lot of high art. But take someone like me—I grew up with TV, and popular films and radio. When I went to college, I admit, classical music, jazz and arthouse cinema definitly appealed to me, in part, because it made me feel more sophisticated. When people asked me what kind of music I liked, saying I liked jazz made me feel good, because only sophisticated and hip people appreciate jazz. It sounds silly and petty, and it is, but that’s how it was for me; and that’s how I suspect it is for a lot of young people, too.
So, some people may want their favorite films and filmmakers to become accepted among the masses—even though that will benefit the filmmaker and the person who loved the film/filmmaker in the first place. It threatens your elite status if others like the art you do. (Again, sort of silly, but I’ve been guilty this, so I’ll cut people some slack on this.)
It threatens your elite status if others like the art you do.
As someone who creates, I call this Smeagol-ism. It’s like an audience fetish, and it’s insecure to be that way not to mention immature, but whatever. Hopefully people grow out of that and see how stupid it is. The more you elevate someone’s work in that twisted manner, the more you marginalize them. It’s not doing any favor to the person who created the thing you so covet in the first place to be that way.
Ok and now I kind of get the objection of this thread. However, I’m coming at it from the point of view of the artist — and that is, don’t marginalize us and make us precious! Share our work, and make it something everyone can enjoy.
Also Jazz I have to say, that while I know it’s traditional and historical, this association of “high culture” with elitism, i.e. a kind of classism is well, horrible. I don’t distinguish among people that way. I’ll show my work to anyone who is interested, whether they have a “cultured” background or not. Whether they have a “knowledgeable” background or not. And my work is not mainstream in any way, but who cares? Let’s all enjoy one another and take trips to new places in our imagination, no matter what we grew up with. In my opinion, one’s art is for everyone.
There is no such thing as people who are unable to appreciate things that are refined or subtle — there is only the potential to appreciate them. Otherwise school would only be for aristocrats.
Nice way to tie in The Lord of The Rings to the discussion, Odi. Bwa ha ha.
Mordor called, TJ. …. >: D
As someone who creates, I call this Smeagol-ism. It’s like an audience fetish, and it’s insecure to be that way not to mention immature, but whatever. Hopefully people grow out of that and see how stupid it is.
I know what you’re saying, but I try to refrain from being too harsh because I’ve been there myself. Plus, I don’t think wanting to be sophisticated—even wanting to appear sophisticated—is all that terrible. Sure, it is petty and superficial—if all you care about is appearances—but there are worse things in the world, I guess. And, again, I’m the proverbial “pot” in this situation, so I’m trying to be more tolerant.
The more you elevate someone’s work in that twisted manner, the more you marginalize them. It’s not doing any favor to the person who created the thing you so covet in the first place to be that way.
I totally agree with this. Rationally, it makes no sense. This only hurts the artist and the fans of the artist. But this isn’t a
Also Jazz I have to say, that while I know it’s traditional and historical, this association of “high culture” with elitism, i.e. a kind of classism is well, horrible. I don’t distinguish among people that way.
Right, I didn’t think you did. But when I mentioned wanting to be part of sophisticated and being part of an elite, I was mostly referring to the people, the non-artists. If I say, “I like John Coltrane and Charlie Parker,” it is an quick and easy (yeah, cheap) way to get in the club, if you know what I mean. To me, this isn’t so awful as long as it’s just a passing phase. If you’re 40 years old and still do this, that might be a problem, though. ;)
Yeah I’m sure some people want to hoard their art discoveries, but what annoys me is the suggestion that everybody who likes something obscure is only liking it to look cool. I think it’s just a lot easier to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and not make a sweeping generalization that cinephiles like to hoard obscure movies and that somehow makes cinema an illegitimate art form in the eyes of the masses. Pisces’ argument is just all over the place.
Yes. Ew. Get out of here sweeping generalizations!
“what annoys me is the suggestion that everybody who likes something obscure is only liking it to look cool”
I think this impression comes from these types acting condescending or “special” because of their taste. If people who liked obscure things didn’t bring about this vibe of superiority, this stereotype wouldn’t exist. And as Pisces said, if they were more supportive and encouraging of other tastes, instead of dismissive because someone might enjoy Tarantino (or whoever), you wouldn’t have this cliche that cinephiles are elitist pricks. Of course not everyone who likes obscure stuff is insincere about their taste. It’s the behavior about their taste that leads one to believe ulterior motives might be in play.
Ok I guess the main result of this thread is:
Some people find people on this site to be condescending.
I’m one of the latter – I don’t think most people on here are condescending at all. In fact, even the most confrontational users on this site are eager to share their favorite movies and talk about them. I just don’t see this problem here. Maybe it exists in real-life cinephile circles in LA for Santino or France for Pisces. But I don’t know of any real-life cinephile circles in Atlanta, so, in my mind, this is just a long debate about a non-existent problem.
Then again, I think sometimes I can come across as condescending, but it’s just cause I’m pretty sarcastic. But I always mean it in a nice way!
“…so, in my mind, this is just a long debate about a non-existent problem. Then again, I think sometimes I can come across as condescending, but it’s just cause I’m pretty sarcastic."
If you don’t realize there’s a problem, it’s probably because you’re part of it! haha
In all seriousness, I don’t know that this is specific to Mubi or that “most people on here are condescending”. I don’t think that’s necessarily true (as I said before, it’s certainly a lot better than it was two or three years ago).
I’m speaking on a much bigger scale having to do with cinephilia, art appreciation, elitism, etc. What I’m talking about is being more inclusive and supportive and less exclusive and dismissive. This isn’t specific to anyone person or any one site – this more aimed at the film community at large and the (negative) perception that some people have towards it. I think being at least aware of this perception can be helpful in readjusting your attitude towards other people and the cinema that you love.
Ok I guess the main result of this thread is:…
I’d like to suggest other takeaways:
1. We all agree that we shouldn’t treat others with condescension—including making newbies feel bad for being enthusiastic about accessible arthouse films (I’d like to think we all agree that they shouldn’t be ridiculed for any film they like, but that might be pushing it.;)
2. We all agree that maintaining the obscurity of a film or filmmaker is counter-productive for the filmmakers and cinephiles.
Is it a stretch to think that the vast majority of people here agree to the two points above? I don’t think so, or, at least, I hope not.
Is it a stretch to think that the vast majority of people here agree to the two points above?
Lol but everybody already agreed to these points before the topic was started!! That’s what’s kind of infuriating!
What I’m talking about is being more inclusive and supportive and less exclusive and dismissive.
But I think accusing people of liking obscure things to look cool is dismissive in and of itself.
I think we have all accepted that people are allowed to like what they like, so I just don’t see the problem. All this thread is doing is contributing to the condescension that it’s trying to criticize.
That’s what’s kind of infuriating!
Let it all come down, let it loose, let it go. (stop the love affair with the insecure cynical immature people)
Lol but everybody already agreed to these points before the topic was started!! That’s what’s kind of infuriating!
But do you think everyone knew that—or should have realized that? In any event, I understand how this thread can be annoying, but suppose people responded by expressing agreement with the points I made above? I actually think there would be great value in doing that. It affirms or reaffirms certain values held by the majority at the site, which helps foster a good environment for discussion, imo. This may seem silly or a waste of time, but I don’t think it is.
I guess it can be used dismissively and in a passive-aggressive way (that Matt suggests), but I actually think people do like obscure films because it makes them feel cool. Now, I don’t know who does this, when they do it or to what degree, but I do think it happens—and sometimes it can be a problem. I don’t think it is as big a problem at the site, though.
suppose people responded by expressing agreement with the points I made above
LOL people did respond by expressing agreement with those points! The only thing they disagreed with was the fact that this issue is widespread and systemic like Pisces argues.
LOL people did respond by expressing agreement with those points!
Oh, OK. I didn’t read through the entire thread, and I didn’t get that sense. But if that’s what happened, then that’s a good thing.
I’m not against open-mindedness and the act of discovering obscure films in an off itself. I just think the relativism that tends to go along with free-wheeling cinema exploration is bound to open up a pandora’s box where standards begin to be neglected if we’re not careful. I know that sounds harsh and overly discriminatory, but being discerning rarely has negative consequences.
this is the most ridiculous statement here yet ^ i suppose we should only be watching from an approved list of films now. 10 pages on a ridiculous non-issue. ok i’m muzzling myself
surely the obscurity of a film just depends on who you’re talking to. if loads of films seem obscure to you perhaps you’re talking to the wrong people. two seconds on the internet pretty much does away with most obscurity these days.