I think a lot of the meaning of the film lies in Marquis De Sade’s intentions in his original work as David K outlined in his comment. The inclusion of the Republic of Salo, however, is Pasolini’s own personal comment on Fascism. Running through the film is a metaphor for the effects of Fascism on society.
Whether or not you think Salo is a great film, it is still an important film. For that, it is worth seeing. Easy Rider, in my honest opinion, is not an especially great film. But because of its place in both sixties counter-culture and film history, I consider it to be an important film. There were a lot of things that were gained from that film and as such it changed somewhat the face of film.
I’ve always been the kind of person that will watch pretty much anything for myself and it has been a long time since I was really offended by anything in a film or in art or in literature. Art is such a broad area to me and it encompasses such a wide array of feelings and convictions. But, then again, of course I am going to tell you to watch it – I recommend Cannibal Holocaust at least once to everyone as well.
Maybe this is on a different wave-length to everyone else, but for me the works of Cinema of Transgression (Nick Zedd, Richard Kern, etc.) benefit greatly from their amateur-ish technique.
WHERE EVIL DWELLS – Tommy Turner’s account of the “Satanic teen killer” Ricky Kasso is, at least to me, partially disturbing because of the do-it-yourself aesthetic. It, at times, resembles some kind of strange documentary account of depraved teenagers.
Naked Lunch, David Cronenberg (The combination of Burroughs and Cronenberg excites me greatly, and the result is two minds differing philosophies yet amazingly in sync)
Oldboy, Park Chan-wook (Violent, dark and stylish; Chan-wook’s second film in his vengeance trilogy is so lovingly and powerfully put together. Plus, it is just so damn entertaining)
L’Avventura, Michelangelo Antonioni (There is just so much to love in this film’s characters and photography and mood; it is the perfect example of why I love Italian cinema)
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Terry Gilliam (As a huge fan of Hunter S. Thompson’s writing, I feel a similar feeling towards Fear and Loathing as towards Naked Lunch. It is quite simply a pitch-perfect adaptation of his seminal work. From a filmmaking point of view, it’s relentless style loudly proclaims the magic of cinema)
Requiem for a Dream, Darren Aronofsky (It seems a great deal of people dislike this film simply because it is so depressing, but that emotional resonance is one of the reasons it is such a powerful film)
Pulp Fiction, Quentin Tarantino (An enduringly complex work. Far more behind it than just cool dialogue and a groovy soundtrack)
Yi-yi, Edward Yang (One of the saddest/funniest films ever made. I really don’t know what to say beyond that it is just simply beautiful)
Head-on, Fatih Akin (An example of the kind of dysfunctional love stories that I seem to seek out more than anything else)
Dolls, Takeshi Kitano (I never used to think it was Kitano’s best film at all, but simply my favourite film. Now the notion of best film – as most representative of form and his vision – seems irrelevant. There’s not a lot of talking in Dolls, but the images say it all)
The Lower Depths, Jean Renoir (Even though I love Rules of the Game, it’s Renoir’s adaptation of the Lower Depths that stays in my mind; not least because of Louis Jouvet’s amazing performance as The Baron)
I find it hard to number them, so I don’t think I will even try.
I always found this interesting also. Not to sound at all sexist, but I definitely understood in my years in the video game world why women were few and far between. But with film, it has always been harder to explain. There is definitely a female presence in scholarship, but for some reason not so much in just general enthusiasts.
Maybe it is just me, but I honestly don’t see why Shane Meadows is so highly considered.
His films bore me to no end. I wasn’t even able to make it 20 minutes into Dead Man’s Shoes and, no, before you ask, I am not easily bored. Not in the slightest. I am a big fan of directors like Jarmusch and Wong Kar-Wai, so I have seen my fair share of long shots in which almost nothing seems to happen.
I don’t know what it is about Meadows though. His films just make me angry.
The need to make a distinction between what is good and what you personally like is somewhat pretentious and stems from a fear of being perceived as unintelligent or uncultured. Akin to the use of phrases such as “guilty pleasure” or “so bad it’s good”.
When you say “I don’t like it, but I can appreciate it’s a good film” or “It’s a bad film, but I like it”, it is in essence a compromise. It’s sitting on the metaphorical fence. You can express your honest opinion about a film and at the same time not fall too far from the favour of the critical masses.
It’s something of a fallacy though, because it assumes that objectivity is possible in film criticism. Which is but an illusion because as soon as you experience a film, you have a certain personal or emotional stake in it and that goes a way to shattering any chance of objectively viewing the film.
It’s also hard to believe you truly did appreciate a film whilst not enjoying it. If one really “appreciated” a film, it’s hard to believe that that appreciation would not only add to the enjoyment of the film. Supposed “objective” technical points like framing, assuming you are educated in film, should excite you in the same way that a solid and technically flawless car excites a car enthusiast.
I do however believe that one must be able to explain why they found a film “good” or “bad” in a clear and articulate manner. Needless to say, there are certain people I would more readily listen to on the subject of film and whose opinions I would hold in higher regard, but only until I am able to see the film for myself and then the only opinion that truly counts is my own. It doesn’t mean that opinions can’t change the more I am able to discover from a film, but in the end it all comes down to merely opinion.
As a post-script, it’s important to remember that even techniques they teach at film schools or in text books are not without their exceptions. The 180 degree rule, the thirty degree rule, there are always examples where these age-old rules have been broken to great effect. As in all art, this lack of a definite “right way” of doing things makes grading on a truly technical basis subjective in its own way.
>That doesn’t mean that anyone should accord Rambo the same consideration, because we who care about cinema can all agree that Rambo is junk, right?
That’s a matter of education, in my opinion. As I was saying before, the more you learn about cinema (and one obvious way to learn about cinema is to simply watch many films), the more you notice and appreciate elements such as story structure and framing and pace, the more you enjoy the film.
It’s still a matter of subjectivity in my mind. It doesn’t make Stalker necessarily a better film than Rambo in all eyes and it doesn’t make one opinion more valuable than another. Namely because as much as you know about cinema and as strongly as you believe Stalker to be a better film than Rambo, you’d have a hard time convincing the average person (assuming they are a Rambo fan) to reconsider how they see Rambo.
It goes without saying that you would take the advice of an educated, cinema-literate person over the advice of someone whose entire cinema experience is limited to American studio films in the last ten or twenty years. Just as you would go to a doctor for a medical diagnosis and not the cashier at your local convenience store. But where that metaphor fails is that in medicine (at least at diagnosis stage) there is a right answer and in cinema it’s merely a case of a more informed opinion.
Even in film criticism, scholars often disagree with each other on films with arguable artistic and cultural merit. Kael was especially harsh on Kubrick. A number of the critics on Sight and Sound’s polls are not so impressed by Citizen Kane. Joel David named two 70s American porn films on his 2002 top ten and went so far to say they were both better than Citizen Kane.
But saying that intention is vitally important to the interpretation of a cinematic work is, in a way, dismissive of the critical work of those respectable scholars who write about such unlikely areas as gay porn and wrestling.
What they understand is that even what is unintentional has significance in a creative environment. There are important subconscious aspects to the filmmaking process that are thrown aside in debates of intention. Wisseau may not have explicitly intended to make a satire, but what he did do (albeit unintentionally) was filter Hollywood and the movies through his unique viewpoint.
On another note, matters of intention always seem to come up when discussing films such as The Room, which are perceived as “unintentionally bad”. But how come it’s a subject that’s rarely brought up when discussing films such as Rules of the Game or All About Eve? Out of all that has been written about those films, I’d be willing to bet that a great deal of it is merely conjecture and not representative of the director’s intentions. We seem to allow ourselves critical license when it comes to safe works such as those, but not when it comes to questionable films such as The Room. And don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that Rules of the Game or All About Eve were unintentional flukes. I’m just saying that critics tend to get a little carried away with symbolism.
Both directors were great professionals and it’s easy to believe they intended more than what is superficially going on in those films, but at the same time, criticism is based solely on the critic’s personal interpretation (that interpretation may encompass the director’s past works also) and there is no way of knowing a director’s true intention other than what you can gather from the film itself.
I actually agree wholeheartedly with you about the high unlikeliness of fluking truly profound structure.
I wasn’t actually talking about flukes on a grand scale though. I was talking on a much smaller scale.
For example, the scene in Psycho where Marion arrives at the Bates motel. I’ve heard some people say that the semi-circular motions of the windshield wipers both symbolise and foreshadow the infamous shower scene, the wipers moving in a way similar to that of Bates wielding the knife.
Hitchcock was a very intelligent man and that may have been exactly his intention, but there’s a high chance it was just a coincidence.
That’s along the lines of what I was saying with rules such as the 180 degree line. Every film rule you are taught at the most basic level, you later learn when and how you can manipulate in order to achieve what it is you want to achieve. As Robert McKee wrote in Story, it’s about “principles, not rules.” And I paraphrase: Inexperienced writers break obey the rules, unschooled writers break the rules, artists master the form.
McKee is coming from a place of creation rather than criticism, but what he has to say about rules being fluid and about knowing when you should break a rule and when you should keep to a rule has relevance here. You can’t construct a definitive rule system for grading films objectively when the boundaries are constantly shifting.
I see people here use the term “guilty pleasure” to refer to films that appeal to their base instincts rather than their intellect. The problem I have with such a statement is it feels like you are taking the joy out of cinema. Shouldn’t you be getting the same giddy excitement, the same instinctual/emotional response, from Sans Soleil that you are getting from Robocop? If all I got from Sans Soleil was a purely abstract and dull intellectual response, I couldn’t embrace it as a great film. I love Sans Soleil and Sansho the Bailiff and L’Avventura because they are wonderfully exciting to me. They elicit a child-like joy. Provided you are film-literate, a great film should be like that. It should be as enjoyable an experience to you as Top Gun is to any guy off the street.
What do you get from Top Gun that you can’t get from Sansho? Why is there a need to resort to films you admit are bad for enjoyment you can’t seem to get from films you believe to be good? I don’t mean that in a mean way and I know everyone here is here because they love cinema, but it’s a question that needs to be asked.
That’s why I find it so hard to separate what I like from what is great. A script like that of Casablanca with its perfect structure, that part of it, the traditionally technical and intellectual aspect of it, excites me in the same way that a car enthusiast is excited by a solidly built car. The technical aspect of filmmaking is a major part of my enjoyment. So when people say they appreciate something and yet don’t like it, I find that really hard to believe. I don’t see how you could truly appreciate something without enjoying it. True appreciation should come with at least some giddy schoolgirl excitement.
As a post-script, I enjoy both Robocop and Top Gun. A great film can be intellectual, kinetic, visually dense, technical, static, real, fantastical, etc, etc. But it all comes down to enjoyment. At least for me.
As a case study, what about a film like Piranha? It was one of my favourite films of the year. I know it must have looked strange among the other films on my end-of-year list, but I believe it to be a good film. The reason? It was a pitch-perfect throwback to 70s/80s exploitation films, but without the necessarily self-conscious visual flourishes such as artificial film grain which are often used to signify such an endeavour. And also without the blatant contempt most films of this type seem to have for those exploitation films of old (believing wrongly that the best way to replicate those films is to make a film so intentionally bad, forgetting that people like Ed Wood truly believed they were making great films and that’s what sets them apart from modern retreads). It manages to be funny intentionally because it’s clear it never takes itself too seriously, but at the same time it takes itself seriously enough to work as an honest throwback.
I mention Piranha because surely if we were to put aside personal preferences and look at a film such as Piranha it could be considered a good film according to your criteria. It was clearly about exploitation and recreating the exploitation films of old was obviously its objective. And for the reasons above, I think it succeeded.
Somehow, though, I don’t think everyone will agree with me on that.
Maybe I just have unusually broad tastes. But I find it hard to appreciate a film I don’t like and it’s not often that I dislike a film for personal reasons. I like films with themes of memory and nostalgia, to list two common themes among my favourite films, and that may be a reason I click with a film better than another equally well made film, but it still comes down to how effective the film was in communicating these themes.
On another note, how do you feel about Last Temptation of Christ?
But why is The Princess Diaries objectively not a great film? Are you talking intersubjectively? Based on some consensus of opinion among the upper echelons of film criticism?
Films I don’t like, but I think are good: not fun and entertaining, but satisfying and fulfilling—especially on an intellectual, emotional and spiritual level
Films that I like, but don’t think are good: fun and entertaining, but not satisfying and fulfilling—especially on an intellectual, emotional and spiritual level
Films that I don’t like and don’t think are good: not fun and entertaining and not satisfying and fulfilling, etc.
Films that I like and think are good: fun and entertaing and satisfying and fulfilling, etc.
The two problems I personally have with this method of breaking down films is it supposes firstly that a film must be intellectually, emotionally, spiritually important to be a great film and forgets that cinema is a visual medium. There’s a lot going on underneath Playtime for example, but where it was most assuredly groundbreaking was in its incredible aural and visual density.
And secondly it supposes that when a film is intellectually, emotionally, spiritually important, in a way that resonates deeply within you, it’s not by its very nature fun and enjoyable. When a film satisfies me on an intellectual, emotional or spiritual level it’s very hard for me to separate that feeling from enjoyment.
At least for me, it’s hard to divorce intellectual satisfaction from genuine enjoyment. When I am truly challenged by a work, it’s a very exciting thing.
You don’t think this could fall under the “satisfying and fulfilling…” descriptor?
Possibly. But for me it’s purely enjoyment. Playtime is probably not a great example. A better example would be something like Armageddon. I refuse to believe it is a bad film precisely because its failure on a narrative/dramatic level is unimportant when you consider the work visually.
I hear you, and I tried to respond to this in the post above Neil’s. What did you find disatisfying about my take on this?
There’s nothing wrong with your post at all. I was just talking about my personal experience. For the longest time I used to separate what I liked and what I believed to be good because I wasn’t entirely comfortable with the idea of putting Commando in the same category as Short Cuts, both films that I like, but both for entirely different reasons.
The turning point for me was that I realised there must be a reason I liked a film like Commando. If I didn’t think it was as good a film as Short Cuts, then what was it that appealed to me?
I think your method of determining a good film:
1)determine what the film is about; what it’s trying to do; and
2) determine if and how well it succeeds at expressing what it’s about and whether it achieves its objectives. The presence of some of these qualities can help us determine how well the film has succeeded: originality, cohesiveness, refinement, level of influence, timelessness, etc.
is good (minus the third point in this case), but for me it’s a better method for determining what I like about a film. Wheels on Meals has different objectives to Spirit of the Beehive and as such I enjoy them for different reasons.
Sorry, this might be a whole lot of extraneous information. Suffice to say, there’s nothing in your posts I directly want to dispute. This is just how I view films. When I try to think of a film I thought was good, but didn’t like, I can’t come up with anything.
David Gordon Green isn’t a sell-out. Both Pineapple Express and Your Highness were passion projects that he wanted to direct, and not for the money. As someone else has said already, he wants to make different types of films.
It’s not necessary, but I think knowledge of any kind will only enhance your viewing experience.
It depends on the director a lot too. If we’re talking about Godard, especially something like Pierrot Le Fou, it helps to have a thorough knowledge of cinema history and genre.
But if you have a thorough knowledge of cinema history, you can easily appreciate pretty much all cinema. Most directors tend to draw on cinematic influences for the most part, because it’s what they know, they’re cinephiles.
Seeing this topic, I was going to make the formalism argument myself, but I see its already been touched upon.
I, for one, love De Palma. But I’m also one who has never really believed in the “style over substance” argument. I guess that’s why I’ve never really had a problem with Michael Bay either.
I actually just watched Femme Fatale again two nights ago. To me, De Palma is a real cinephile’s director. That’s not to say if you don’t like De Palma, you aren’t a cinephile. That’s absurd. It’s just that part of me feels like if you aren’t enough aware of the camera, editing or well-versed in film technique, all you’re left with is an improbable two-bit thriller. The enjoyment is in the technique.
When I talk about that excellent one-take across the beach in Atonement, most people don’t know what I’m talking about because they aren’t all that aware of the cuts.
He knows what he’s doing. It’s no great secret that he likes to stir people. I don’t see how that makes him a moron. His work speaks to his intelligence. I guess you could call him a douchebag if you wanted to, but “moron” or “idiot” doesn’t make much sense to me.
It’s too easy to already get these TV shows. I don’t know what could be gained by Criterion re-releasing shows like The Wire.
Not to mention that most of the shows listed here are too long. Tanner ‘88 was 11 episodes, Fishing with John was 6 episodes, and Berlin Alexanderplatz is 14, but it’s pretty much one film in 14 parts.
The Wire has 5 seasons. I don’t really see Criterion releasing something that long. Freaks and Geeks maybe, but then there’s nothing wrong with the set that’s already out.
Angry Beavers does make me think though. How come Criterion have never released any animated works? Even just an eclipse set of Ralph Bakshi’s films would be great. Coonskin has had a really shady release history.
It’s pretty clear from the video that it’s just Von Trier talking out of his arse. And in fact, it sounds far less offensive in that context. There are people laughing during it for Christ’s sake.
I mean, is Cannes that boring this year? Are journalists really that starved for a story?
Am I the only one here who’s not even offended by what he said? Has anyone else actually gone to the Cannes page and seen the actual press conference? Seen the words coming out of his own mouth within context?
I think you need to before you make judgments, because the context is important and there’s a lot being left out in reporting.
Jason Solomons, chairman of the Film Critics’ Circle in London, said in Cannes that he supported the decision, and argued that organizers should have gone further.
“I think the film should have been thrown out as well,” he told Reuters.
Solomons said there was a tendency to look at the art not the artist, but that in this case the two things were inextricably bound.
This is also absurd, as are the requests that he apologise for his comments about Albert Speer. People who can’t separate the spectre of Nazism from Speer’s work or even Riefenstahl’s work don’t deserve to be film critics. It’s all in the name: “film critics”. They are there to critique films, not people.
One of the greatest examples, in my opinion, is Scorsese in Raging Bull.
I think when people talk about “breaking” a “rule” in film, it’s a little dramatic. These are only guidelines. Fundamentals. They are there so that people who don’t know what they are doing (most first-time filmmakers) are able to make something coherent. If you ignore the 180 degree rule, you risk confusing the audience or jarringly breaking the frame. The general public, most of whom are film-illiterate, won’t know why they are bothered, but it will bother them.
When you are Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese or Yasujiro Ozu, it’s no longer an issue.
Some directors don’t care at all. Same with the thirty degree rule. Directors like Takeshi Kitano often just cut from one straight on face to another. And then there are Godard’s jump cuts in Breathless. If one rejects the whole idea of continuity editing, it doesn’t even matter at all.
Wait. I don’t quite understand this. If you didn’t believe in “style over substance” I would think you DO have a problem with Bay.
Sorry, when I said the “style over substance” argument, I was referring to the use of “style over substance” as a term of derision, where “style” is considered less important than so-called “substance”.
Can I say something about the “two-bit thriller” remark? As well as Joks’ “trash” comment. One may not like the story, but I don’t think we call call this a “two-bit thriller” or at least not a typical thriller. What De Palma seems to be going for in this film is a lot different from his other thrillers I’ve seen—which are more conventional (at least films like Body Double and Dressed to Kill and Blow-Out—although maybe I need to watch them again for some underlying meaning.) At the very least it’s different and creative—if not completely successful. (I’m still not sure.)
I love everything about De Palma, including the stories. The “two bit thriller” remark was not my personal opinion. It’s just the common complaint of De Palma’s detractors, that he is trashy and cheap. I can see how someone could watch a film like Femme Fatale with its often ridiculous plotting or Raising Cain with its multiple personality disorder and baby-stealing, and conclude they are trashy thrillers. On the surface, at least, and for the most part your average person is unwilling to look further than that.
Are there no times when you think it didn’t work? Maybe in student shorts?
Yeah, but there are good and bad ways to do everything. Slow-motion, tracking shots, voice-over, etc. It’s all on a case-by-case basis. It’s not simple and logical like math. But I guess a lot of it has to do with experience. Nine out of every ten times a student film tries to break the 180 degree line for effect, it’s probably a failure. But then nine out of every ten student films are failures. Voice-over is a crutch, but plenty of great screenwriters have used VO to excellent effect. The more you know, I guess. You can’t really teach this stuff.
I had so much fun watching Unstoppable in the theatres last year. I don’t even care what anyone else thinks. I saw it twice. Haters can suck on my ballsack. I think it’s really important to have a varied and balanced film taste.
What is so great about this movie? over 3 years ago
I think a lot of the meaning of the film lies in Marquis De Sade’s intentions in his original work as David K outlined in his comment. The inclusion of the Republic of Salo, however, is Pasolini’s own personal comment on Fascism. Running through the film is a metaphor for the effects of Fascism on society.
Go to Comment
Should it be seen? over 3 years ago
Whether or not you think Salo is a great film, it is still an important film. For that, it is worth seeing. Easy Rider, in my honest opinion, is not an especially great film. But because of its place in both sixties counter-culture and film history, I consider it to be an important film. There were a lot of things that were gained from that film and as such it changed somewhat the face of film.
I’ve always been the kind of person that will watch pretty much anything for myself and it has been a long time since I was really offended by anything in a film or in art or in literature. Art is such a broad area to me and it encompasses such a wide array of feelings and convictions. But, then again, of course I am going to tell you to watch it – I recommend Cannibal Holocaust at least once to everyone as well.
Go to Comment
Films Where The Shortcoming of the Filmmaking Gives the Film Unintentional and Different Power over 3 years ago
Maybe this is on a different wave-length to everyone else, but for me the works of Cinema of Transgression (Nick Zedd, Richard Kern, etc.) benefit greatly from their amateur-ish technique.
WHERE EVIL DWELLS – Tommy Turner’s account of the “Satanic teen killer” Ricky Kasso is, at least to me, partially disturbing because of the do-it-yourself aesthetic. It, at times, resembles some kind of strange documentary account of depraved teenagers.
Go to Comment
What's your Top 10? over 3 years ago
Naked Lunch, David Cronenberg (The combination of Burroughs and Cronenberg excites me greatly, and the result is two minds differing philosophies yet amazingly in sync)
Oldboy, Park Chan-wook (Violent, dark and stylish; Chan-wook’s second film in his vengeance trilogy is so lovingly and powerfully put together. Plus, it is just so damn entertaining)
L’Avventura, Michelangelo Antonioni (There is just so much to love in this film’s characters and photography and mood; it is the perfect example of why I love Italian cinema)
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Terry Gilliam (As a huge fan of Hunter S. Thompson’s writing, I feel a similar feeling towards Fear and Loathing as towards Naked Lunch. It is quite simply a pitch-perfect adaptation of his seminal work. From a filmmaking point of view, it’s relentless style loudly proclaims the magic of cinema)
Requiem for a Dream, Darren Aronofsky (It seems a great deal of people dislike this film simply because it is so depressing, but that emotional resonance is one of the reasons it is such a powerful film)
Pulp Fiction, Quentin Tarantino (An enduringly complex work. Far more behind it than just cool dialogue and a groovy soundtrack)
Yi-yi, Edward Yang (One of the saddest/funniest films ever made. I really don’t know what to say beyond that it is just simply beautiful)
Head-on, Fatih Akin (An example of the kind of dysfunctional love stories that I seem to seek out more than anything else)
Dolls, Takeshi Kitano (I never used to think it was Kitano’s best film at all, but simply my favourite film. Now the notion of best film – as most representative of form and his vision – seems irrelevant. There’s not a lot of talking in Dolls, but the images say it all)
The Lower Depths, Jean Renoir (Even though I love Rules of the Game, it’s Renoir’s adaptation of the Lower Depths that stays in my mind; not least because of Louis Jouvet’s amazing performance as The Baron)
I find it hard to number them, so I don’t think I will even try.
Go to Comment
Cinephilia and Gender over 3 years ago
I always found this interesting also. Not to sound at all sexist, but I definitely understood in my years in the video game world why women were few and far between. But with film, it has always been harder to explain. There is definitely a female presence in scholarship, but for some reason not so much in just general enthusiasts.
Go to Comment
"Australia" as Advertising for Australia? over 3 years ago
If only Peter Weir had embarked on such a project. It would have been far better.
Go to Comment
Tatsuya Nakadai or Shintaru Katsu? over 3 years ago
Nakadai is a brilliant actor. But I love Katsu. Tough question, but in the end I’d rather just not change Kagemusha at all.
Go to Comment
Shane Meadows: anyone else think he is incredibly overrated? over 3 years ago
Maybe it is just me, but I honestly don’t see why Shane Meadows is so highly considered.
His films bore me to no end. I wasn’t even able to make it 20 minutes into Dead Man’s Shoes and, no, before you ask, I am not easily bored. Not in the slightest. I am a big fan of directors like Jarmusch and Wong Kar-Wai, so I have seen my fair share of long shots in which almost nothing seems to happen.
I don’t know what it is about Meadows though. His films just make me angry.
Go to Comment
A Matter to Settle: Is There a Difference Between Films You Like and Good Films? about 1 year ago
The need to make a distinction between what is good and what you personally like is somewhat pretentious and stems from a fear of being perceived as unintelligent or uncultured. Akin to the use of phrases such as “guilty pleasure” or “so bad it’s good”.
When you say “I don’t like it, but I can appreciate it’s a good film” or “It’s a bad film, but I like it”, it is in essence a compromise. It’s sitting on the metaphorical fence. You can express your honest opinion about a film and at the same time not fall too far from the favour of the critical masses.
It’s something of a fallacy though, because it assumes that objectivity is possible in film criticism. Which is but an illusion because as soon as you experience a film, you have a certain personal or emotional stake in it and that goes a way to shattering any chance of objectively viewing the film.
It’s also hard to believe you truly did appreciate a film whilst not enjoying it. If one really “appreciated” a film, it’s hard to believe that that appreciation would not only add to the enjoyment of the film. Supposed “objective” technical points like framing, assuming you are educated in film, should excite you in the same way that a solid and technically flawless car excites a car enthusiast.
I do however believe that one must be able to explain why they found a film “good” or “bad” in a clear and articulate manner. Needless to say, there are certain people I would more readily listen to on the subject of film and whose opinions I would hold in higher regard, but only until I am able to see the film for myself and then the only opinion that truly counts is my own. It doesn’t mean that opinions can’t change the more I am able to discover from a film, but in the end it all comes down to merely opinion.
Go to Comment
A Matter to Settle: Is There a Difference Between Films You Like and Good Films? about 1 year ago
As a post-script, it’s important to remember that even techniques they teach at film schools or in text books are not without their exceptions. The 180 degree rule, the thirty degree rule, there are always examples where these age-old rules have been broken to great effect. As in all art, this lack of a definite “right way” of doing things makes grading on a truly technical basis subjective in its own way.
Go to Comment
A Matter to Settle: Is There a Difference Between Films You Like and Good Films? about 1 year ago
>That doesn’t mean that anyone should accord Rambo the same consideration, because we who care about cinema can all agree that Rambo is junk, right?
That’s a matter of education, in my opinion. As I was saying before, the more you learn about cinema (and one obvious way to learn about cinema is to simply watch many films), the more you notice and appreciate elements such as story structure and framing and pace, the more you enjoy the film.
It’s still a matter of subjectivity in my mind. It doesn’t make Stalker necessarily a better film than Rambo in all eyes and it doesn’t make one opinion more valuable than another. Namely because as much as you know about cinema and as strongly as you believe Stalker to be a better film than Rambo, you’d have a hard time convincing the average person (assuming they are a Rambo fan) to reconsider how they see Rambo.
It goes without saying that you would take the advice of an educated, cinema-literate person over the advice of someone whose entire cinema experience is limited to American studio films in the last ten or twenty years. Just as you would go to a doctor for a medical diagnosis and not the cashier at your local convenience store. But where that metaphor fails is that in medicine (at least at diagnosis stage) there is a right answer and in cinema it’s merely a case of a more informed opinion.
Even in film criticism, scholars often disagree with each other on films with arguable artistic and cultural merit. Kael was especially harsh on Kubrick. A number of the critics on Sight and Sound’s polls are not so impressed by Citizen Kane. Joel David named two 70s American porn films on his 2002 top ten and went so far to say they were both better than Citizen Kane.
Go to Comment
The Importance of Intention about 1 year ago
But saying that intention is vitally important to the interpretation of a cinematic work is, in a way, dismissive of the critical work of those respectable scholars who write about such unlikely areas as gay porn and wrestling.
What they understand is that even what is unintentional has significance in a creative environment. There are important subconscious aspects to the filmmaking process that are thrown aside in debates of intention. Wisseau may not have explicitly intended to make a satire, but what he did do (albeit unintentionally) was filter Hollywood and the movies through his unique viewpoint.
On another note, matters of intention always seem to come up when discussing films such as The Room, which are perceived as “unintentionally bad”. But how come it’s a subject that’s rarely brought up when discussing films such as Rules of the Game or All About Eve? Out of all that has been written about those films, I’d be willing to bet that a great deal of it is merely conjecture and not representative of the director’s intentions. We seem to allow ourselves critical license when it comes to safe works such as those, but not when it comes to questionable films such as The Room. And don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that Rules of the Game or All About Eve were unintentional flukes. I’m just saying that critics tend to get a little carried away with symbolism.
Both directors were great professionals and it’s easy to believe they intended more than what is superficially going on in those films, but at the same time, criticism is based solely on the critic’s personal interpretation (that interpretation may encompass the director’s past works also) and there is no way of knowing a director’s true intention other than what you can gather from the film itself.
Go to Comment
The Importance of Intention about 1 year ago
@My Boat Concepción
I actually agree wholeheartedly with you about the high unlikeliness of fluking truly profound structure.
I wasn’t actually talking about flukes on a grand scale though. I was talking on a much smaller scale.
For example, the scene in Psycho where Marion arrives at the Bates motel. I’ve heard some people say that the semi-circular motions of the windshield wipers both symbolise and foreshadow the infamous shower scene, the wipers moving in a way similar to that of Bates wielding the knife.
Hitchcock was a very intelligent man and that may have been exactly his intention, but there’s a high chance it was just a coincidence.
Go to Comment
A Matter to Settle: Is There a Difference Between Films You Like and Good Films? about 1 year ago
That’s along the lines of what I was saying with rules such as the 180 degree line. Every film rule you are taught at the most basic level, you later learn when and how you can manipulate in order to achieve what it is you want to achieve. As Robert McKee wrote in Story, it’s about “principles, not rules.” And I paraphrase: Inexperienced writers break obey the rules, unschooled writers break the rules, artists master the form.
McKee is coming from a place of creation rather than criticism, but what he has to say about rules being fluid and about knowing when you should break a rule and when you should keep to a rule has relevance here. You can’t construct a definitive rule system for grading films objectively when the boundaries are constantly shifting.
I see people here use the term “guilty pleasure” to refer to films that appeal to their base instincts rather than their intellect. The problem I have with such a statement is it feels like you are taking the joy out of cinema. Shouldn’t you be getting the same giddy excitement, the same instinctual/emotional response, from Sans Soleil that you are getting from Robocop? If all I got from Sans Soleil was a purely abstract and dull intellectual response, I couldn’t embrace it as a great film. I love Sans Soleil and Sansho the Bailiff and L’Avventura because they are wonderfully exciting to me. They elicit a child-like joy. Provided you are film-literate, a great film should be like that. It should be as enjoyable an experience to you as Top Gun is to any guy off the street.
What do you get from Top Gun that you can’t get from Sansho? Why is there a need to resort to films you admit are bad for enjoyment you can’t seem to get from films you believe to be good? I don’t mean that in a mean way and I know everyone here is here because they love cinema, but it’s a question that needs to be asked.
That’s why I find it so hard to separate what I like from what is great. A script like that of Casablanca with its perfect structure, that part of it, the traditionally technical and intellectual aspect of it, excites me in the same way that a car enthusiast is excited by a solidly built car. The technical aspect of filmmaking is a major part of my enjoyment. So when people say they appreciate something and yet don’t like it, I find that really hard to believe. I don’t see how you could truly appreciate something without enjoying it. True appreciation should come with at least some giddy schoolgirl excitement.
As a post-script, I enjoy both Robocop and Top Gun. A great film can be intellectual, kinetic, visually dense, technical, static, real, fantastical, etc, etc. But it all comes down to enjoyment. At least for me.
Go to Comment
A Matter to Settle: Is There a Difference Between Films You Like and Good Films? about 1 year ago
As a case study, what about a film like Piranha? It was one of my favourite films of the year. I know it must have looked strange among the other films on my end-of-year list, but I believe it to be a good film. The reason? It was a pitch-perfect throwback to 70s/80s exploitation films, but without the necessarily self-conscious visual flourishes such as artificial film grain which are often used to signify such an endeavour. And also without the blatant contempt most films of this type seem to have for those exploitation films of old (believing wrongly that the best way to replicate those films is to make a film so intentionally bad, forgetting that people like Ed Wood truly believed they were making great films and that’s what sets them apart from modern retreads). It manages to be funny intentionally because it’s clear it never takes itself too seriously, but at the same time it takes itself seriously enough to work as an honest throwback.
I mention Piranha because surely if we were to put aside personal preferences and look at a film such as Piranha it could be considered a good film according to your criteria. It was clearly about exploitation and recreating the exploitation films of old was obviously its objective. And for the reasons above, I think it succeeded.
Somehow, though, I don’t think everyone will agree with me on that.
Maybe I just have unusually broad tastes. But I find it hard to appreciate a film I don’t like and it’s not often that I dislike a film for personal reasons. I like films with themes of memory and nostalgia, to list two common themes among my favourite films, and that may be a reason I click with a film better than another equally well made film, but it still comes down to how effective the film was in communicating these themes.
On another note, how do you feel about Last Temptation of Christ?
Go to Comment
A Matter to Settle: Is There a Difference Between Films You Like and Good Films? about 1 year ago
But why is The Princess Diaries objectively not a great film? Are you talking intersubjectively? Based on some consensus of opinion among the upper echelons of film criticism?
Go to Comment
A Matter to Settle: Is There a Difference Between Films You Like and Good Films? about 1 year ago
Films I don’t like, but I think are good: not fun and entertaining, but satisfying and fulfilling—especially on an intellectual, emotional and spiritual level
Films that I like, but don’t think are good: fun and entertaining, but not satisfying and fulfilling—especially on an intellectual, emotional and spiritual level
Films that I don’t like and don’t think are good: not fun and entertaining and not satisfying and fulfilling, etc.
Films that I like and think are good: fun and entertaing and satisfying and fulfilling, etc.
The two problems I personally have with this method of breaking down films is it supposes firstly that a film must be intellectually, emotionally, spiritually important to be a great film and forgets that cinema is a visual medium. There’s a lot going on underneath Playtime for example, but where it was most assuredly groundbreaking was in its incredible aural and visual density.
And secondly it supposes that when a film is intellectually, emotionally, spiritually important, in a way that resonates deeply within you, it’s not by its very nature fun and enjoyable. When a film satisfies me on an intellectual, emotional or spiritual level it’s very hard for me to separate that feeling from enjoyment.
At least for me, it’s hard to divorce intellectual satisfaction from genuine enjoyment. When I am truly challenged by a work, it’s a very exciting thing.
Go to Comment
A Matter to Settle: Is There a Difference Between Films You Like and Good Films? about 1 year ago
You don’t think this could fall under the “satisfying and fulfilling…” descriptor?
Possibly. But for me it’s purely enjoyment. Playtime is probably not a great example. A better example would be something like Armageddon. I refuse to believe it is a bad film precisely because its failure on a narrative/dramatic level is unimportant when you consider the work visually.
I hear you, and I tried to respond to this in the post above Neil’s. What did you find disatisfying about my take on this?
There’s nothing wrong with your post at all. I was just talking about my personal experience. For the longest time I used to separate what I liked and what I believed to be good because I wasn’t entirely comfortable with the idea of putting Commando in the same category as Short Cuts, both films that I like, but both for entirely different reasons.
The turning point for me was that I realised there must be a reason I liked a film like Commando. If I didn’t think it was as good a film as Short Cuts, then what was it that appealed to me?
I think your method of determining a good film:
1)determine what the film is about; what it’s trying to do; and
2) determine if and how well it succeeds at expressing what it’s about and whether it achieves its objectives. The presence of some of these qualities can help us determine how well the film has succeeded: originality, cohesiveness, refinement, level of influence, timelessness, etc.
is good (minus the third point in this case), but for me it’s a better method for determining what I like about a film. Wheels on Meals has different objectives to Spirit of the Beehive and as such I enjoy them for different reasons.
Sorry, this might be a whole lot of extraneous information. Suffice to say, there’s nothing in your posts I directly want to dispute. This is just how I view films. When I try to think of a film I thought was good, but didn’t like, I can’t come up with anything.
Go to Comment
How would people define a sell out, and do Bertolucci Milos Forman fit this definition? about 1 year ago
David Gordon Green isn’t a sell-out. Both Pineapple Express and Your Highness were passion projects that he wanted to direct, and not for the money. As someone else has said already, he wants to make different types of films.
Go to Comment
Is it necessary to have a thorough knowledge of art history in order to appreciate good cinema? about 1 year ago
It’s not necessary, but I think knowledge of any kind will only enhance your viewing experience.
It depends on the director a lot too. If we’re talking about Godard, especially something like Pierrot Le Fou, it helps to have a thorough knowledge of cinema history and genre.
But if you have a thorough knowledge of cinema history, you can easily appreciate pretty much all cinema. Most directors tend to draw on cinematic influences for the most part, because it’s what they know, they’re cinephiles.
Go to Comment
Femme Fatale (2002): Is the Absurd Plot Developments Justifiable? about 1 year ago
Seeing this topic, I was going to make the formalism argument myself, but I see its already been touched upon.
I, for one, love De Palma. But I’m also one who has never really believed in the “style over substance” argument. I guess that’s why I’ve never really had a problem with Michael Bay either.
I actually just watched Femme Fatale again two nights ago. To me, De Palma is a real cinephile’s director. That’s not to say if you don’t like De Palma, you aren’t a cinephile. That’s absurd. It’s just that part of me feels like if you aren’t enough aware of the camera, editing or well-versed in film technique, all you’re left with is an improbable two-bit thriller. The enjoyment is in the technique.
When I talk about that excellent one-take across the beach in Atonement, most people don’t know what I’m talking about because they aren’t all that aware of the cuts.
Go to Comment
Lars Von Trier - Moron or douchebag? about 1 year ago
He knows what he’s doing. It’s no great secret that he likes to stir people. I don’t see how that makes him a moron. His work speaks to his intelligence. I guess you could call him a douchebag if you wanted to, but “moron” or “idiot” doesn’t make much sense to me.
Go to Comment
African-American Cinema about 1 year ago
Even though it’s been mentioned a thousand times, Killer of Sheep is one of my favourite films. It’s quite simply perfect.
Go to Comment
SHOULD THE CRITERION COLLECTION INCLUDE TELEVISION SHOWS? about 1 year ago
It’s too easy to already get these TV shows. I don’t know what could be gained by Criterion re-releasing shows like The Wire.
Not to mention that most of the shows listed here are too long. Tanner ‘88 was 11 episodes, Fishing with John was 6 episodes, and Berlin Alexanderplatz is 14, but it’s pretty much one film in 14 parts.
The Wire has 5 seasons. I don’t really see Criterion releasing something that long. Freaks and Geeks maybe, but then there’s nothing wrong with the set that’s already out.
Angry Beavers does make me think though. How come Criterion have never released any animated works? Even just an eclipse set of Ralph Bakshi’s films would be great. Coonskin has had a really shady release history.
Go to Comment
Lars Von Trier - Moron or douchebag? about 1 year ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWFYcEtcew4
It’s pretty clear from the video that it’s just Von Trier talking out of his arse. And in fact, it sounds far less offensive in that context. There are people laughing during it for Christ’s sake.
I mean, is Cannes that boring this year? Are journalists really that starved for a story?
Go to Comment
Lars Von Trier - Moron or douchebag? about 1 year ago
Am I the only one here who’s not even offended by what he said? Has anyone else actually gone to the Cannes page and seen the actual press conference? Seen the words coming out of his own mouth within context?
I think you need to before you make judgments, because the context is important and there’s a lot being left out in reporting.
Jason Solomons, chairman of the Film Critics’ Circle in London, said in Cannes that he supported the decision, and argued that organizers should have gone further.
“I think the film should have been thrown out as well,” he told Reuters.
Solomons said there was a tendency to look at the art not the artist, but that in this case the two things were inextricably bound.
This is also absurd, as are the requests that he apologise for his comments about Albert Speer. People who can’t separate the spectre of Nazism from Speer’s work or even Riefenstahl’s work don’t deserve to be film critics. It’s all in the name: “film critics”. They are there to critique films, not people.
Go to Comment
The 180 Degree Rule about 1 year ago
One of the greatest examples, in my opinion, is Scorsese in Raging Bull.
I think when people talk about “breaking” a “rule” in film, it’s a little dramatic. These are only guidelines. Fundamentals. They are there so that people who don’t know what they are doing (most first-time filmmakers) are able to make something coherent. If you ignore the 180 degree rule, you risk confusing the audience or jarringly breaking the frame. The general public, most of whom are film-illiterate, won’t know why they are bothered, but it will bother them.
When you are Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese or Yasujiro Ozu, it’s no longer an issue.
Some directors don’t care at all. Same with the thirty degree rule. Directors like Takeshi Kitano often just cut from one straight on face to another. And then there are Godard’s jump cuts in Breathless. If one rejects the whole idea of continuity editing, it doesn’t even matter at all.
Go to Comment
Femme Fatale (2002): Is the Absurd Plot Developments Justifiable? about 1 year ago
Wait. I don’t quite understand this. If you didn’t believe in “style over substance” I would think you DO have a problem with Bay.
Sorry, when I said the “style over substance” argument, I was referring to the use of “style over substance” as a term of derision, where “style” is considered less important than so-called “substance”.
Can I say something about the “two-bit thriller” remark? As well as Joks’ “trash” comment. One may not like the story, but I don’t think we call call this a “two-bit thriller” or at least not a typical thriller. What De Palma seems to be going for in this film is a lot different from his other thrillers I’ve seen—which are more conventional (at least films like Body Double and Dressed to Kill and Blow-Out—although maybe I need to watch them again for some underlying meaning.) At the very least it’s different and creative—if not completely successful. (I’m still not sure.)
I love everything about De Palma, including the stories. The “two bit thriller” remark was not my personal opinion. It’s just the common complaint of De Palma’s detractors, that he is trashy and cheap. I can see how someone could watch a film like Femme Fatale with its often ridiculous plotting or Raising Cain with its multiple personality disorder and baby-stealing, and conclude they are trashy thrillers. On the surface, at least, and for the most part your average person is unwilling to look further than that.
Go to Comment
The 180 Degree Rule about 1 year ago
Are there no times when you think it didn’t work? Maybe in student shorts?
Yeah, but there are good and bad ways to do everything. Slow-motion, tracking shots, voice-over, etc. It’s all on a case-by-case basis. It’s not simple and logical like math. But I guess a lot of it has to do with experience. Nine out of every ten times a student film tries to break the 180 degree line for effect, it’s probably a failure. But then nine out of every ten student films are failures. Voice-over is a crutch, but plenty of great screenwriters have used VO to excellent effect. The more you know, I guess. You can’t really teach this stuff.
Go to Comment
Fear and Film Appreciation about 1 year ago
I had so much fun watching Unstoppable in the theatres last year. I don’t even care what anyone else thinks. I saw it twice. Haters can suck on my ballsack. I think it’s really important to have a varied and balanced film taste.
Go to Comment