"I enjoy this movie" vs. "This is a great movie"

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not necessarily limited to movies, but since there are those "If _____ is in a movie..." threads, what the fuck.
I can think of plenty of essentially flawed movies that I still enjoy watching. A movie is a rather complex organism, and lots of terrible movies have great moments, or terrific performances.
Let's deal with that.

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:04 (twenty years ago)

This distinction is a big chunk of what's wrong with all criticism.

― n/a (Nick A.), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:07 (twenty years ago)

And no, I won't clarify that. Or post any more on this thread, probably.

― n/a (Nick A.), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:08 (twenty years ago)

I enjoy your remarks.

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:09 (twenty years ago)

I had this conversation a couple of weeks ago re: John Cusack and those sappy romantic comedies he does. There are well-made genre movies that you can perfectly enjoy, while still understanding that they're nonsense. "King Kong" looks to be one such.

― Mitya (mitya), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:09 (twenty years ago)

I wonder if the same distinction holds for other categories of experience: e.g.,

"I enjoy this meal" vs. "This is a great meal"

I could see this working. Simple comfort food might be enjoyable (like a cheeseburger), but a "great" meal implies something out of the ordinary.

"I enjoy this backrub" vs. "This is a great backrub"

This is harder to see. The greatness of a backrub seems to be defined by how enjoyable it is. I guess you might be able to distinguish a "great" backrub as one that caused you to feel especially relaxed and free of pain after it was over, even if you didn't enjoy it as much while you were receiving it.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:13 (twenty years ago)

i think the distinction is valid, because there are any number of ways to confer value on something. pleasure is just one.

im not saying there is a metaphysical distinction between a pleasurable movie and a great one, but that people make these distinctions quite often, and it's valid, normal, and maybe even healthy to do so for reasons that are clear.

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:14 (twenty years ago)

The C.Ricci werewolf movie, Cursed, I really enjoyed, and it's a terrible film. But there's this terrific underlying thread of sub-Donnie Darko pandering to the 80s teen horror flicks that I used to watch that managed to keep my attention and enthusiasm.

Bonnie & Clyde, on the other hand, is quite widely respected, but after Faye Dunaway got dressed, I watched it on 1.5x.

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:14 (twenty years ago)

This distinction is the reason why comedies almost NEVER win Academy Awards.

― n/a (Nick A.), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:15 (twenty years ago)

lots of movies i really like have stuff i don't like in them!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:19 (twenty years ago)

Incontrovertibly so, eg, Point Break. Keanu in wetsuit, nothing more.

But there are GREAT comedies. They're just not 'important,' unless they're about Shakespeare sleeping with Gwyneth Paltrow.

John Cusack and those sappy romantic comedies he does.

If you mean the likes of Serendipity, NONONONO.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:19 (twenty years ago)

"This is a great meal." = Well done. Doesn't really mean I enjoyed it.

"I enjoy this movie." = The director did a crap job, but John Cusack's in it! I love(d) him (in Grifters)!

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:19 (twenty years ago)

This distinction is what resulted in the word "rockist."

― n/a (Nick A.), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:19 (twenty years ago)

i rarely have time for movies/books/etc that i dont enjoy. i just think to argue that this distinction is bad or stupid sort of implies a metaphysical argument that "enjoyment" is supposed to be the absolute standard for any work of art.

our responses can be almost infinitely more complex, and a work can have value for other reasons!

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:20 (twenty years ago)

you don't have to like every song on an album to say you like that album!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:20 (twenty years ago)

anyway the devaluation of comedy in the eyes of "serious" "art"-"lovers" makes me sad

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:21 (twenty years ago)

(not the least because i like to make funny movies)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:21 (twenty years ago)

i think the distinction is valid, because there are any number of ways to confer value on something. pleasure is just one.

what are some of the other most common ways?

― A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:28 (twenty years ago)

comfort

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:35 (twenty years ago)

math

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:37 (twenty years ago)

This distinction is a big chunk of what's wrong with all criticism.

It sounds like what's wrong is your very limited conception of criticism.

― C0L1N B... (C0L1N B...), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:38 (twenty years ago)

Perhaps it would be helpful if people could list some other things they'd like to experience from a movie beyond mere pleasure.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:40 (twenty years ago)

math

― A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:42 (twenty years ago)

Everything I can think of boil down to pleasure - the pleasures in figuring out a whodunnit or experiencing a challenging work of art are different from laughing through Wedding Crashers, but they're still pleasures.

― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:42 (twenty years ago)

So when critics praise a movie as being scabrous or shocking or hard to watch, is it a form of masochism?

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:44 (twenty years ago)

also:

inspiration
stimulation
shock
awe
education

― A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:44 (twenty years ago)

inspiration
stimulation
shock
awe
education

All of those are 'pleasures.'

― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:45 (twenty years ago)

they are not always happy though. Pleasure is happy

― A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:47 (twenty years ago)

n/a consistently on the money throughout the thread. The rest is metaphysics.

― Amity Wong (noodle vague), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:47 (twenty years ago)

actually I take that back, and am reconsidering what pleasure encompasses

― A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:47 (twenty years ago)

oh hell i dont know! it starts to get messy then, because if i say "education" or "spiritual enlightenment" or "GREATNESS dude!" then you can easily retort that all these things boil down to pleasure anyway.

but even if you could make that argument i would avoid it because it inevitable leads to closing down discussion of something by proposing an absolute standard to which it can be judged. this must be avoided unless it's the explicit aim of the discussion in the first place.

it's probably just as philosophically justified (not not in our current historical context) to argue that anything that gives you pleasure is BAD because it enflames desire, whatnot.

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:48 (twenty years ago)

i think n/a's argument is metaphysics.

anyway. if you want to say that pleasure is the only standard, then you've got to argue that pleasure = good. that's a metaphysical argument.

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:49 (twenty years ago)

This is why I don't believe in the reductiveness of classifying things as "guilty pleasures"; it kills discourse. If you can't look someone in the eye and explain why this movie delights you, then you're just stupid.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:50 (twenty years ago)

it's a matter of boiling down everything to "pleasure" or letting things proliferate into a whole bunch of different terms. i think the second is more interesting, and less metaphysical.

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:50 (twenty years ago)

One way to enjoy a movie is for "simple" reasons like fun. Another way to enjoy it is because of many different reasons.

― A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:51 (twenty years ago)

(by the way, this was not directed at you, ryan. I had no idea you were writing about pleasure).

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:51 (twenty years ago)

it's a matter of boiling down everything to "pleasure" or letting things proliferate into a whole bunch of different terms.

like direct pleasure vs. indirect pleasure?

― A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:52 (twenty years ago)

it's probably just as philosophically justified (not not in our current historical context) to argue that anything that gives you pleasure is BAD because it enflames desire

James Joyce argued, maybe not entirely seriously, that Art which stirred the emotions was bad or inadequate Art and that proper Art should produce a sensation of detached contemplation. I don't agree with that any more than I agree with any of the other attempts at creating values with a base that isn't "I approve of this" or "I disapprove of this", but something fucked-up in the human psyche will make people keep looking for that base.

― Amity Wong (noodle vague), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:52 (twenty years ago)

yeah i've been reading plato all semester so maybe im being a bit reactionary (trying to reconcile plato with postmodernism aint easy). but that argument that pleasure is bad exists and it can be made.

im just trying avoid creating a heirarchy of pleasure beacuse it's possible that a movie can be good or great for another reason and i'd like to be open to it when or if that happens.

an absolute standard of "pleasure" might also eventually lead into a morass of subjectivism/relativism which would be another problem, and is probably a whole other discussion.

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:56 (twenty years ago)

And although maybe even "I approve of this" has some metaphysical element to it, it's as close as we'll get to a truth statement about a movie or any other work of art. I don't think that closes down discourse, I think it means people should work harder at exploring what it means to like something without falling back on self-defining concepts like seriousness or spirituality.

― Amity Wong (noodle vague), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:58 (twenty years ago)

yeah "i approve" is pretty interesting actually!

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:59 (twenty years ago)

x post

And Plato was a VERY BAD MAN who fucked up Western thought before it had begun; one of the main reasons that he's so bad being that he's so seductive and pleasurable an' all.

― Amity Wong (noodle vague), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:59 (twenty years ago)

haha, too true.

― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 8 December 2005 19:00 (twenty years ago)

Alfred soto -

what do you mean about guilty pleasures? it's basically a reduction of "it doesnt have much nutritional value, but it tastes good, and I le myself indulge in it"

not sure why that's bad, can you explain?

― AaronK (AaronK), Thursday, 8 December 2005 19:02 (twenty years ago)

Nutritional value is pretty subjective when it comes to cultural products.

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Thursday, 8 December 2005 19:04 (twenty years ago)

God yes. "Drama is good for you. Comedy will rot your teeth."

― Amity Wong (noodle vague), Thursday, 8 December 2005 19:06 (twenty years ago)

Yes and no. Classifying something a "guilty pleasure" is obviously problematic because, as you note, it muffles discussion about why like you it or what you like about. But limiting discussion of film to explaining why a movie "delights you" is extremely limiting and reductionist. "Rockism" has nothing at all to do with this--the term arose out of specific predujices expressed in music listening and criticism that worked to avoid talking about how music is actually work. Beyond that, film is an entirely different art form than music and different modes of appreaciation and discourse apply.

― C0L1N B... (C0L1N B...), Thursday, 8 December 2005 19:07 (twenty years ago)

Film is more than a "cultural product". (Which is not to say that films are not cultural products as well as other things but limiting them to that status is pretty facile).

― C0L1N B... (C0L1N B...), Thursday, 8 December 2005 19:08 (twenty years ago)

That's also not to say I would ever use a phrase like "nutritional value".

― C0L1N B... (C0L1N B...), Thursday, 8 December 2005 19:09 (twenty years ago)

But even if "delights" isn't the best choice of word, what's any critic doing other than either a) explaining the mechanics of a film, or b) telling you how they feel about it?

― Amity Wong (noodle vague), Thursday, 8 December 2005 19:09 (twenty years ago)

Alfred soto -
what do you mean about guilty pleasures? it's basically a reduction of "it doesnt have much nutritional value, but it tastes good, and I le myself indulge in it"

not sure why that's bad, can you explain?

There's a strain of criticism which places too much emphasis on "value" or worth. If I like a film and can defend it ably, then it's got value to ME. Why should I be ashamed?

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 8 December 2005 19:12 (twenty years ago)

How they "feel" about it should cover more than mere enjoyment! I'm not arguing for criticism that speaks in unqualified absoulutes like "This is a great movie", I'm saying that the thread q's dichotomy doesn't address good criticism, it addresses dinner conversation.

― C0L1N B... (C0L1N B...), Thursday, 8 December 2005 19:13 (twenty years ago)

I think some people take the term "Guilty Pleasure" too literally.

― k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 8 December 2005 19:15 (twenty years ago)

There's a strain of criticism which places too much emphasis on "value" or worth. If I like a film and can defend it ably, then it's got value to ME. Why should I be ashamed?

You shouldn't be "ashamed" but presumably you're complex enough to enjoy formal or narrative choices or whatever in a film but have reservations about its implications. It doesn't have to be either/or.

― C0L1N B... (C0L1N B...), Thursday, 8 December 2005 19:15 (twenty years ago)

― Amity Wong (noodle vague), Thursday, 8 December 2005 19:16 (twenty years ago)

My naive understanding was that when a critic used the rubric Guilty Pleasure, they were saying: "I am a professional critic and the argument I am about to present to you is perhaps more personal than is usual style. For various reasons I choose not to present the well-reasoned argument that is my norm, whether because this film has too many flaws for me to champion it without this qualification, or because I first became enamoured of it when I was a child and my critical faculties were not yet formed, or simply because I choose to understate rather than overstate my case at this point in time, bringing this film to your attention gently, perhaps in a attempt to disarm you, Gentle Reader, who has been burned before before critical rediscoveries of lost masterpieces. This doesn't necessarily mean that the film in question is in fact bad, or that it provides a counterexample that proves my entire pretense of having a critical apparatus is bollocks, it is just my humble little hand-made Valentine to a film that has made me happy in some way."

― k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 8 December 2005 19:52 (twenty years ago)

I think underestimating the reading and cognitive abilities of readers as part of an ongoing discourse in favor of banal pure "enjoyment" illustrates bad faith more. This may be a question of semantics, I'm not arguing in favor of critics invoking universal laws of good and bad. Susan Sontag for example was vehement in her first-person, subjective appraoch but approaches very real issues at stake that are obscured in "I like this/this gives me pleasure" formulation.

― C0L1N B... (C0L1N B...), Thursday, 8 December 2005 22:38 (twenty years ago)

I like Troma movies.

― kingfish trampycakes (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 8 December 2005 22:46 (twenty years ago)

also:

inspiration
stimulation
shock
awe
education

-- A Nairn (moreta...), December 8th, 2005.

― latebloomer: The Corridor (Yes, The Corridor) (latebloomer), Friday, 9 December 2005 00:35 (twenty years ago)

I would say that any time criticism veers away from the explanation of why something is or isn't great into "I enjoy this" it becomes utterly worthless to me.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Friday, 9 December 2005 00:53 (twenty years ago)

The problem with rockism and guilty pleasures is not that critics are deciding what is or isn't great but that critics let their prejudices blind them to certain types of greatness. Either that or they recognize the greatness but have no language to explain it so they try to explain the work in terms of critera that don't fit or they lazily file it away as a guilty pleasure and make no attept to understand their own response.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Friday, 9 December 2005 01:02 (twenty years ago)

I think it means people should work harder at exploring what it means to like something without falling back on self-defining concepts like seriousness or spirituality.

don't you have to fall back on something eventually?

― A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 9 December 2005 04:37 (twenty years ago)

Every time criticism veers from the path of "I enjoy this" - and that's a potentially broad, intricate, beautifully paved path - and wanders onto "this is great", it becomes bad criticism. Or criticism in bad faith.
I would say that any time criticism veers away from the explanation of why something is or isn't great into "I enjoy this" it becomes utterly worthless to me.

reletivism vs absolutism. I say a little of both depending on the situation.

― A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 9 December 2005 04:47 (twenty years ago)

Show me how "great" has any other meaning than a disguised version of "I approve of this", and maybe "You ought to approve of this (because I do)", and I'll buy into this whole objective qualities thing.

― Amity Wong (noodle vague), Friday, 9 December 2005 08:43 (twenty years ago)

reletivism vs absolutism. I say a little of both depending on the situation.

-- A Nairn (moreta...), December 9th, 2005.

but isn't "a little bit of both, depending on the situation" itself relativism.

― latebloomer: The Corridor (Yes, The Corridor) (latebloomer), Friday, 9 December 2005 08:46 (twenty years ago)

― latebloomer: The Corridor (Yes, The Corridor) (latebloomer), Friday, 9 December 2005 08:47 (twenty years ago)

Aesthetic features of a movie - purely subjective, amenable to "I enjoy this" criticism only.

Artistic features - how it describes and elevates ver human condition, dude - objective (to humans, or a smaller demographic subset); where greatness lies.

― ledge (ledge), Friday, 9 December 2005 09:23 (twenty years ago)

it's a about a shared approach -- if you, message-sender and they, message receivers, speak the same language, share the same discourse, wtfever, then you can get away with 'this is a great movie'. it doesn't mean much, but it refers to the film's place within, for example, a tradition. if you like gritty realism, then 'nil by mouth' likely *is* 'a great movie'. and it's possible to approve of or admire a movie without enjoying it.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Friday, 9 December 2005 09:35 (twenty years ago)

Yeah I like that. ALTHOUGH then you get the idea about different levels of greatness - the greatness of a movie beloved by the unwashed masses is less than the greatness of a movie beloved by the elite in their ivory towers. And I'm not sure where I stand on that.

― ledge (ledge), Friday, 9 December 2005 09:47 (twenty years ago)

haha i wz in a seminar the other week and somebody said it was funny the stuff that i was talking abt (russian and german movies from the 20s) were for the minority then, but are the canon now. and i was like, well, whose canon yo? who except us freaks still watches this stuff. the thing about a newsstand magazine or website is that technically anyone could read it, which is why writing is so hard -- what will yr audience 'get'?

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Friday, 9 December 2005 09:51 (twenty years ago)

I suddenly feel like we've solved nothing - this is great for us = we enjoy this; that is great for them = they enjoy that. Where's the universal greatness goddamnit?

― ledge (ledge), Friday, 9 December 2005 10:03 (twenty years ago)

I pretty much enjoy 88% of films I watch. I like going to the cinema, and essentially I'm easy to please. My lack of discernment has been well ploughed in these parts.

― jel -- (jel), Friday, 9 December 2005 10:19 (twenty years ago)

Does it even matter whether you say "I enjoy this for reasons x" vs "This is great for reasons x" - it's reasons x that are important, we can all pretend we're arguing for whatever conclusion we prefer and all get along fine.

― ledge (ledge), Friday, 9 December 2005 11:04 (twenty years ago)

Blue Velvet is a great film I don't think it's an enjoyable one.

The Matrix is not a great film. I enjoyed it immensely.

― Stone Monkey (Stone Monkey), Friday, 9 December 2005 11:33 (twenty years ago)

exactly

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Friday, 9 December 2005 11:42 (twenty years ago)

Ok there's a disjunction in the thread between enjoyment meaning pleasure, and enjoyment meaning subjective appreciation, as distinct from objective appreciation/greatness. So Blue Velvet is a film you appreciated for certain criteria, but you didn't get any pleasure out of it, and vice versa for The Matrix, fine and dandy.

What are these criteria of appreciation though? How can they be anything other than personal, or at best relative to a certain group?

― ledge (ledge), Friday, 9 December 2005 11:48 (twenty years ago)

"blue velvet" is more fun to watch than "the matrix."

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Friday, 9 December 2005 11:48 (twenty years ago)

Of course I'm sure subjective/objective's been done a million times here, YAWN

― ledge (ledge), Friday, 9 December 2005 11:49 (twenty years ago)

J.D., EXACTLY!

― ledge (ledge), Friday, 9 December 2005 11:52 (twenty years ago)

Nobody can disagree with you if you say "I enjoyed blah blah" but they can if you say "Blah blah is great."

I tend to stick to the first statement because I'm peace-loving and I'd cry if somebody disagreed with me.

― Rumpie (lil drummer girl parumpumpumpu), Friday, 9 December 2005 11:53 (twenty years ago)

Well you might wanna give reasons as to why you enjoyed something. And they might be stupid... And if it comes down in the end to "well [irreducible reasons] just appeal to me", the alternative could just as easily come down to "well [irreducible reasons] are just *my* criteria for greatness".

― ledge (ledge), Friday, 9 December 2005 11:58 (twenty years ago)

Nah, I feel no need to justify myself.

― Rumpie (lil drummer girl parumpumpumpu), Friday, 9 December 2005 12:01 (twenty years ago)

PS I didn't mean it about the yawn. This is virtually the only thing I think about! All day every day! I mean, it should be easy, and I have an answer that I'm happy with. Fairly. Kinda. Sometimes.

xpost, get off the internet then!

― ledge (ledge), Friday, 9 December 2005 12:05 (twenty years ago)

"well [irreducible reasons] just appeal to me", the alternative could just as easily come down to "well [irreducible reasons] are just *my* criteria for greatness".

"*my* criteria" could be something inherent in human nature?

― A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 9 December 2005 14:00 (twenty years ago)

could be, nairn, could be...

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Friday, 9 December 2005 14:01 (twenty years ago)

If you can come up with something useful for the world of film criticism that is genuinely universal in that way, applicable to all of humanity, no single person could disagree - well, I don't see how you could. We're a pretty weird and diverse bunch.

― ledge (ledge), Friday, 9 December 2005 14:29 (twenty years ago)

And therein lies the problem with Objective and Universal qualities. "Enjoy" might not be the ideal world but the appeal to greatness is still about personal approbation. "This film is great, but I didn't enjoy it" = "This film has qualities that competent critics regard as great" = "Critics whose judgement I agree with/defer to think this is great" = "I approve of this"

― Amity Wong (noodle vague), Friday, 9 December 2005 14:38 (twenty years ago)

Human Nature and Greatness are big ponderous unknowables, like God in that if you push hard enough for a definition you end up with "I Am What I Am". Which is a common enough way of speaking, but ultimately legless because there's no rational process for "proving" that Film A is great and Film B isn't.

― Amity Wong (noodle vague), Friday, 9 December 2005 14:40 (twenty years ago)

There is only one universal artistic value I think - and that is open your mind. Broaden your tastes. Enjoy more.

― ledge (ledge), Friday, 9 December 2005 14:50 (twenty years ago)

yeh, the finding out why is a bonus (usually untapped).

― Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Friday, 9 December 2005 14:59 (twenty years ago)

I'm not sure that Blue Velvet is a film that can be enjoyed (in the conventional sense of the word)

― Stone Monkey (Stone Monkey), Friday, 9 December 2005 15:02 (twenty years ago)

I wonder what was going on those times I enjoyed watching it, then?

― Amity Wong (noodle vague), Friday, 9 December 2005 15:04 (twenty years ago)

So do I.

― Stone Monkey (Stone Monkey), Friday, 9 December 2005 15:38 (twenty years ago)

This thread is neither great nor enjoyable.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Friday, 9 December 2005 16:55 (twenty years ago)

great in the perjorative sense maybe.

― Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Friday, 9 December 2005 16:57 (twenty years ago)

Or TS: All Criticism Is Bollocks, Because All Critics Are Really Dressed Up Fanboys Hiding Behind Their Feigned Objectivity vs. Why Bother Arguing With This Guy?

― k/l (Ken L), Friday, 9 December 2005 17:00 (twenty years ago)

Oh, ILX, sometimes I don't know why I bother anymore.

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Friday, 9 December 2005 17:01 (twenty years ago)

OK, Huk, I'll try and address this seriously.

Here's a question. Even if we accept that this is a valid distinction (which I don't), what is the VALUE of making this distinction? What do we achieve by distinguishing between "bad but fun" and "great but unenjoyable"? The only consequences I can think of are negative.

― n/a (Nick A.), Friday, 9 December 2005 17:24 (twenty years ago)

That is a great question. I do seem to think it's worth making the distinction for the purposes of looking more knowledgeable and hipper. But I don't know if that's positive or negative in itself.

― Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Friday, 9 December 2005 17:28 (twenty years ago)

I do think it's better than just saying 'I enjoyed it therefore it is great' and not exploring why, because I find I always want to know why and that this is a good, worthwhile thing.

― Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Friday, 9 December 2005 17:29 (twenty years ago)

I think what I was originally trying to get at was that movies (or anything) can ultimately not succeed as a whole package, like say, a thriller where the killer is revealed in such a way that it completely undermines the thread of tension that preceded the reveal, yet still be a worthwhile experience, because, say, Gary Oldman as red herring killer delivers a fantastic speech to Angelina Jolie as they make love on a melting iceberg on the Amazon.

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Friday, 9 December 2005 17:54 (twenty years ago)

i'm so with huk here and i don't know what everybody else is talking about

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 9 December 2005 17:59 (twenty years ago)

let me give an example of why this is useful, though... take brian depalma, who i love. i am aware that there are like 10 billion perfectly valid arguments AGAINST brian depalma, and yet it doesn't really affect how much i like his movies. almost all of his movies are flawed in really obvious ways... there are serious problems with almost all of them, but that doesn't really change the way i feel about them. i ignore that stuff or i just accept it as part-and-parcel of what makes him a weird & distinctive filmmaker. i can dig his movies without them being PERFECT.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 9 December 2005 18:01 (twenty years ago)

I guess I just don't understand why you need to separate those aspects into purported objective quality vs. personal enjoyment. Like in your example (though it doesn't really seem to fit what we're talking about), if someone asked me what I thought of it, I'd say "It was ok: the plot was kind of lame but the acting was good."

― n/a (Nick A.), Friday, 9 December 2005 18:01 (twenty years ago)

But I feel like you're dodging an important issue here: whether a movie can be GREAT without being PERFECT (hint: OF COURSE IT CAN). Instead of defending DePalma as a GREAT filmmaker, which to me it seems like you think he is, you're quibbling about details and hedging your bets, out of some weird misplaced critical guilt.

― n/a (Nick A.), Friday, 9 December 2005 18:03 (twenty years ago)

not at all!! am i supposed to pretend that bad stuff in a movie is actually good just because i like the movie overall?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 9 December 2005 18:06 (twenty years ago)

maybe that's not what you mean... but the truth is i rarely make the kind of argument that could be construed as "defending XXX as a great filmmaker" because that type of argument doesn't really interest me & is rarely useful. with depalma--or altman--or whoever doesn't have a consistent track record, which is pretty much everyone--that type of argument is pointless.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 9 December 2005 18:07 (twenty years ago)

No, you're supposed to accept the bad stuff as part of the whole! If a movie has bad stuff in it but still manages to be great, then guess what, it's still a great movie.

I've forgotten what we're arguing about.

― n/a (Nick A.), Friday, 9 December 2005 18:08 (twenty years ago)

I guess I just don't understand why you need to separate those aspects into purported objective quality vs. personal enjoyment.

ok i see what you're saying but i'm not really defending that, i don't do that very much either... only under extreme duress

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 9 December 2005 18:08 (twenty years ago)

(xp) i know dude but often i'll be talking about a depalma movie i really like & ppl will come out with points against the movie that i AGREE WITH but ultimately i don't care! that's what i'm talking about!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 9 December 2005 18:10 (twenty years ago)

I agree with this totally, and this is probably the basis of most of my problems for this thread.

― n/a (Nick A.), Friday, 9 December 2005 18:10 (twenty years ago)

This thread is giving me a headache. I think the distinction IS a useful one, but we on ILX are apparently not supposed to make it, lest we be banned to Morbius-land.

― k/l (Ken L), Friday, 9 December 2005 18:12 (twenty years ago)

i guess i don't really say "this is a great movie" all that much!!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 9 December 2005 18:14 (twenty years ago)

I mean "I enjoy this movie" and "This is a great movie" are both statements of opinion, but the difference is the former is phrased as an opinion while the latter is phrased as an implied statement of "fact." And everyone realizes that the latter is an opinion, but for some reason, we get into these discussions of canon where things shift and suddenly people start acting like these statements ARE facts, and it just seems like it would be easier if everyone realized that there is no difference between these two statements.

― n/a (Nick A.), Friday, 9 December 2005 18:14 (twenty years ago)

We have too many words.

― n/a (Nick A.), Friday, 9 December 2005 18:16 (twenty years ago)

Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.

― k/l (Ken L), Friday, 9 December 2005 18:17 (twenty years ago)

Here's a question. Even if we accept that this is a valid distinction (which I don't), what is the VALUE of making this distinction?

because we like to make the distinction? because it's pleasurable?

j/k

but seriously, there is a big difference between "this is great" and "i enjoy this" because those two phrases mean different things in most contexts i think. you think this is a problem. i like it because it gives us more to talk about.

I personally dont think EITHER extreme makes sense. it's a great big paradoxical mess. but it keeps us talking. (what's the value of talking though? i dont know, let's talk about it....)

― ryan (ryan), Friday, 9 December 2005 19:45 (twenty years ago)

i enjoy talking!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 9 December 2005 19:46 (twenty years ago)

me too! we need more words!

― ryan (ryan), Friday, 9 December 2005 19:51 (twenty years ago)

Doesn't this kind of distinction happen in all kinds of other contexts: when someone is speaking using the full weight of their professional expertise vs. when they are making less serious assertions. Didn't JL Austin come up with some kind of categorization of Speech Acts?

― k/l (Ken L), Friday, 9 December 2005 19:55 (twenty years ago)

Why oh why do I post to this thread?

― k/l (Ken L), Friday, 9 December 2005 21:01 (twenty years ago)

"I enjoy" X is just evidence for X being "great."

If you go into enough detail. And explain yourself. And know yourself. Greatness is just another word for what you want others to appreciate. It's meant to start arguments and discussion. It's social. "I enjoy" can sometimes mean "I'm a little shy about talking about what I love."

If you love something you think is crap, that's really just another way of saying it's great.

― Pete Scholtes, Saturday, 10 December 2005 02:44 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.