It seems it’s partly due to definitions of enjoyment – and the problems with using such a narrow term to describe the process of watching a film – that such accusations are leveled. Must it always boil down to “enjoying” a film? And is that all that films really have to offer? It has the connotation of shutting off, of giving in to enjoyment, and of not allowing for other, and more complex, thoughts or emotions to enter into the picture. For me it’s a more multifaceted experience, perhaps because I think about films quite a bit, and believe that films, the act of making them, and the act of viewing them, can have important real-world implications. There are instances where I may not enjoy the experience of a particular film, but am drawn to it nonetheless, and may watch it again, because of the attendent connections that it brings about, be they in the context of art criticism, cinephelia or, yes, historical aura.
Certainly in daily conversation, I may tell someone that a certain film is one that I enjoy, when in fact it may have more meaning to me beyond that. It’s more of a simplification that I use to justify watching it, and maybe reading about it, writing about it, or discussing it in my free time. And certainly you could be quite right about people being deluded into liking a work, and that implies that they aren’t thinking freely or critically about it, or, like you’re saying, diminishing their scope in order to align themselves with it. This is a problem with spectatorship in so many arenas. But if they think they like it, I guess that means they like it; there may not be all that much of a difference. For me, like versus dislike is only part of the story, and if I find myself being corralled into a narrowing opinion by a work, I have to stop to reevaluate how I’m looking at it.
Don’t have much to add to this thread but my advice is to essentially avoid these people, or to avoid discussing films you like with them. Most of the time they will just assume you are pretentious and/or weird. It’s just a waste of time in my experience.
Yeah, it’s not a fruitful discussions. They are, to use the term, philistines.
In my experience, many if not most people firmly believe that the role of cinema is to passively entertain: that is, to provide the audience with a diversion in which they are not an active participant. They seem to react angrily when a film asks them to think about what they are seeing and genrate an opinion as to what, if anything, it means. I have no problem with that. If someone isn’t wiling to put in the effort (and it really is no effort at all the vast majority of the time) then they won’t reap the rewards. To accuse someone else of pretending to like something simply because they themselves did not is cowardly, however, and an indicator that their ideas are so weak they cannot coexist with anyone else’s.
People who truly like (or dislike) a film (or any other work of art) and are capable of expressing precisely why are a rare breed and a genuine treasure. People who sling mud are simply trying to hide their inability (or refusal, sadly) to go beyond a knee-jerk reaction behind an ad hominem attack.
It’s pure anti-intellectualism.
Another similar refrain is that viewers who assert liking certain films are deluded, by critics or arbiters of taste, into believing that they like a film when they don’t.
i never read critics’ opinions. i don’t really know why i would do that. i read one enthusistic review about times and winds once, but only after i was totally blown by it and wanted to read more ravished opinions about the film. if i am ever to read critics’ opinions, i guess it will be solely to reinforce my own opinion of a movie, i don’t like anyone telling me there is a garden where i see an empty place and there is barren land where i see an oasis. that must be very amateurish, but that’s the way it is. then, i don’t like that film criticism is self-referential, the associations are made primarily with other films and chunks of “mainstream” philosophy, not with books in a general manner, music, art. and that’s frustrating, cause i don’t like thinking about film as of an isolated citadel.
slow films are cool, i would have loved puiu’s aurora if it had been a slow movie without goal to the end, but alas.. even puiu fell into temptation.
Intellectual culture is just as narrowminded and unforgiving. It presents a relatively narrow spectrum of acceptable opinions and as long as you fall somewhere within it then you can say whatever you like. If you fall outside of it you are ridiculed, ostracized and afforded precious few mediums to deliver your message.
@ Chai Walla
That’s very perceptive and I think you’re right, part of the narrowness of the scope of “enjoy”. I “enjoy” Oldboy, I “enjoy” a Brakhage film and I “enjoy” Some Like It Hot. Someone could be confused how I could “enjoy” a film that they do not enjoy in one or another restricted sense.
@ Hellshocked
I agree, disagreeing thoughtfully with someone else’s taste for a film, in particular when it’s a strong taste, is really hard and rare.
@ Joks, Ari, and David Ehrenstein
I agree, but I’m also interested in why this happens. I don’t think it’s always bad faith. I think often people honestly can’t believe that someone else could like a film. So this is the explanation they come up with. I think they don’t see that the explanation is implausible due to their absolute inability to understand how someone could enjoy it (which might be due to their deficiencies as Hellshocked suggests in understanding exactly what it is they don’t like). In some cases I think it has to do with more admirable qualities, that they really do love and value other sorts of film.
I think it’s a way to shut-off… instead of being open to the possibility (GOD FORBID) that there are people who think differently than themselves, they prefer to think that you’re pretending, or that you are misguided in your enjoyment by critics. Voila! No thinking required, but also no true interaction with people that are any different from themselves. These are narrowminded individuals that you shouldn’t be hanging out with anyway.
What would these people say if you accused THEM of pretending to like what they like? Because I just couldn’t imagine ANYbody would be able to enjoy such mindless drivel!, etc.
I find myself really liking some slow movies and really hating others. I liked We Need To Talk About Kevin and Melancholia but I didn’t like The Tree Of Life. some movies are slow for reason but sometimes I have a feeling that some movies are slow for the sake of being slow (i don’t mean The Tree of Life). but I really don’t watch movies that are both slow and long. I don’t have the time or the nerves to watch them. my loss, I guess. when a movie takes 3 hours to tell the story that can be said in 2 – that is really irritating.
… and it’s not the slowness that makes the movie boring.
Blah and things and stuff and what? and so I was and then also otherwise and seriously. So anyway, here’s the deal: want to prove to me you enjoy something? Then just keep talking about it. Nobody continues to talk at length about what they don’t enjoy, yeh? Yeh.
Hai.
Arregato!
—DiB
I will say, when you expect to like a film it’s easier to like it than when you expect to hate it. That does color your opinion on first viewing, but less so on repeated viewings.
But, other than that, I don’t think many people pretend to like a film when they hate it. Or at least, that happens far less often than people accuse people of doing it.
I think it’s the same way people respond to vegans. When somebody says “I am a vegan”, people automatically assume they are attacking them for not being vegan. So when somebody says “I like this art film”, people who don’t like art films assume they are being called stupid, and go into defense mode.
Devil’s Advocate: I wish I had a link, but studies have been done on this. People are much more susceptible to “taste authorities” then they are aware of- even people with “refined taste.” We are very very social animals and social concerns are ingrained in all of us. The good thing is that both the “philistines” and those with more discerning taste (cough cough mubi cough) are susceptible to taste authorities. So we are equal in that. Also, people are very susceptible to defining oneself AGAINST (it turns out that having a sibling to define oneself against is a much stronger influence than parents) Many times when one is a fan of either conventional films or “art” films, one hardens one position when confronted with the other type of film. One can see many art films confining themselves to what is generally understood to be the acceptable parameters of art cinema, or its traditions- It may be sincere expression, or it might be “choosing sides”. This is the tribal side of the human brain. So when someone declares you only like slow films because you feel you are “supposed to,” they are most likely partially correct, but it almost certainly correct that they like what they like for similar reasons. So next time just say you only like what you like because you are following some authority (like a critic, or what a famous director says is a great movie), just say “maybe you are right. Still, I like what I like.”
As for me, I like everything Scorsese says is great, unless Quentin Tarantino says its great, then I hate it. EDIT- ok that’s a joke, but I do remember watching Renoir’s “The River” 2 and half times because Scorsese said it was great! I thought it was a bad movie! What an idiot!Great response, Two Plus Two! (can I call you Four?). You’re probably right about that, to a degree… but even if you are influenced in your likes by social factors, that still doesn’t mean you’re pretending. The word pretending is a bit cynical.
Jimmy- Yes, “pretending” is out of line.
@ Jirin
So, do you ever intentionally avoid hearing discussion of a film before seeing it in order not to have your perception of it influenced? Lately I’ve been more sensitive to that happening, and thus try to see it first before I learn what other people are saying about it.
Also, what you said about many people’s response to vegans is quite true!
Building on what 2+2 said, I do think people are influenced by “taste authorities”—especially those who want to be part of the cultural elite and care about being part of this group. The word “pretending” seems a bit strong, but I would say that people do exaggerate how much they like or dislike something depending on the who thinks highly of the film.
Having said that, what does one do with this information? For one thing, knowing who is being completely honest and genuine is extremely difficult to guage; for another thing, does knowing this really matter? I mean, if someone isn’t totally honest—i.e., if they’re “pretending”—what difference does it make? I guess this kind of person (if you know they’re poseur) can be annoying, but on a forum like this, ignoring or not letting these comments/individuals bother you isn’t so difficult. That’s my two cents, anyway.
>>I do remember watching Renoir’s “The River” 2 and half times because Scorsese said it was great! I thought it was a bad movie! What an idiot!<<
That happened to me too, but with Duel in the Sun. I’ve since taken his recommendations with more of a grain of salt.
Jazz, you should respect my taste authority more and like what I tell you to like.
Sometimes I pretend to not like Godard (even though I do) because I don’t want to fit in with Mubi folk.
I believe in giving any film I watch some time to sink in. Several times a film may not be enjoyable as soon as you have finished watching it but it will remain in your subconscious for some reason. When recollecting such a film after some time(say, a few weeks) if that good feeling persists at the back of your mind then you can be rest assured that you have been rewarded. So, I suggest people who think others pretentious for liking some film to have patience. More often than not, you will find something that was aesthetically pleasing about it which was not immediately evident.
“… and it’s not the slowness that makes the movie boring.”
I agree with that totally. It’s suckiness mixed with slowness that creates boredom.
Maybe there are several explanations for someone enjoying a film, rather than just pretending:
“That happened to me too, but with Duel in the Sun”
You’re crazy, Brad. Duel in the Sun is an amazing film.
Scorsese thought so too, but I thought it couldn’t have been more of a schmaltsy mess.
“Having said that, what does one do with this information?”
Nuthin’. We do not develop our taste/judgement in a vacuum, not do we later experience films in a vacuum. Romantic individualism in aesthetic judgements is something of a hoax. However, if, I dunno, David Ehrenstein says a film is good, so I go to see it and end up liking it, then obviously David has had an impact I my relationship to the film . . . but that’s not necessarily the same thing as me liking the film simply BECAUSE David said it was good.
What the person who accuses you of “pretending to like” a work it saying is “I can’t see the value in the work, therefore there must not be any value.”
I didn’t even know he liked it. More props to him! Yeah, he has good taste though. But why the hell would anyone like something just because someone they like liked it? Makes no sense to me.
>>But why the hell would anyone like something just because someone they like liked it.<<
People generally don’t, but just as we take each other’s recommendations on films to check out, it also makes sense to do so with filmmakers you respect (although results can vary.)
@Ari
Jazz, you should respect my taste authority more and like what I tell you to like.
What the heck? It’s a new year, so I’m open. Tell me what I should like? :)
Kingofpain said, Maybe there are several explanations for someone enjoying a film, rather than just pretending:
FWIW, for me, films are often enjoyable or not enjoyable because of my personal tastes, interests, etc. But some excellent films fall outside of my personal tastes, interests, etc. Since I appreciate and “enjoy” excellent films in general, you could say I enjoy these films, but don’t enjoy them at the same time—if that makes any sense. What I’m saying is that sometimes you can truly respect and appreciate a film, even though it has qualities that you don’t easily enjoy (e.g., subject or genre may not interest you, etc.). In that case, one could genuinely “like” the film without really “liking” it. :)
Aaron Garrett
This may have been discussed before, but I find it interesting that when people do not see the aesthetic value in something, in particular in a slow or difficult or unpleasant film, they assume that the person who asserts that they enjoy the film must be pretending to like the film (normally in order to seem like they have good taste). They seem to believe that no one could possibly enjoy the film and so they assume the person who testifies to enjoying it must be pretending. You see this all the time in Netflix reviews of art films. The idea that others must be pretending to enjoy a slow or difficult film or even a film I don’t like, seems bizarre to me and an unlikely hypothesis in most cases. Take slow films. I like all sorts of slow things as do many other people. I like a slow massage, a slow walk, a slow meal. So why wouldn’t I enjoy a slow film? Now you may not enjoy a slow film — fine. But what interests me is the common refrain that I must be pretending to enjoy it and that I don’t assume someone who disagrees with me is pretending in many other areas — for example politics or even taste in wine.
Another similar refrain is that viewers who assert liking certain films are deluded, by critics or arbiters of taste, into believing that they like a film when they don’t. This is possible, but I think a more likely explanation in these cases is that the viewer does like elements of the film, reinforced by the critic, and ignores other elements. Then on reflection they come to see that they had a lopsided view of the artwork. But I don’t really think this is pretending either. It’s more like when you are caught up in a thriller and then on reflection see all sorts of holes in the plot. I’ve certainly experienced this.
I’ve been thinking about this awhile and have been meaning to write an essay on it. Anyone have any thoughts about this?