It’s not cool to be mainstream.
Anyway, I think part of the reason is that so much of mainstream cinema is rather disposable and it’s easy to just equate mainstream classics with disposability. If it’s so easy to understand that many people like it, what good can it be? Also, I think that many people genuinely don’t like some of those films.
This thread is very similar to your rossi thread asking almost the same thing – what gives?
If it’s so easy to understand that many people like it, what good can it be? Also, I think that many people genuinely don’t like some of those films.
My posts keep getting eaten up. What I meant to ask is why being anti-mainstream seems so much more pronounced among cinephiles than among music connoisseurs.
My point is that if The Godfather was an hour longer, actually in Italian, and not a commercial success, I’m sure it would be more appreciated by the most ardent cinephiles, the same way 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days would have less hate if it hadn’t won the Palme d’or.
Take The White Album, for example, which is as mainstream within the realm of music as The Godfather is in cinema. The White Album seems to be widely embraced by casual listeners and connoisseurs alike, and it doesn’t get ripped on for being mainstream. I can’t think of a film equally mainstream that is as widely embraced by cinephiles across the board. I’m sure The White Album has its detractors, but the general consensus among the connoisseurs is that it’s great. I can’t think of an equally mainstream film that receives a similar level of lover among cinephiles.
Most of the cinephiles that i know of would say that the godfather and clockwork orange are great, and honestly i wouldn’t take anyone seriously if they openly denounced those films in the first place, you may not like the film but you cannot state that it is not important or (UGGGGGHHH!!!) “over rated” as they have very little or very closed off standards as to what classifies a film as important.
if you are running into a lot of those types of people i say just ignore them as they seem like people that are desperately trying to find something as obscure as possible so they can nurse they superiority complex above other people.
I think every single thing Rossi has said on this thread is an utter falsity.
I’m not denouncing the films myself. I’m just making an observation of what I have seen.
Into:
Just because it seems like a falsity from your vantage point doesn’t mean it’s a falsity from mine.
i never meant to imply you denounced the films yourself i apologise if you felt that. i don’t understand the statement afterward though.
First off, are either the thread title position or the corrected OP position in fact true?
Fuffcans:
The second statement was directed at Into peripheral vision.
no not at all. As i said in my original post many of my friends who would count themselves as serious movie watchers don’t display that type of behavior you have elitists in all circles of art that won’t give the time of day to anything but the most obscure examples of art and use that obscurity as a chief reason for its superiority over other entries into its form of art.
if they choose to discount a film (a truly important one like say the godfather or 2001 space odyssey) just because it is “popular” then i don’t see any value in their opinion as i don’t see that as proper grounds to dismiss an important work of art.
@Renault
If your notion of the typical cinephile primarily comes from the posters on this site, then I can understand your perception. However, my guess is that most cinephiles beyond this site embrace those “mainstream” classics that you mention. This site happens to have several very vocal individuals with a specific agenda—namely, to promote certain films and filmmakers that they feel are overlooked. Sometimes negative comments towards the accepted classics sometimes accompany the promotion of these overlooked films and filmmakers. Maybe people make these comments in order to draw more attention to these lesser films; maybe the individuals genuinely believe some of the classics aren’t so great or maybe the reason is a combination of the two. Whatever the case may be, I think the notion that cinephiles are anti-mainstream stems primarily from a vocal minority on this site. I’d guess there are quite a bit of people here who like great mainstream films, and I’m even more confident that cinephiles beyond don’t have an anti-mainstream bias—at least towards the accepted great mainstream films.
Cinema is probably the least pure of all arts since there is a producer telling the directors what they can and what they can’t do, and because the outcome depends on a big cast and crew. This is why there is such difference between mainstream and obscure films. When you make a film you spend millions of dollars; money that no one wants to lose, so it’s harder to take risks.
Writer lose nothing (time, perhaps), and a band can’t lose more than a few thousand dollars if their CD isn’t succesful.
oh i see for some reason the last time i looked i only saw your posts in the forum now i can see everyone else
At three hours, The Godfather is long enough.
Jazz might be on to something. I think there is a tendency to overreact to accepted classics when you feel that a more obscure director is being slighted. In that case, I usually feel that it’s simply more effective to highlight what you love about the obscure directors, rather than denigrating canon films.
Well Nathan:
They don’t seem to denigrate all canon films just the mainstream ones like The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, and A Clockwork Orange, films the average American has probably heard of. The vast majority of canon films I’d say only cinephiles are familiar with and those films don’t seem to get denigrated for being popular. If you went into a mall in Iowa to survey 500 people on whether they’ve heard of The Exterminating Angel or 2 or 3 Things I know About her, you could have a success rate of 0/500. My point is that mainstream films tend to be denigrated not canon films at large. Canon and mainstream are not necessarily the same thing.
I think your question is backwards, personally. You’ve probably spent too much time on film sites/with film snobs and haven’t gotten to know enough music snobs/literature snobs.
Perhaps Balder. You might be right.
Anyhow, when and where do you cut the chord between what is and what isn’t canon? One person’s canon may not be someone else’s. Does the canon include 200 films or 3000 films? Are films like The Power of Kangwon Province, Waiting for Happiness, and Sugisball canon? It depends on one person’s opinion.
Again, I think this has to do with the agenda and perspective of certain individuals on the site. These individuals seem to believe there is a bias towards Anglo-cinema—which would include a lot of mainstream (Hollywood) films, but exclude canon films from non-Anglo countries (although I recall that some of those films are not immune to the overrated charge).
Here’s something else to consider. Every online forum—film, music or whatever—has their own culture—which includes accepted “greats” and “targets” (i.e. individuals or works of art that people on the site tend to criticize). I’d bet that on these sites you would have a minority of individuals who do not like the more mainstream works. IN the past, the jazz sites I visited, you’d have the avant-garde guys bashing more mainstream musicians like Wynton Marsalis and the so-called Young Lions.
My point is that I don’t think saying that cinephiles seem to be anti-mainstream is very accurate (not when you consider the larger community of cinephiles).
I wouldn’t say this anti-mainstream sentiment is exclusive to mubi, many arthouse filmmakers share similar sentiments as do film critics like Jonathan Rosenbaum. I’m paraphrasing, but Rosenbaum essentially said his dislike of Bergman stemmed partially from the fact that he’s the poster of child of non-english language filmmakers embraced by those who don’t know much about foreign cinema.
I’m not sure what you mean by “cut the chord?”
I was asking how one divides the canon films and the non-canon films. It was a rhetorical question, because one person’s canon may not be another’s. Many people have a tendency to say a film is canon as if it were an objective fact and that’s not the case with any film.
For example, many people seem to dismiss criterion films at large for being canon, but I don’t think that’s true. There are films in the CC I think are great but that I don’t think of as being canon.
Renault – Are you referring to that op-ed he wrote after Bergman’s death? Ugh. I like Rosenbaum, but that was whack.
Anyway, maybe canon was too broad a term. AFI type movies?
-What I meant to ask is why being anti-mainstream seems so much more pronounced among cinephiles than among music connoisseurs.
Not true — I live with someone who is totally off the beaten path music-wise. There are lots of anti-mainstream music lovers, you just have to know where to find them. Just like the cinephiles.
I guess 99% of my exposure to cinephilia has come from this site, but I do agree with Renault… it definitely seems that mainstream-bashing is much more prevalent in the film community… not to say that it’s not prevalent in the music community. I think this is because of money – as Santropez pointed out, a mainstream film with a million dollar budget is gonna take far fewer risks than a white album or a Crime and Punishment. I think there’s a far wider discrepancy between mainstream and non-mainstream films than there is between mainstream and non-mainstream music or literature.
Also, one thing people should take note of is the fact that cinephilia as we know it today is predicated on a disposal of the mainstream. Bazin and Godard, the poster children of modern cinephilia, predicated their work on a denunciation of mainstream, conventional cinema, and the acknowledgment of film as an art form was in itself a reaction the mainstream. Such a revolt wasn’t exactly prevalent in the music and lit communities.
Renault2011
inherently anti-mainstream* Sorry
Most music and lit connoisseurs acknowledge the importance of The Beatles, Hendrix, Bob Dylan, Miles Davis, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. and in the case of lit buffs, they all recognize importance Dickens, Joyce, Dostoevsky and whoever else, but cinephilia, on the other hand, seems predicated on denouncing anything mildly mainstream that has garnered the attention of the lass passionate film viewer (i.e. most cinephiles always seem to have to point out that The Godfather, Pulp Fiction, A Clockwork Orange, Apocalypse Now, etc., I think you get the point, are not as great as people say they are) whereas in music and literature, the “greats” are still respected by even the most ardent of connoisseurs. It simply seems that cinephilia is more inherently anti mainstream than the love of other art forms like the ones I mentioned.
Music connoisseur: The Beatles and Zeppelin are great, but you should check out these other artists, as well, you might like
Cinephile: The Godfather and A Clockwork Orange are overrated. Why do people keep bringing up those films. They’re mainstream dude. The Godfather’s a product of Hollywood. Pedro Costa’s so much better