I haven’t exactly read all of the 8 pages, but this caught my eyes :
“And thus, they end up making “beginners” feel like “beginners” even if that wasn’t the intention, because when said films get taken for granted the “newbs” don’t feel supported in their enjoyment of them. With many, it would alienate them to such an extent that they’ll just abandon the endeavor altogether and move on.”
@Mars in Aries : The way I see it, I used to be a “newb” not so long ago and I never felt anything close to what you’re describing here. So does your conclusion comes from your own personal feelings, observations, speculation? Honestly, I have a hard time believing that anyone taking a new interest seriously would drop it if they didn’t feel “supported”.
Personally, I was never patronized for my “inexperience”, but I was never encouraged and embraced for watching films from the canon either. And even if I had been (patronized, that is), I love cinema, I would never have stopped looking for more.
obscurity shouldn’t be seen as a badge of honor
I agree, I don’t think artists should strive for obscurity or popularity. Just do you.
OK, I’m just gonna scream out something here as an extra contribution to the thread, which I feel has been worthwhile to look at, by the way. And yes, I’ll allow stones to be thrown my way on this ’count:
NO ONE has mentioned the endearing and entirely wholesome Luis Bunuel until now. It’s all been Bergman, Antonioni, Bresson, and even Spielberg and Cameron. And I mentioned Peter Jackson, so shame on me.
As much as I enjoy Kubrick, if I was going to offer up any one cinematic craftsman whose work would stand up as art or an art form in and of itself, it has to be Bunuel. The Exterminating Angel, L’Age d’Or and That Obscure Object of Desire are motion pictures that, while they have some visual stylization that could be fairly equated to a sit-com television production, are full of so many ideas and are presented within the narrative both in the foreground action and on the backburner, that they work like the best of literary fiction. There are double and triple entendres, social commentaries and some savage attacks on the bourgeoisie AND the “earthy” poor, psychological manifestations and sexual urges and fetishes (obviously including Bunuel’s own deal with shoes and feet), and just plain open-ended narrative devices that can be freely, justifiably given to a handful of interpretations. These are just wonderful, beautiful films that each work on their own terms, and yet (for me at least) bring something new to me every time I catch them, and even more so when my wife or someone else joins me and catches them for the first time.
For SHAME, for SHAME, FOR SHAME on the lot of ya for failing to mention Bunuel before me. (Did I mention that I love you all? Because I do, if I didn’t mention it before….)
And for that matter, I don’t think anyone has mentioned Orson Welles so far in this thread either…..Correct me if I’m wrong.
“while they have some visual stylization that could be fairly equated to a sit-com television production,”
I mean, if I’m going to disagree with you, it’s lucky to go along the ‘Actually, Bunuel is BETTER than your rave review!’, but seriously, no, Bunuel’s craft is so much better than television production. The only place I see his stuff get generic is during his Mexican melodrama era, which I think is the era where he decided he simply wanted to eat.
Orson Welles is overrated. >:D
That Obscure Object of Desire shouldn’t be something to aspire to.
You should just desire what you desire.
I don’t really get it – what is a meme?
Mubi needs to deal with its meme addiction. Is there a twelve-step for that?
It’s not an addiction, Matt — let us play! :)
Step # 1: admit you have a problem :)
Repent, Uli, the end is nigh.
I have an old friend who is an avid record collector (reaching all the way back to very old recording cylinders) to whom I put this question in the wake of the first several pages of this discussion— “what if you were showing your collection to someone and their reaction was telling you you ought to focus on more ‘accessible’ music?”
His response: “I’d tell them to get the fuck out of my basement.”
^ LOL That’s the way! :D
then can we end this thread finally?? it’s gonna be a long summer……
charlesdegaulle/renault/piscesrising/marsinaries — if u don’t like it here get the fuck out
You don’t like me Ruby, not that I care, but I think you’ve made your point. I get it.
ok possibly i shouldn’t have been so blunt (don’t wanna give jazz a stroke) but it’s your own insecurities that are dogging u, not us
Sure, everyone has insecurities, including me. It’s called human nature, but I don’t see how perhaps having the audacity to bring the current state of cinema appreciation into question is entirely the result of my own insecurities. You may disagree with me, and I’d be happy to agree to disagree, but…
Mars – it’s just that most of us feel that a lot of your assumptions are wrong. But instead of defending them, you seem to just restate them over and over. I don’t think you’re a troll, but it is kind of frustrating to argue with you because you’re remarkably impervious to counterargument.
Personally I think this whole grand ejaculation of opinions could have been avoided had the following comment by Wu Yong been taken to heart:
“I would also like to be shown one person who enjoys supposed ‘obscure’ films that is willing to discuss, but actively hopes they don’t gain popularity.”
I think only a tiny remnant of complete twits with narcissistic issues would remain, an exception that proves the rule, no?
Perhaps you’re right Lenin:
But sometimes I just don’t think the right kind of efforts are being made to bring obscure filmmakers like many that have been mentioned in this thread to a wider audience. Equally I don’t think it helps the cause of cinema when factors unrelated to what’s actually on the screen factor into one’s judgement of a film, and this definitely does occur, and this isn’t necessarily an issue relating exclusively to obscure films. In any case, there’s nothing wrong with liking which ever films one likes, but I think some people could be courteous to not jump to conclusions and assume anyone who disagrees with them on a certain film is a philistine. Also, some films are boring. Which films isn’t the point in this context, but if guys like Bergman, Jean-Pierre Melville, Rivette, and whoever else can say in interviews they found a given film to be a bore so can people on Mubi. I know I’m sounding insecure here, and there probably is some insecurity creeping in, but that’s how I feel. Why is it okay to simply say a Tarantino film is crap without backing up your claim while if someone says they were bored stiff by a Hong Sang-Soo film they have to intelligently back up their claim unless they want to be labeled a philistine? Mind you, I don’t care for Tarantino at all. I’m just pointing out a double standard. I think art-house and mainstream should be held to the same standard, because it is after all the same medium. Art film isn’t a genre or even in its own medium in spite of what many small-minded Anglo-Saxon intellectuals, such as Mark Betz, like to think.
But sometimes I just don’t think the right kind of efforts are being made to bring obscure filmmakers like many that have been mentioned in this thread to a wider audience.
But you don’t like the World Cup threads or lists that talk about obscure films? I actually think the site does a pretty good job of promoting obscure films. Now, if you’re referring to non-mainstream films that could reach a wider audience, I think some pooh-pooh these films and those who like them—to some degree. I don’t think newbies who are enthusiastic about these films should be chastised or put-down because they like these films. (But I also don’t feel like people should be put down for their tastes in films, period.) We agree here. But do you really think this is prevalent on the site now? I don’t open every thread, but my sense is that it has gotten a lot better.
Equally I don’t think it helps the cause of cinema when factors unrelated to what’s actually on the screen factor into one’s judgement of a film, and this definitely does occur, and this isn’t necessarily an issue relating exclusively to obscure films.
You mean sometimes people criticize or elevate a film for reasons that have little to do with the film’s merit? I agree that happens. But sometimes the criticism is warranted, too, right? And again, in terms of helping cinema, I actually think the site does a better job than you’re giving it credit for.
“But do you really think this is prevalent on the site now? I don’t open every thread, but my sense is that it has gotten a lot better.”
I agree with Jazz that the site has gotten better at creating a more open atmosphere and the hardcore attitude that Pisces is describing isn’t as acceptable on Mubi as it was a couple years ago.
Well, not counting Ruby’s recent “get-the-fuck-out-of-here” comments. ;)
i was paraphrasing matt ;)
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. this site is doing more to advance cinephilia than any site i know. it’s a godsend for people like us. i came here as a scorsese and hitchcock loving person and i’ve never felt anything but welcome. it’s in your head, marsinaries
I think this thread is quite interesting. Not because of what it’s about but as a window into the evolution of Charlesdegaulle. His style has changed and matured quite noticeably over the last few years, I think. He seems a lot more confident, and less defensive and unstable than before. The responses his threads are eliciting now are more measured and accomodating than a few years ago, by and large. I think we’re all heading in the right direction!
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.
Most people I speak to everyday have never heard of some of my favourite films. I do not like films more just because they are not well-known, or like things more that are popular. I just like what I like, I guess. But I have to admit that I would feel much more “cool” (I really don’t know how else to put it" saying that one of my favourite films was a Pasolini film or a Kieslowski short or something like that than just saying “Matilda”, but that’s not to say that I like one more than the other based on their obscurity or whatever. It sounds silly, but I think a lot of people do generally enjoy having their “own” films in a way. But I try not to think like that. Perhaps I should start spreading the word about any films that I watch that are rare.
Perhaps I should start spreading the word about any films that I watch that are rare.
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?
Otherwise you end up being a little like this guy….