@ Joks Tautological yes, but it’s the underlying assumption grounding these observations.
In all things only the higher degrees matter – Nietzsche
This thread is so retarded, with its fascist underpinnings, it is probably best to start another thread…to look at more closely is ‘best’, ‘social status’, and ‘opinions’ in terms of time, (past present and future) which would bring in ideas such as immanence and transcendence – things already discussed by way of Kant, Deleuze, Hegal etc.
This is what I mean by retarded, we never seem to make any progress – just rehashing opinions.
Well I think Radiohead holds its own in the rock canon, but I guess it’s an exception.
^^yeah, but it’s a shame they have been aroundfor at least 20 years now though eh? ;)
“We need to stop treating “newbies” in a patronizing manner for liking The 400 Blows, Cache, The Conformist, and The Double Life of Veronique, or god forbid listing them as their favorite films as opposed to Marketa Lazarova and/or Celine and Julie Go Boating…”
Do such people actually exist?
“and people like Ray Carney and Jonathan Rosenbaum are part of the problem. We have populists like Roger Ebert and “art-house” freaks like Rosenbaum. We need more people like Bazin who just love the medium. Ray Carney is a brilliant man, but he has a subconscious hatred for the cinematic medium and doesn’t even realize it.”
Have you checked Rosenbaum’s blog lately? He’s written positively about Forest Gump, Men In Black and Contact. Also worth noting his contribution to Sight and Sound’s greatest film poll in 2002
I don’t hate Bela Tarr and/or Weerasethakul. I’m just against what they represent in modern cinema, and it pains that Mubians and other people of the same sort tend to be ambivalent and somewhat cynical towards people like Haneke or the Dardenne Bros. right when cinema needs people like them most. They’re not the greatest filmmakers of all time, but they’re fine ones at the very least, and the right people aren’t embracing them with open arms when they should be. The problem with Almodovar or a film like City of God is they’re simply too lightweight to even deserve to factor into the discussion. Sorry, but it’s just my opinion.
this is just a continuation of trollish topic: what is mubi style? get over it. who are the ‘right people’? are u suggesting they don’t really ‘like’ what they ‘like’? four more pages wasted on this? srsly. no one has ever questioned my taste here (aside from dim’s lil problem with ‘fight club’) and i like all kinds of crap :p have confidence in your own taste and quit worrying about what other people think all the time geez
“I don’t hate Bela Tarr and/or Weerasethakul. I’m just against what they represent in modern cinema, and it pains that Mubians and other people of the same sort tend to be ambivalent and somewhat cynical towards people like Haneke or the Dardenne Bros.”
I don’t see a huge difference between Tarr and Hanek though. Neither of them are extremely radical film makers insofar as they have obvious influences. Take away Satantango from Tarr and what are you left with? A personal film maker that has built a ‘style’ out of his obvious influences.
Joe i’m on the fence about. I think he has good ideas, but for me his films generally don’t come together in a way that is truly definitive. I know many disagree with me on that though,
Perhaps you’re right about Tarr and Haneke. Werckmeister Harmonies is very good, but my point is Haneke and the Dardenne Bros are the sorts of filmmakers Sony Pictures Classics in America will be willing to pick up, whereas they wouldn’t touch Tarr with a twenty foot pole. Tarr might make it onto five screens in America. Like I said, it’s not necessarily about the films themselves, but about what the filmmaker and his or her image represents in film culture.
^^I know what you are saying, there is a kind of ‘secret handshake’ deal going on with directors like Tarr and Costa, but that is just inevitable and i don’t get why it’s a problem. Dismissing something on the grounds that it is popular alone is not sound and you know that. Just don’t let it bother you so much ;-)
“I know what you are saying, there is a kind of ‘secret handshake’ deal going on with directors like Tarr and Costa, but that is just inevitable and i don’t get why it’s a problem.”
Yeah, point taken. My fundamental point though is painters and writers don’t get dismissed for being well-known and respected outside of connoisseur circles to the same degree (i.e. Picasso, Stravinsky, Van Gogh, Matisse, Blazac, etc.) People are insecure about film’s status as an art form much more so than about that of say painting. A well-known “serious” painter is simply that, an important painter who has name recognition, whereas a well-known filmmaker like Bergman and Kubrick, or even Haneke in this day and age is perhaps known because a wider audience can appreciate him or her, which perhaps indicates they’re entertainment as opposed to “high” art, since they’re “accessible” to people who generally approach cinema as entertainment rather than as “high” art. There’s this notion that if a filmmaker deserves to be as artistically respected as a great painter or poet he shouldn’t be recognized by the general public in this day and age for the reason I stated up above.
If Stravinsky, Picasso, or Joyce can be well-known amongst the general public while also being respected practitioners of “high art” why can’t someone like Bergman or Kubrick have it both ways. I feel like it’s either/or with modern day cinephiles. The fact remains that people like Bresson and Dreyer are of course far less known than Van Gogh and Picasso outside of “connoisseur” circles.
It’s especially annoying, because ‘secret handshake’ directors like Tarr, Costa, Joe, Hong Sang-soo and people of that ilk aren’t necessarily better than Bergman, Antonioni, Ozu, and Haneke. Their exclusivity make them appear better. Sure, Tarr, for example, has done some very good work, but that’s not the point.
funny thing is that this “sentiment” is just as reactionary, the “MUBI STYLE” and those who cherish it reacting to “hollywood” or all things gateway or mainstream, and then in turn this thread countering that. Which is fine to me that’s just kinda “how it is” as long as one is aware of it and careful not to get to caught up in the “swings”.
That’s the thing though. Why does it have to be gateway? It’s either a great film or it’s not. You think the artist would like his or her work being perceived as a gateway to more “challenging” works. If it’s great it’s great.
Their exclusivity make them appear better.
This is all about the attitude of hipsters, then? Because that’s the complaint about hipsters.
I think the reason most people who bring non-canonical and unknown filmmakers to the attention of others enjoy a higher status on Mubi is because most people who visit Mubi simply come here to discover new filmmakers and cinema. (we can learn about Bergman, Kurosawa and others at places like IMDB as well) To throw out the conservative argument we should hang on to the established canons because you can’t keep up with the latest Mubian trends seems an absurd one, though. Perhaps you should instead write some criticisms of the films you believe are being overvalued by some Mubians instead of simply stating it’s impossible for them to reach the status of the canonical filmmakers. Trust me, it won’t be so easy to undermine and change a whole community’s attitude towards a Tarr, Yang or Joe’s on Mubi, because they’re already seen as equals of Bergman, Fellini and Kurosawa here.
As for the argument that some filmmakers only receive certain statuses because they are from ’’obscure’’ countries… I seem to taste a ‘western’ ethnocentric view here that has been dominant for many decades in cinema and still is dominant in most mass-media and education. Fortunately, this established attitude and snobbism (exactly the sort of snobbism you’re trying to challenge here) never impressed some of the best artists of the past centuries and in fact inspired them to make some of the most original and unconventional art pieces we know today, in all art disciplines.
Which makes me ask the question — who is the typical Mubi user? And can you say that people who participated in DiB’s film poll are representative of them? Or just the vocal forum users?
Hard to say without numbers. But it seems like there are assumptions made here that may or may not be true in terms of defining what the typical Mubi user looks like — i.e. as representative of the majority of users. Perhaps the mods have statistics…
Either way, I’d fall into the minority here. I don’t come to Mubi to look for the lesser known gems, in fact I don’t even watch movies on Mubi. I came here through Garage, of which I am an active member, and I participate in the forums because it’s (sometimes) interesting to me to talk to people who watch a lot of films as opposed to make a lot of films. I wouldn’t characterize myself as a cinephile though I have seen a good number of films that are not on the agenda of the typical movie-goer, I don’t make lists of films or write about them or collect them. I just watch them when I can, and like to discuss them with others here because they really think about what they saw, and I enjoy the depth of the discussions here and the various viewpoints, some very articulate and bright and informed and not just by the world of film. Which reminds me a lot of the experience I had when I was an undergraduate, and sorely miss in the dog eat dog and mundane world that exists “on the outside.”
It’s really tiring to have this “typical Mubi user” thing as a justification for some of the nonsense and entitlement and attitudes that go on here. As a NON typical Mubi user, whatever that means, I can say that I do not agree with them.
If we could just watch the goddamn movies and have good discussions about them without categorizing this person and that person as this and that and this forum should be this way or that way because of this or that reason, I’d be happier (for whatever that’s worth).
I think one problem is that some of the greatest living directors come from minor countries like how Bela tarr comes from hungary, Edward yang comes from taiwan, etc, which is the reason why they’re obscure.
Another one of those “Anyone who has eclectic tastes is only pretending to like them because they’re eclectic” threads. I’m tired of responding to those. That argument is just plain silly.
Obscurity shouldn’t be something to aspire to in and of itself, but it shouldn’t be something to run away from either. You make the films you want to make. If it’s accessible, great, if it’s not, great. As long as it’s true to you.
I do think there is an element of people who like more challenging films being angry that it’s harder to see them. Edward Yang, for instance, doesn’t even have most of his films licensed outside his country.
Tarr, Costa, Joe, Hong Sang-soo ect. on the level of Bergman, Kubrick, or Hitchcock? Please. I understand exagerrating to make a point but come on, lets keep this remotely within the realm of beleiveability at least…
u guys know this is notorious troll charlesdegaulle/renault aka piscesrising, right?
I think time and place has a great deal to with how artist may feel about obscurity.
If you take emily dickinson and have her out there today, she would have completely different views about artistic recognition, because that is the time we live.
Now, with that said, I think there are many great artist who enjoy working in the quiet, peaceful space of obscurity. Do people really want the headaches that come with supposed fame?
Justin Bieber sucks, but imagine just going to the fuckin’ mall; give me obscurity over that shit any day.
Stephen Crane is my favorite poet of all-time and he was greatly influenced by Dickinson, but he was also very very different, he liked being out there among the people, seeing what there was to see, where Dickinson liked the small quiet life.
But then there are douchebags like Vincent Gallo — and damnit, i hate the fact i think Brown Bunny is a very good — he covets the fame of being obscure, faux obscurest.
I think there are important things said and to say about all kinds of artists, even Michael Bay (belch belch vomit vomit).
I think the aspiration should be to the art first, any fame or obscurity that comes from that is just a byproduct f the public mood at the time.
It’s all just farting in the breeze.
(how’s that for a haphazard fuckin’ post?)
Yeah, there are some people on the board who snap back when people post about more famous directors. That happened to me a bit when I first showed up, and it almost made me give up on the board before DC really got me into it. We should really try to foster curiosity more, rather than acting like a clique. Most of the people here do the former, but sometimes the few who do the latter get to the newbies the quickest and loudest.
I think what’s important to realize, as well, is that the climate a lot of these young directors (esp. Joe, Costa, I would add a Miguel Gomez or a Mariano Llinas) are ‘coming of age’ in a vastly different production climate; Bergan made literally dozens of films before even being noticed in an international sense, whereas a director like Joe had to literally claw his way up in the festival market, all while being literally ignored by his home country (in stark contrast to Antonioni, Bergman, Resnais, etc. , all of whom benefited from robust home markets and apprentice systems; the same could be said for the way the German new wave benefited from state sponsorship, and on and on).
As Richard Brody said, the average director these days spends more time not making films than making films, which is a brand new thing.
There is also a palpable loss of excitement about film in general; Hong Sang-Soo, although I love him, may not be at the same level of a Bergman, but Claire Denis probably is, for example.
Also, Kubrick and Hitchcock were Hollywood directors with immense studio backing; Kubrick in particular was a legitimate eccentric millionaire. Contrasting the level of production of their films with the level of production on, say, a Hong Sang-Soo film is insane.
Which is of course the inanity of this thread: OF COURSE HONG IS OBSCURE HE MAKES QUIET LOW BUDGET MOVIES IN KOREAN. Liking those films doesn’t mean you’re an asshole; it means you are willing to give a chance to low-budget, quiet Korean films, unlike the great mass of people who live on this planet.
unlike the great mass of people who live on this planet.
Mubians against “the masses…”
We should really try to foster curiosity more, rather than acting like a clique. Most of the people here do the former, but sometimes the few who do the latter get to the newbies the quickest and loudest.
This is what Jazz promotes all the time. I.e. a welcoming and non-cliquey environment.
But we don’t know that. So it’s pointless to wonder about it.
then i don’t understand why u encourage him. is it part of jazz’s ‘be nice to everyone’ policy?
Fun, fun fun, fun fun. Catching up on the jist of and the digressions in this thread is feeling less like a chore than usual for this WONDERFUL site.
Isn’t it funny how, with the proliferation that occurs from new technology (i.e. the printing press for the written word, the film stock and projector for the motion picture, wax/vinyl records to digital distribution for music), that what almost always began as a communal activity (storytelling and performing/singing music) gets shifted to becoming more and more centered solely around the "quality’ of the experience of an individual?
Just from my own entertainment choices, I notice this happening a lot with motion pictures and video games. I really enjoy getting to go to a quality movie theater and sharing the communal experience of a good (usually funny) movie with other viewers. And I used to enjoy the camaraderie and shared excitement of the arcade cabinet game-playing experience at arcades, actually seeing people display their skill (or lack thereof) with the newest entertainment on display.
The shift of focus to the home theater set-up has been occurring big time over the past 10 years with motion pictures, as movie prices climb higher and higher while the variety and selection of movies (and the quality of the theater experience) continues to dwindle further…. I’m amazed that I was even able to catch Drive in a theater within a 30 minute drive from my home, if that says anything. Blu-ray, the LCD displays, the digitalization of the film-making process that now allows for turnover from theater-to-home video to occur sometimes within a matter of three months, when it reliably took 10 months to a year a decade ago for the theater experience to become available for home viewing, is another example of technology affecting the medium, and affecting and changing the overall experience from what it once was.
How this ties into the whole idea of recognition for one’s work in the arts, and what the “consumer’s” reaction is based on the artist’s level of recognition, I guess is that I believe obscurity (either intentional for privacy’s sake on the artist’s part, through accidental/incidental discovery of the works post-mortem, or otherwise) and any manufactured “benefit” to that obscurity works against the overall, purposeful arc of showcasing or sharing any sort of artistic endeavor. Of course keeping things a secret can work to the benefit of a handful of people who wish to have a sense of control for themselves (just ask anyone who knows or works directly with a politician), and obviously having a sense of control or sense of authority can be an attractive and desirable status.
Just one filmic reference to close out my two-cents: David Lynch refuses to make audio commentaries to accompany his feature-length films. And this is because he believes revealing too much info on his film-making process and any techniques he used to either achieve the visual or audio effects for the final product on the screen, or his way of dealing with his on-screen talent, is to take away from the allure and the “mystery” of getting a finished motion picture on the screen.