Film Rockism-friend or foe?

I am anticipating its goodness!

Well I understand rockism in film to be something similar to what it is in music - Perhaps a too-eager subscription to canons and a certain pre-conceived idea of what is "good" or "worthy". Is it auterism? Is auterism part of it? I don't know. I think it's a very frustrating term because it remains still somewhat undefined. Obviously, there is the converse argument - that there is nothing so pointless and reactionary as a deliberately populist pose and a self-cultivated fear of canons.

Like auterism, I think this COULD be a productive way of looking at film, but this whole thread could also degenerate into a chaotic mess.

Or get no new answers at all.

Apparently I am one because I don't think the lord of the rings movies are "cutting-edge" cinema...

;)

I'm kidding, but see what I mean?

this is the ultimate rockist compliment i think

Are you happy spending your money on film/music that has contempt for you? That laughs at you as you plonk down your dosh?

Back in the UK, where there hardly is an "industry" to speak of, most productions would probably fit the American independent model, even the ones that aim simply to entertain. Genuinely independent DIY-style filmmakers like Ben Hopkins (whose Nine Lives Of Thomas Katz was rarely even seen in England) are fighting a losing battle and they must know it. Not that that makes their films any more interesting or valuable than any other, I might add.

Or i guess it could work with "You only like films that came out in before the 80's". But some of our best filmmakers are obsessed with the cinema of yore--woody allen comes to mind, the douglas sirk fascination by both fasbinder and haynes.

I think such namecalling usually happens because people want to accuse others of what they're guilty themselves of--not wanting to see the other side of the fence, and realize that people are enjoying films they know nothing about. And that's where the elitist phrase comes in, which is usually pronounced out of either jealousy or intimidation.

People simply need to define they context in which they view cinema--are you watching to be entertained? are you watching to learn? are you watching for form or content? are you watching for all of these, and if so, in which order of importance? when you finally define these things for yourself, you can feel comfortable in your opinions towards movies or film, however you choose to define it. Either way, the most important thing is being a critical viewer, which is why I think people contribute to sites like this.

It brings back the issue of film viewing being "subjective," another area where the tagphrase of "elitist" usually pops up--"hey mr. film critic, you can't say this film i like sucks, because it's all subjective!" well, that's true to a certain extent. But what matters is being able to define (even if just for yourself) exactly WHY you like/dislike a particular film. Telling a film critic that his idea is no more valid than your own is like telling your surgeon that you are just as qualified to perform open heart surgery as he is, or telling michael jordan you can dunk like he can. Critism requires discipline, years of study, debate, reading, etc. There are film scholars who get doctorates in film studies, spend years of their lives studying art movements & techniques. Knowing what a good film entails is no more "subjective" than being able to tell a hundred dollar glass of scotch from a shot of old grand dad--it takes a disciplined and developed pallete. and if that's elitist, then this old snob will just take his smoking jacket and gucci slippers elsewhere.... :)

Suddenly, when faced with a character whose motives are perhaps NOT so obvious from scene 1, or a scene where two people actually TALK for more than a minute, or an ending that perhaps requires you to THINK -- then all hell breaks loose. Panic sets in. Actually, just a “this sucks” or “snooze-fest” or “……”.

I remember a few years ago The Godfather was screened here in NYC at a huge theater. I could NOT believe how often audience members got up to walk around, get more popcorn, make a phone call, or just fidget. Too slow, I guess? Too long between scenes of people getting shot?

I’m sure each of us has met at least one person who has said the following. “I hate black and white movies.”

couldn't agree with you more jaymc. you would think "rockist" would describe someone with a taste for formalistic cinema perfectly.

"I’m sure each of us has met at least one person who has said the following. “I hate black and white movies.”"

Yeah, just like the people who say "I'm not watching a film with subtitles!" (unless it's "crouching tiger, hidden dragon" of course!)

'art' vs. 'commerce'
'art' vs. 'entertainment'

while these distinctions may exist, i doubt anyone can apply them with any real consistency or meaning.

Oh come on! This is really starting to border on the ridiculous! Is it all just a level playing field for you?

Shouting cries of "Elitist!" or "Snobbery!" at one who questions the artistic merit of the latest Ashton Kutcher vehicle is to really do a disservice to film and film lovers.

There was a time when Hollywood cared about their output -- they made quality films, with quality directors, writers and actors. That's pretty much gone now.

Those of us that have scorn or sneer at the titles at the multiplex are doing so not because we want 12 screens playing "all Resnais all the time"!, but rather we don't wish to see a wonderful art form reduced to television quality. (Product placements abound, sitcom-style screenplays, etc.

I love film. It's my greatest passion. I've been an avid film-goer since I was a young child -- when NYC still had many revival theaters. I think film has a tremendous power -- I don't wish to see that destroyed by corporate interests, polls, and crass commercialism.

BabyBuddha--I appreciate your last post, and I think it sums up our feelings exactly. It's not a blind dismissal of all commercial film and everything that comes out of Hollywood or is popular or has made money--it's a condemnation of the limitations that filmmakers put upon themselves to achieve such goals as "box office receipts" and appealing to a mass audience above the goal of creating something meaningful and essential. If the lord of the rings movies end up being the most influencial films of our generation, and somehow "change peoples' lives," I truly fear that we've degenerated to a group of souless, passive people who prefer to delve in the mindless mass fantasy rather than engage in the world that we live and explore our own dreams.

if this happens then LOTR will have attained a meaning far beyond what most films can hope--and guys like you will be telling us that modern films just can't compare with their brilliance anymore because everyone is chasing money.

Haha!

it's amazing, fifty gazillion people went to see your crappy movie, and a half-dozen people say it's crap and all of a sudden, YOU'RE the one begging for their acceptance. give it a rest, you like a crap movie--billy madison is one of my favorite flicks, but i don't constitute it as a great artistic or cultural achievement. it's escapism--it's not a film. even my girlfriend, who has friggin' posters & t-shirts & all other kinds of merchandising crap strewn around our house admits there is nothing "deep" at all to it.

it just frightens me to think how many great films get bypassed so crap like this can get shown on ten thousand screens.

and art is never completely meaningless. it wouldn't be created otherwise. a true artist doesn't put all of his/her concern with pleasing their audience (that's an entertainer's job, a monkey on a string getting his peanuts), they create art because they NEED to, for their OWN sake.

OTM.

You know, there's a lot I could say in response to this, but I think ILM has worn me out, and anyway there are other people who I'm sure can do as good a job. But I *must insist* that Frodo and Sam's love story is anything but cheeseball.

Sorry, but that argument smacks of the old high school argument with the English teacher. "But it's MY INTERPRETATION! It can't be wrong!" If you're going to compare Hamlet to LOTR on that basis, you may as well compare it to Friends while you're at it.

I feel like I've had this argument too many times before. People who think that everything is open to interpretation are hard to convince -- it's a stauch mindset, I've found, and far more closed than any so-called rockism. People who are open to hearing other's opinions on what's great, and what's great about it -- in fact, what's BETTER about it -- from people who have had sometimes life changing experience with the medium being discussed... people who are willing to listen to those people are always better for it.

This is not a conceit, it's a fact. I'm still learning myself. But to throw up your hands and say, "Well it's all subjective, innit?" cuts discussion off at the knees, and that pisses me off.

Heh. I wouldn't call it shallow, necessarily, but I would call it hilariously Freudian.

My only argument with jay blanchard is his asserion that LOTR is crap, followed by "it's escapism--it's not a film." Films are FUNDAMENTALLY escapism, even when they're profound experiences. Escapism != crap, not by any means.

You can make a good movie with wizards, though. Remember Excalibur? It still holds up. (Even Pauline Kael loved it.)

you can dismiss my arguments as silly all you want, but you haven't really made any counterargument beyond "oh come on!"

that's fine i guess. the elements of LOTR i find "deep" (now i wish i hadnt said that) are the christian theology and mythic associations with things like Beowulf. it's essentially a legend for the passing of legends. maybe that's all tolkien's contribution.

i didn't mean to sound so extreme about the "meaning" thing--maybe it's in the art to some extent, but whatever's there has much less to do with how i enjoy art than whatever meanings i create myself.

and how is this not compatible with subjectivism?

Don't get me started on Star Wars.

i dont think great art needs to be deep, esp not great films.

Yeah, same here. I just checked this thread for the first time in a while, simply because I realized that there's no point in arguing when you're coming from completely different viewpoints on the nature of film. I don't view film as "pure escapism" or "entertainment"--i view it, even in it's most abstract form, as a method of creating new ways of seeing, new visual languages that don't take you out of your world, but makes you see it more broadly. I'm into film as a form of enlightenment, and I don't enjoy forcing myself to become enlightened by something just because i feel the need to "search" for it. I don't believe every film has value, I'm not a relativist by any means, in fact i abhor it as a philosophy.

So why do I watch the films? Many reasons. First and foremost, my girlfriend is a big fan of the films, and I'll watch them with her despite my personal tastes because it's something she cares about. And I respect that, and I respect other people's opinions about what is entertainment. However, she's very direct in letting me know that she doesn't think of them as good art, and that the notion that anyone would is ridiculous to her. She's created a fine dichotomy that has allowed her to enjoy entertainment as fun, and great art as enlightenment. The two meet sometimes ("Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" being my favorite example), but do not necessarily have to, and there's no reason to force a film to meet both needs. And believe it or not, I ACTUALLY APPRECIATE FILMS FOR THEIR ENTERTAINMENT VALUE TOO!! Yes, it's true! I can quote every line in "Billy Madison" and I watch "Uncle Buck" every time it comes on tv. I just don't happen to find the lord of the rings movies to be very entertaining & in fact, they just seem kind of insulting, insincere and pandering to me.

The other reason I've watched the rings movies, at the theater at least, is i'm fascinated by the whole phenomenon of "must see" movies, and the fact that people feel like they need to make themselves a part of the whole experience, regardless of how they feel about the film. It's strange when people go to the theater prepared to be moved, ready to force themselves to be moved if needed, instead of going with a blank slate & letting the film do it's work. In the age of mass advertising, marketing, and merchandising campaigns, it's nearly impossible to feel unconnected to these films prior to viewing it. So there's that sociological aspect that interests me.

I guess I'd rather not write anymore about this (even though it's been fun & enlightening (hey, both!) just because this seems to become an exercise in tail-chasing, but if someone would like to start a new post, not about the rings movies, but more generally about the nature of cinema & what different philosophical and theoretical backgrounds & preconceptions we're bringing to the theater with us, i would be very interested in contributing my thoughts.

sorry, one last thing---when did I ever tell anyone they can't like a film just because i said so? i have strong opinions, but i never told anyone they can't enjoy a film. if you can find a quote that says otherwise, prove me wrong. otherwise, i think i'm owed an apology.

"rather than, "Wizards aren't appropriate characters for a serious film; therefore, thumbs down." I mean, at the very least, I want to know how you felt watching it with these prejudices."

i may have a bit of prejudice regarding these things, but who doesn't? how would you feel if someone asked you to go see a version of "a doll's house" staring dolph lundgren and alicia silverstone? everyone has prejudices going into a film (especially when it's hyped all to hell), but a truly good film will change your opinion (think how "punch drunk love" changed people's opinion of adam sandler)

it's not that i don't think wizards or fantasy are not fodder for important films instead of entertainment movies (and, yes, i DO proudly and rationally make a distinction between the two, although they sometimes meet in the middle), i just haven't seen it yet. Most portrayals seem kitschy and pretentious, with cheesy fake accents (why do people from "timeless, far-away mythical lands" always sound
like they're from england?) and even worse dialogue.

and remember, i'm also arguing about the rings MOVIES, not the BOOKS. i've never read them (and i shouldn't need to in order to evaluate the movie, because they are completely separate entities) but i'm sure they explore deeply mythologies & histories not touched on (beyond a surface level) in the films.

so, yes, i have prejudices. i haven't seen a wizard and warrior movie that's changed the way i view my world (except maybe brakhage's "eye myth"). but i haven't closed myself to the possibility. I always keep an open mind (that's why i went to see the rings movies in the first place), but it's a discerning mind.

jay: i really am sorry if i misinterpreted you, but i still dont fell that i did.

i didnt think you were implying that people couldnt ENJOY a film, it's that they need to recognize that the film they enjoyed simply isnt ART (and therefore...?). my point is simply that art (just like entertainment) is in the eye of the beholder.

and finally, i think we just simply disagree about the art/entertainment and that's fine--but please recognize that the position you take (again, if i interpreted it correctly) is bound to raise some hackles (it's not a long way from calling a person stupid).

and while the "art is in the eye of the beholder" may contain some truths on a surface level, it's a concept that, if carried too far, cheapens the entire history of artistic creation and renders it to nothing more than an arbitrary craft. I know too many people who have sacrificed their lives, wealth, families, sanity, etc. in the name of artistic creation to allow such a concept to ever be taken seriously in my mind. it may seem "idealistic" to believe that art can take place on a completely different plane, but that's the entire point of artistic creation. you either reach for the utopia or you just take a big paycheck, move to l.a. and make pretty pictures. and there's nothing wrong with that, but you have to admire and respect those people who will refuse to do that. and appreciate that their work transcends all as a result.

ok, i swear this is my last post on this issue because it's advancing about as far as a debate between ralph nader and charlton heston (or stan brakhage and gene siskel?) let's agree to disagree and move onto another topic.

funny tho that you bring up Tarkovsky because LOTR deals with christianity and faith in much the same way he did at times. (and tarkovsky isn't really a good counterexample since he isn't really that intellectual of a filmmaker, at least when he is good he isn't)

The mere mention of LOTR and Tarkovsky in the same sentence is laughable, but to equate Tarkovsky's struggle with faith with anything Frodo & pals got up to is really silly.

But to the point at hand -- I think a major point you (and others) are missing is that people such as Jay and me (if Jay will allow me to consider myself like him) are actually much more tolerant than those of you thumping your chests shouting "rockist", or some other such term.

Jay admitted to his appreciation of films like Billy Madison and I have done the same elsewhere with Charlie's Angels 2. You see, those films are not trying to be more than what they are, and the creators of the films know and respect that, and do a great job. Unfortunately, there are too many films that feel they can ride on the coattails of films like that, and those often tend to be lazy, unimaginative, and redundant. At their worst they have contempt for the audience, and are only interested in the opening weekend box office take.

A bigger offence is when a film that is pure entertainment is elevated to something loftier, i.e., LOTR.

Don't misunderstand me -- I have equally as little patience with people who try to convince me that certain navel-gazing, up-your-own-arse films are "deep", "revolutionary", or "cinema in its most purest form".

Like Jay, film to me is not simply escapism or entertainment. There's always TV for that. But don't forget that there was a time when there wasn't such a schism between film as art form and entertainment. Chaplin, Billy Wilder, even a film like Goddard's Band of Outsiders are not nose-in-the-air affairs, but are extremely entertaining as well as films that take full advantage of the medium itself. Brilliant direction, well-written screenplays (or clever improvisation), visually innovative. Now there are those here that would never consider watching Band of Outsiders. "Uh...it's in black & white. Uh....it has subtitles." That's just stupidity and laziness. Don't point a finger at us for this.

to equate Tarkovsky's struggle with faith with anything Frodo & pals got up to is really silly

yes because tarkovsky is an ARTIST and tolkien and jackson are HACKS--how could i miss it? could you make a list of what movies i should take seriously? i wouldnt want to make that mistake again! better yet you should broadcast it over the airwaves and put it up on billboards so that us idiot masses can stay informed.

The struggles of faith were Tarkovsky's own. They aren't Jackson's. That's a critical distinction.

I don't think you're an idiot. Really. Quite the opposite in fact -- it's just fun trying to convince the other.

i tried, i REALLY tried to stay true to my word & not post on this again, but things are really getting bitter & insulting, and I'm not in that kind of mood today.

ryan, i apologize if you took my analogy about the heston/nader & brakhage/siskel thing the wrong way. they were just the first things that came to mind, and it may seem one-sided, but i respect all of the people i named for their strong beliefs, regardless of their viewpoint. i wasn't trying to assert any kind of superiority in the debate, just show they we had very different viewpoints that may not be reconcillable.

i do think it's important to keep in mind, as BabyBuddha pointed out, that we shouldn't confuse the lord of the rings books with the lord of the rings movies. although i haven't read the books, i understand they explore deeply some themes that were only touched upon in the films. i know there are some big tolkien fans out there, and an insult to the films may seem like an insult to tolkien--i have no right to judge tolkien's works. i am only judging the work of peter jackson and his crew.

so my apologies if i didn't present myself properly. i don't have a lot of time to review & think over my responses always, so i may post things in retrospect that were unintentionally insulting. this was one of those times, and i apologize.

i do think there's a bit of intolerance from both sides, but let's call it "difference in strong opinions"--it quite a bit less harsh than "intolerance," which i don't think anyone is practicing or intending.

this statement tho could be its own thread topic:

Don't compare Tolkien:writer to Tarkovsky:filmmaker.
The struggles of faith were Tarkovsky's own. They aren't Jackson's. That's a critical distinction.

In the Morvern Callar thread, could BabyBuddha be called rockist, for the "it was just a glorified music video" position?

i might be wrong, milo, but i don't think that qualifies as rockism. a very bare-bones definition (at least as it originated) is a person who is only into one type of music and dismisses everything else ("No good music has been produced since the Beatles", etc.)

This is the clearest statement I know of film-rockism! The obvious answer: Tolkien and Tarkovsky are equally mystical-schmystical silly-billies.

obviously people can hate on LOTR all they want! (and i screwed myself really by being put into a position of defending a film I just like a lot--it's not a masterpiece or anything)

the problem is that there is an assumption that Tarkovsky is OBVIOUSLY more "artistic" (or what have you) that jackson. and while i prefer tarkovsky films to LOTR i am not under the impression that this is because they are somehow objectively superior because of weird things like tarkovsky is more "personal" (as was implied). it's just what i prefer for various personal and critical reasons.

to argue that there is some objective standard to which we can all aspire to achieve i think diminishes the personal enjoyment of film, and promotes a form of canon worship that is just plain boring. what IS interesting is the many different personal reactions that people can have to a film. if a person i like and respect loves a film i hated i find that fascinating. i love talking and arguing about it.

i doubt you would disagree with that--but there is a certain strain here that suggests that only certain films are worth taking seriously, and that i could not have a deeper experience with LOTR than with tarkovsky. the fact that LOTR is so popular is not necessarily because it is silly, or appealing to the most base forms of entertainment, but because a lot of people find it very moving, or interesting, or imaginative. and that's why i like tarkovsky too.

the bigger problem here is that some of you seem to be UNWILLING to accept the possibility that something like LOTR (or even Billly Madison--tho unlikely) can be important to someone for the same reasons that your fav movies are important to you. maybe you feel it debases your movie love if it is only a slightly more sophisticated version of what everyone feels.

i've never doubted the ability of anything that is put onto celluloid or magnetic tape to have the ability to move or touch someone in a profound way. the zapruder film of kennedy being shot moved me and interested me deeply--but i don't consider it to be art.

you seem to be claiming that there is no place for objective criteria in choosing a films' artistic worth, but you said yourself that prefer things for "critical reasons." I'm having trouble understanding what the difference is between my "critical analysis" and your "critical reasoning" are.

i would never state that there would be such a ludicrous thing as a set of "objective guideliness" for determining a films worth to all human beings. but art, like everything in life, must have some broad set of guidelines to determine it's worth--it's the reason why there is a great history of art criticism going back hundreds (if not arguably thousands) of years. is it innovative? is it powerful? does it have intellectual/emotional/philosophical depth & truly original ideas/viewpoints/characters/aesthetic etc.

as i think BabyBuddha point out before, the one thing we really share in common on this forum is our abhorrence for anything status quo, that is unwilling to be original and forward-focused, for whatever reason (bad director, studio limitations, etc.) there must be a reason why you place tarkovsky on a higher level in your "personal" tastes, so explore why. make your personal universal.

i will explain my reason why--because tarkovsky was unique. he didn't pander. he had the bravery to let a scene play out for several minutes. he didn't feel the need to pump a dramatic score behind every shot to make it dramatic, because he already had the acting, cinematography, overall atmosphere, soundtrack, and most importantly, the ideas, doing that for him.

i guess maybe it would seem that i made it sound like tarkovsky is "obviously" more of a true artisan than jackson, but the reason i didn't feel a need to explain myself is that i figured most cinephilles would take it as a given, for the reasons above. i'd just never met anyone who didn't consider him to be anything more than a good entertainer and a craftsman, so i never really felt a need to explain beyond that.

while i have no problem agreeing that anything you could ever pick up a camera and shoot has the ability to change someone's life, i do have a problem by referring to such a stimulus as art.

No -- that's just what you are reading into it. I was not passing any judgment on either director's artistic merit. And it has nothing to do with my own personal like/dislike of the LOTR films.

This also isn't about setting some kind of standard. I wouldn't want every film to be Tarkovsky-like! By looking at a director's output -- say Tarkovsky or Bergman, there are observations that can be made, and in both cases it reveals a lot about the director. Both dealt with issues/conflicts of faith, for example. Bergman also dealt with the subject of marriage and infidelity quite often. Again, knowing a bit about his personal life, we can understand why.

My dislike of a comparison between Tarkovsky and Jackson is simply as I stated. Jackson is interpreting a novel.

I have no problem if somebody wants to write a book about the philosophy of The Matrix (and I believe there are at least 3 on this topic) -- if a position can be presented and defended, bravo! I may disagree with it, I may find it silly, but so what?

On the reverse, I don't think it fair to be called 'rockist' by pointing out that other artists have addressed a similar theme, and with perhaps a greater depth because it's an issue much closer to them. Tarkovsky never gave a damn or spent a thought on opening weekend box-office receipts. I assure you that the producers of LOTR did. That mere fact alone should immediately grant me carte blanche in making certain critical observations. Again, this is not passing judgement on the quality of LOTR as a film, or as an entertainment, but it does give us some footing as to where we can begin critical analysis.

Another example. Take the film The Vanishing. The original film from the Netherlands was a truly horrifying tale. As many times as I've seen it, it never fails to disturb me. Ok -- five years later the film is remade in Hollywood. Why? Because:
a) bigger stars (hell - recognizable stars!)
b) people don't/can't read subtitles.
So, they actually hire the same director, yet alter the film and concoct this RIDICULOUS happy ending that serves no purpose other than the fact that test audiences didn't like the original. Is it then 'rockist' of me to question Sluzier's and the studio's integrity? To say that the original film is more genuine? More sincere? Some might say yes. But the mere fact is that the film went from being a film by Sluzier (who also wrote the original screenplay) to a commodity by 20th Century Fox.

As to your last point -- again, that's certainly not my belief. If people experienced an epiphany during LOTR, then so be it. I don't think it debases another film that I may love. However, I do think it is valid to delve deeper into the reasons WHY an individual was moved (See thread on emotional manipulation, for example.) To look at the director's own personal beliefs, intentions, etc. is entirely valid, and not at all 'rockist'.

Intentions mean nothing unless they reveal themselves through the work. Only sometimes that revelation is more subtle & need the audience to work and think deeply in order to understand.

It reminds me of the interview with Brakhage on the Criterion disks regarding his view of hollywood cinema. He says (paraphrasing) that he enjoys going to the movies because it's a good way to empty his mind. but even though he's had to teach courses on hollywood films, he's never watched one that merited anything beyond coffee-table talk after watching.

Good art isn't easy--it's complex, demanding, thought-provoking, etc. Notice we've had nearly zero discussion of the rings movies themselves--just using them as a case study. it's because there's nothing there to really explore, because there's nothing in the film that hasn't been done to death before.

I think Buddha is right that it's necessary to delve into why someone is moved by a film. there's more to art and understanding than just unquestioned emotion. if emotional response is your only criteria for judging a film (or even worse, living one's life), you're depriving yourself of half of the experience--your mind.

i guess my biggest concern here is that no room is being left for saying that any one film is better than another. It's the frightening curse of post-modernism, this whole relativity thing--it completely dismisses the element of choice in human behavior. Are we throwing film criticism right out the window here?

'Solaris' was based on a novel. And 'Stalker'. Tarkovsky didn't look at box office receipts because he worked in Soviet Russia!

Well, damn, I better go tell a lot of my friends working on their masters in film theory that they're just wasting their time!

OTM!

if you're honestly trying to de-legitimize the value of film studies, film criticism, and film theory, you frankly have no place on a site like this.

thinking that film scholars have no better right to judge the artistic and cultural merit of a film than anyone else does is the equivalent of having a gas station attendant perform your quadruple bypass. it's just ridiculous.

to say that you're a an expert on cinema because you watch a lot of movies is like saying you're a brain surgeon because you've watched the proceedures on the health channel. it's absurd and insulting to people who make their livelihoods and reputations in the fields of academia.

i've usually found anti-intellectualism usually comes out of envy and fear, yet people very seldom hold the same views when it comes to lawyers, doctors, marine biologists, etc. when they're saving your ass, they're like gods among men. but when they spend every waking hour in the library for twelve years of higher education (yes, there are folks with doctorates in film), suddenly every dillettante who hits the multiplex twice a week and has a couple dozen theory books on their shelf is on even par with them.

it's basically the equivalent of the arm-chair quarterback, living out the american dream of glory, but not wanting to do the work to get there.

it's absurd and insulting to people who make their livelihoods and reputations in the fields of academia.

Fuck that! It's a publish-or-perish gravy train manned by people who can't write! In most cases anyway -- the real pros, VF Perkins, for example, were in print before academic film studies began. Ditto people like Durgnat, Chales Barr, etc. Spending 12 hours a day reading about film (note: nobody does this) is an unhealthy way to spend time! I prefer the 'amateur' likes of Bazin, thanx.

websites and local newspapers?

Also, most of the folks you sited were not writing prior to the introduction of film studies--in the U.S. alone, film studies on the undergraduate level started in the late 1950's. And a couple of folks you mentioned were even educated in some of the programs!

I haven't heard a single solid argument against academic film study, and to be blunt, you sound like more like someone who's been embittered by student loan denials and finds the need to rant about the ivory towers.

Yes, there were *some* courses in the 50s, but really it's an early 70s thing, the move to academia.

Jay -- fraid I haven't applied to anywhere. I've been in two very well known mags and one v. obscure, but international film mags, if you want to talk about it -- that doesn't qualify me to talk any more than an MA would -- this is ILX.

My solid argument is: the majority of acadmic film crit is unreadable, exhibiting none of the joy in moviegoing that makes great film writing worthwhile.

i guess i will avoid asking you to define what art is (an intellectual exercise akin to bashing your head up against a wall repeatedly--there is simply no criteria that doesn't include something people generally consider to not be art or exlude something they do. i once attempted to argue then that art is simply a critical frame of mind we bring to objects, rather than being a quality inherent in the object itself. not sure that holds up)

yet even if i take your criteria, i notice they are all rather vague, and, i would say, rather personal reactions to an art work.

even more so they are qualities that seem to me to be outside the artwork--you are judging completely on context. this is why "tarkovsky is brave" in not conforming to hollywood standards becomes a rather ridiculous measure of his quality.

the majority of acadmic film crit is unreadable

ENRQ - You're going to have to start naming names.

Sure, there's been loads of crap written and published. But to say "the majority" or better yet "and decent sustained writing" is foolish.

Off the top of my head -- some books I can think of: Richard Allen - Film Theory and Philosophy, David Bordwell - Making Meaning, Gilles Deleuze - Cinema 1 & 2. There are some great journals with some excellent writing - Cinema Scope, sensesofcinema.com, Jump Cut, Vertigo, etc. Sure, not all gems, but some very interesting writing in all.

What is it you fear exactly? That closer examination of a film you loved might reveal something (or things) that you'd rather not know nor think about?

i once attempted to argue then that art is simply a critical frame of mind we bring to objects, rather than being a quality inherent in the object itself.

I like this idea a lot.

I forget who on this board actually makes films themselves, but I wonder if these people feel more of a need to make that distinction betw. art and entertainment, as a way to justify their creative ambitions. ("What I'm doing ISN'T your typical Hollywood bullshit; it's actually WORTHWHILE.")

I thought that this forum was more than the thumbs-up/down approach.

What if we discuss the things you speak of from a more objective viewpoint? To try to understand exactly what Ryan, ENRQ and others are upset about.

"And I guess my general take is something like, All films are art."

then why even bothering writing about them? it reminds me of the saturday night live skit with winona ryder playing bjork on jeopardy--"everything is music!"

if films have no meaning but what we bring to them, why don't we all go outside and stare at a blank wall. or destroy all films except for one and just watch that all the time. otherwise, a theory based on art being based on nothing but the individual is pointless (if not to say self-absorbed).

i guess i'd rather "bash my head against the wall" that be a fatalist and say that art has no meaning. i think it's important to remember this whole po-mo relativist tail-chasing is just an episteme of thought, one that is not so much an "evolution" of human knowledge, but a temporary (and in my opinion, waste of time) phenomenon. it's a defeatist philosophy because it's completely all-encompasing. in the attempt to avoid "moralizing," it takes the opinion that human beings have no right to judge anything. such a philosophy can end in nothing more than serialization, conformity, and all other wonderful fascistic elements.

a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Uh-oh. One of my favorite quotes is John Cage's "Everything we do is music." Sue me; I do like the idea behind that.

Look, I'm not saying that "films have no meaning except what we bring to them." Not in the slightest. All I'm trying to do is suggest that this dichotomy of "art" and "entertainment," in which "art" is necessarily elevated, may not be that useful when we judge films. I'm particularly wary that this kind of mindset leads to too many preconceived notions when entering a movie theater, such that "what Frodo and the gang get up to" is immediately seen as already silly and not worthwile, without just letting the film affect you.

Obviously, it's impossible to entirely let go of preconceived notions, but I think it's worth trying sometimes. What I keep thinking about in this conversation is how ILM over the past year has encouraged me to give Top 40 radio a chance, when just a couple years ago I would've bemoaned it with all sorts of predictable complaints about "the industry" and "the mainstream" and manufactured pop stars in the age of capitalism, etc. But when I put those ideas aside and just listened, I discovered that I really fucking love Justin Timberlake. You could call it a guilty pleasure, except I've listened to "Rock Your Body" just as much as anything else on my iTunes (more, even) and I don't feel particularly guilty about liking something with such catchy melodies and beats.

Now then, at that point, I'm more than happy to take out the critical tools and figure out why I responded the way I did. And I'll have plenty to say, I assure you.

if films have no meaning but what we bring to them, why don't we all go outside and stare at a blank wall.

One more thing: this is a pretty huge leap. When I say "all films are art," there's no judgment implied. All I'm saying is that a film is an object toward which we can focus a certain kind of attention, that has certain aesthetic properties, etc. (This is an incomplete definition, of course.)

problem is i think film is terrible for providing well rounded and complex characters. phenomenologically speaking (is that a word?) i think film tends to present people as happenings rather than as characters; as faces, objects of lust, images etc (kinda like Vertigo!). this is just one example. as jay was getting at in the desert island thread, there is an quality to film that leads to this focus on happenings--rather than ideas or complexities or even characters. (LOTR is chock full of happenings, for instance, at least for me)

obviously i dont want to limit film to this aesthetic approach, but it is what interests me the most about it right now.

I think at this point it's probably easier to distinguish between auteur and journeyman... composer and conductor... Björk (everything is music) and LotR (everything is war).

hahaha I'll take this as an unintentional compliment.

"...Honestly, I have no idea what much of Konrad's posts mean. It sounds
like he's arguing that we should stop valuing some films over others.
Fine, make your own universe in which that happens and see if you can
get anyone to join you. Based on past experience, I suspect that the
main people who will join you will be filmmakers who think their works
have been unfairly denied attention -- and that the scene will quickly
degenerate into catfights as filmmakers talk about how great their
films
are to other filmmakers who are insufficiently appreciative, and it
becomes clear that, to mix a metaphor (and quote a line from Borzage's
great "The Mortal Storm,"), "Each hen thinks she's laid the best egg."

What got me interested in cinema, and what keeps me interested, are
films of intense beauty that give me great aesthetic pleasure and
change
the way I think about things. When such systems of value are attacked
in
the way Konrad does, I have no idea what the point is. Of course we're
not all going to agree on great or horrible, and of course films in
both
categories as well as many in-betweeens can be of great interest, but
the fact remains that for many of us, cinema is defined at least in
part
by its highest achievements. All sorts of other things can be engaging,
yes, but "overthrow[ing] the establishment of valuation," to quote
Konrad, would simply be false to my experience of cinema from the very
beginning of my interest in it. It would be false to the very *reasons*
for my interest in it. And I think a good critic writes from
experience.

The people who want to deny valuation really puzzle me. Certainly I've
encountered them before, but I've always wanted to ask them: Are you
not
ever overwhelmed with pleasure and ideas by a film, finding it
resonating still after many many viewings? Are you not ever angered by
an unwatchably horrible one? Doesn't that difference -- and talking
about it and arguing about it with those who agree and with those who
disagree -- matter? And if that difference doesn't matter, what *does*
matter?

Fred Camper
Chicago
"

apparently as far as you're concerned, jaymc, i think our differences here ARE purely semantic. I don't like making a differentiation between "good" and "bad" art. in order for something to be art means that it is intrinsically "good". the only "bad" art is pretentious dribble aiming for greatness, and ending up self-conscious, over-wrought failure.

in order to avoid calling most everything that comes out of hollywood "bad art", i'd rather call it "good entertainment" or "good craftsmanship". it's like going to an arts and craft show, and someone has a stuffed some hay into a sock and made a neat looking scarecrow out of it, or painted a dog on a ceramic plate. i'm not going to consider that person an artist, but i will consider them a good craftsman. art requires deeper meaning, deeper intentions for me.

i guess it's just the "i'm ok, you're ok" outlook of post-modern thought that has lead to everything being accepted as art so as not to step over anyone's toes. we have to be PC, can't insult anyone--thus the origins of "folk art" and other such BS.

so i guess that it may be mainly a debate of semantics, but it makes a lot of difference for for those of us who deify artistic creation.

Jay B - thanks for the post from Frameworks. Very nicely stated. [Am joining list right now.]

Of course we're not all going to agree on great or horrible, and of course films in both categories as well as many in-betweeens can be of great interest, but the fact remains that for many of us, cinema is defined at least in part by its highest achievements.

Since I agree with Camper that both "bad" and "good" films are worth discussing my question is just what valuation ADDS to these discussions? (doesn't calling a film "bad" or "a masterpiece" tend to cut off discussion on both ends?)

pretty much. guess i'm not getting your point here.

"The use of the word "artist" as a bludgeon is obnoxious in the extreme, and should be severely questioned. We live in an era when anyone can call themselves an "artist," even people who make work that's utterly incompetent, even people who make work that they themselves don't much care about. I think it's OK to have this broadened definition of artist, because a film that looks like disorganized garbage to me could turn out to be a masterpiece that's simply over my head, or outside of my range, and I say that seriously and without irony. By the same token, not every film that looks like a mess is good art, or worth anything, however loudly the artist may announce himself. But if anyone can be an artist, then "artist" as a role should be afforded no special value. Artists are just cultural workers like anyone else. Certainly there are curators and critics who are far more serious about, and competent in, their roles than some "artists."

"a thing intended for regard-as-a-work-of-art: regard in any of the ways works existing prior to it have been successfully regarded."

yes, it's true that this allows for all films, regardless of their genre/means of production/etc. can be rated by the same criteria, but i don't think that it in any way implies that concepts of "good" and "bad" are necessarily rooted in the personal. he didn't say "regard in any of the ways works THAT YOU HAVE SEEN existing prior to it have been successfully regarded"--he means ALL works existing prior, the history of cinema from all records, from all people. It's more historical and epistemological an approach that personal and subjective. In fact that quote argues more than any posted here thus far the importance of film scholarship for keeping the collective experience or zeitgeist of film history broad and vibrant.

when you write It's more historical and epistemological an approach than personal and subjective

I wonder how a historical and epistemological approach can exist anywhere outside the personal subjective? also, isn't historical approach rooted in the subjective experience of a number of different people? (not to get all grad school on you, but isn't also that approach more often than not the approach of a certain class of people?)

remember, historical revisionism & deconstructivism are relatively new modes of thought, and they are one of MANY modes of thought when it comes to history, film or otherwise.

and, as i've made clear in many of my past posts, i think post-modernist thought is a labyrnthine, tail-chasing philosophy (or, in simpler terms, a steaming pile of B.S.)

"the only real problem i have with elistism is that i am afraid that i may not be an elite"

ah, liberal guilt, the fuel that drives us...if you spend your whole life apologizing for being too intelligent/too rich/too white/etc., you never get anything done because you're constantly doubting yourself. at least that's been my experience.

you're right, though. history is a collective experience of somewhat subjective viewpoints (trying to be objective, which i don't think is as huge of a fallacy as po-mo theoreticians would lead you to believe). and these are the viewpoints of an "elite" group. but we choose these people to create our histories because they're experts, and that tradition should be continued. History is forged by change, and I'm not arguing that old ideas and values should not be questioned, but I think questioning the entire concept and history of art criticism, and instead replacing it with "every joe schmo's opinion is as valid as the next guy's" is going to end with the same results post-modernism has had in the world of history, literature & academia in general--ten times as many books, concerning a hundred times as many topics, none of which contains anything meaningful in the overall discourse, none of which are worth reading.

i'm not taking the alan bloom approach here by saying there should be a set of "classics" that hold the standard for good filmmaking. i'm just saying that people shouldn't be afraid to make the distinction between "film art" and "entertainment movies," shouldn't be afraid to make the distinction between "film critic" and "casual viewer" and should maintain the effort to expand and change the history of film theory and criticism instead of playing the nihilist and calling for it's removal altogether.

I was like you once -- really I was. Oh how fascinating it was to read those great texts -- it was truly liberating. Hoorah! Total Recall would now and forever be on par with Hiroshima, Mon Amour.

We quoted Foucault at cocktail parties, shouted Il n’y a pas de hors-texte until we were blue in the face. We sneered at modernist texts, those of the 'dead white males'. Down with objective truth! Up yours hierarchies of value!

The problem is, once we're done patting ourselves on the back in self-satisfaction, then what? Sure, we freed ourselves from the fascist ur-text. But what are we left with? Radical subjectivism? Yawn.

Your knee-jerk reaction to Jay's (and other's) attempt at a hierarchy of value is sort of pointless. Childish, in fact. What is it you fear exactly? Should every film site be like 'Aint It Cool News' where films are all reduced to a 1 to 4 star rating system? Does that make you feel better?

Look at some of the things I've seen on this thread and others: "There's been no worthwhile film writing since the 70's" and "Academic film texts take the joy out of moviegoing". I've read that 21 Grams is an art film and that the only reason it's bleak is to kow-tow to film snobs. What these comments have in common is an incredible close-mindedness. They make ridiculous assumptions, nor can they be backed up in any way.

I think that people such as Jay and me have exhibited a much greater level of tolerance and understanding. Whereas we may sing the praises of lesser-known avant-garde filmmakers, we are both willing to admit a great joy and admiration for something that aspires to nothing more than an entertainment.

How would a perfect world (or, a perfect ILF board) work for you? (I'd really like to know.) Simple subjective capsule reviews? Isn't there enough of that already all over the bloody internet?

You want to write a paper titled Sartreist Absurdity and the Debordist Image in the Films of Tom Hanks then go ahead -- I'd even be happy to read it.

How post-modern of you to say that! (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

LOL!

Although Buddha's post was a little harsh to Ryan (more jokingly than serious, i'm sure), he did have a good point about the end result of the subjective, po-mo viewpoint being nothing more than a restriction of critical response, down to the level of one-paragraph synopses (i don't even think the 1-4 star review could withstand it--that puts too much value on one work over another).

I don't think it's a problem of Ryan reading too many post-modern texts; it's more the problem that you can't FIND anything today that doesn't take the po-mo cop out lately, whether inside academia or out. it's such a popular mode of thought lately that it's unfashionable to think outside of that box (and it truly is a box--trying to posit yourself in opposition results in being labeled an elitist or a fascist. what irony, when the limitations and de-evaluative properties of post-modernism are about as fascistic as it gets).

ryan, definitely check out some post-modern theory overview texts (there are actually some really good philosophy sites online with descriptions of the basic tenents of each philosophy, a list of the top writers, and some of their best writings. except for the post-modernist writers: instead of a list of the top philosophers, they just put every human being alive in a big list (just kidding!). it will give you an idea of how huge an impact this one philosophy has on modern thought, and if fact, on your own thoughts and opinions, at least in the context of this discussion.

God I hate people sometimes.

But I'm happier now. (Hey, it's Friday!)

jay:
i was being a bit facetious about not knowing about post-modernism, i have read a lot on it, but im certainly no expert.

and, as i've made clear in many of my past posts, i think post-modernist thought is a labyrnthine, tail-chasing philosophy (or, in simpler terms, a steaming pile of B.S.)

why does tail-chasing = B.S.? why couldn't something be tail-chasing and right? or despairing and right? or even nihilistic and right?

but we choose these people to create our histories because they're experts,

who chose them? i didn't.

ah, liberal guilt, the fuel that drives us...if you spend your whole life apologizing for being too intelligent/too rich/too white/etc., you never get anything done because you're constantly doubting yourself. at least that's been my experience.

im not apologizing for any of those things--im genuinely wondering if i would count as elite enough for my opinions to matter? what if they dont? what do the "stupid" people do? just defer to the elites and not bother to form their own opinions or even, heaven forbid, their OWN meaningful relationships with the art in their lives?

i'm just saying that people shouldn't be afraid to make the distinction between "film art" and "entertainment movies," shouldn't be afraid to make the distinction between "film critic" and "casual viewer" and should maintain the effort to expand and change the history of film theory and criticism instead of playing the nihilist and calling for it's removal altogether

here we may have more common ground than you realize. my biggest problem is that i believe that these distinction ADD NOTHING to the discussion of any particular film. did our arguing over whether LOTR was "art" or not add to anyone's understanding at all? if the tag "art" really matters to you that much you can keep it, that label has nothing to do with how i experience art.

as for the film studies thing, i think you're confusing me with another poster. i enjoy reading criticism and theory and whatnot.

BB:
Total Recall would now and forever be on par with Hiroshima, Mon Amour.

you make statements like these as if they are obviously sarcastic by the very comparison. what assumptions are you making here? what is so fucking profound about HMA compared to TR? (i love both) it's like saying "philip k dick on par with borges? har har!" i dont get it. it doesn't make sense to me. please make it make sense to me.

Radical subjectivism? Yawn.

so it's wrong because it bores you? (i dont consider myself a radical subjectivist, but aren't offering any arguments against it beyond general disdain. i can't respond to that)

Your knee-jerk reaction to Jay's (and other's) attempt at a hierarchy of value is sort of pointless. Childish, in fact. What is it you fear exactly? Should every film site be like 'Aint It Cool News' where films are all reduced to a 1 to 4 star rating system? Does that make you feel better?

i thought that kind of rating system was exactly what i was arguing against. what do you want, a system where we can slot every movie into neat categories that label them "worth taking serious" and "harmless entertainment"? im interested in, if you will forgive the phrase, a democracy of aesthetic experience. i dont want to eliminate or belittle ANYONE'S experience of a film.

I've read that 21 Grams is an art film and that the only reason it's bleak is to kow-tow to film snobs. What these comments have in common is an incredible close-mindedness. They make ridiculous assumptions, nor can they be backed up in any way.

again, i didn't attack film studies. i did attack 21 grams because i hate it. i do think it is fashionably bleak, pointlessly so. if i could remember the movie we could talk about that point if you disagree, i would love to hear a defense of the movie!

do you disagree that film snobs are a distinct audience with certain expectations just as much as teenage boys or whatever?

I think that people such as Jay and me have exhibited a much greater level of tolerance and understanding. Whereas we may sing the praises of lesser-known avant-garde filmmakers, we are both willing to admit a great joy and admiration for something that aspires to nothing more than an entertainment.

i find this mystifying. am i intolerant because i disagree with you? i congratulate you on your tolerance and understanding. and if something makes you feel joy and admiration what makes it not art?

How would a perfect world (or, a perfect ILF board) work for you? (I'd really like to know.) Simple subjective capsule reviews? Isn't there enough of that already all over the bloody internet?

i would like a forum where people can discuss and argue about films passionately and intelligently, presenting as many different opinions and viewpoints as possible. what I DONT like is people scoffing when someone dares take a peter jackson movies as seriously as a tarkovksy movie. i'd like to see "this is why the tarkosky movie is better you silly" rather than "the tarkovsky movie is so much better this doesnt even warrant discussion, away with such absurdities!" i want active, engergetic critical discussion, not (your word) "kneejerk" critical responses.

and finally, and most importantly, Master and Commander is good! you crazy man!

"that melody is pretty"--->
"no it's annoying"--->
"no it's pretty because it is in A Minor and all melodies in A Minor are pretty, it is also played on a french horn and melodies in A Minor played on french horns are pretty"--->
"no it's annoying"

i think there is every reason for me to believe that, under your proposed methods of valuation, my opinions would not matter (i admitted to thinking LOTR was art, a severe lapse in artistic judgement.) I would not qualify as an elite (no matter what qualifications i might have, advanced degrees or otherwise)

whether or not that is the case, why should someone who doesn't qualify be bothered with what the elites think? take the proverbial blue collar worker without the time to bone up on his film studies, doesnt he have every right to be bored and exasperated by some art film that speaks to things he neither cares about nor understands?

once i came out of a late screening of the thin red line and behind me a total redneck (forgive the word, it's a term of affection here in texas, suffice it to say he was from a different culture than me) said "well that wasnt what i expected but it was pretty good"--i smiled to myself, that someone who most people would expect to fall asleep or walk out of that movie could enjoy it. i still wonder what it was he liked about it! maybe he was a farmer, or another man who has spent more time in nature than i ever have, and maybe he identified with the beauty of nature in the film maybe he "got it" in a way my suburban existence never could. maybe the film saw god in nature the same way he did, and that touched him. i would love to talk to him about that. (when it came out they had some veterans of the battle on tv talking about the film, one said "it seems more concerned with philsophical stuff i dont understand than the actual battle"--he did mention he remembered the grass from his experience there, lying on his stomach and staring at grass, he said the film captured that for him.)

you may not have directly attacked film criticism, but i don't quite think you're seeing how your argument/philosophy can result in nothing but the destruction of film criticism's vitality.

"why does tail-chasing = B.S.? why couldn't something be tail-chasing and right? or despairing and right? or even nihilistic and right? "

yup, you're definitely a post-modernist! post-modernists get the easy way out because they never have to make a choice about anything. but i've always agreed with socrates--men are more free when they choose. and it's impossible not to make a choice. you're choosing to say the only "right" way of critiquing film is to not critique at all! and this is where BabyBuddah is getting you for being intolerant. Because as much as post-modernist thinkers like to believe that they are being all-encompasing, all-accepting, it's a complete fallacy. You're completely condemning the ability to say that one experienced mode of thought is inherently more qualified to judge artistic merit than a completely inexperience (or even apathetic) one.

and please, don't use the term "elitist," because I don't think it's fair (in fact it's derrogatory). if you want to use "academic", "informed", "educated", etc., althought these are still pretty limiting terms, I think they convey your point more fairly than "elitist".


you're choosing to say the only "right" way of critiquing film is to not critique at all!

how am i saying this? if this is what you think i am saying then i agree with you i am being ridiculous! i dont wish to advance this position.

i wouldn't be afraid of the term elitist, after all we are all elitists about certain things. i am elitist about what doctors i go to!

You're completely condemning the ability to say that one experienced mode of thought is inherently more qualified to judge artistic merit than a completely inexperience (or even apathetic) one.

ok here is at least part of the heart of the matter. my contention, and the point of the anecdote above, is that there is no such thing as an inexperienced point of view when it comes to judging art. if he had hated the movie, that's ok too, but if all he could say was it was "boring" whatever, if he couldnt talk about why he didnt like it, i would feel no problem with ignoring him completely!

the problem is i cant help but include myself, and our rather excessive love of film, in that description. and even if i was somehow able to (disengenuously) exempt myself from that status, it's enormously depressing to think that art is only for a small portion of humanity.

ok, back to a point i've brought up several times and no one has answered yet--the difference between doctor and artist.

you have a heart problem--who do you go see: a guy who works at a gas station but reads a lot about open heart surgery on websites, or certified open-heart surgeon?

my guess (unless you're completely insane) is that you'll pick the latter. now why can't you admit that individuals who are educated and have devoted their lives to the study of cinema don't have a natural advantage in choosing what classifies as cinematic art over some guy in a gas station who's read a few theory books?

"i didnt mean to say he felt something didn't understand but that he understood it in a way i did not, despite the probability i was better educated in the normal sense. im saying i had something to learn from him, not that he was becoming more like me."

who's to say he wasn't? why can't there be a "right" way of interpreting it? how do you know he didn't understand it at all? why should everyone need to understand art? most art isn't created for the everyman (although some is)--that's what entertainment is for. don't mean to be harsh, but there's a good possibility that there was nothing meaningful at all that you could have learn from the guy's view of the film.

"my contention, and the point of the anecdote above, is that there is no such thing as an inexperienced point of view when it comes to judging art."

sure there is. artistic consciousness is something that has to be developed through childhood (drawing, building sand castles, etc.) and then taken to he next level through the creation of meaning, metaphor, symbolism, etc. some people just never develop to that level. and i find no problem with making a distinction between people who have as those who are experienced enough to judge and qualify art, as those that have not, who are not qualified.

"all in all, i guess i am biased towards the notion that life experience is more of a qualification than a knowledge of the history of film--i think ideal viewer would have both!"

ahh, here we go..."life experience". from the same folks who brought us the "emotional quotient" (E.Q.) to make morons feel better about their low I.Q. scores. of course your life experience is going to have a part in how you experience a film, but there is a realm beyond just the subjective. I've never been to Sweeden, but I love Ingmar Bergman's films. Part of being a good critic is being able to step outside your subject realm of experience to be able to interpret the quality in something you can't easily identify with. Not many people are able to this, thus the severe lack of foreign films screened in the U.S. You're eliminating the importance of objective viewing.

"(let me just say that i really respect the fact that you are still here talking to me about this--it's my hope we can reach some sort of compromise, or at least i can modify my position so that it is a little less severe, and i feel that maybe we are close)"

same here; it's a great debate and really gets down to the essence of filmmaking, and the great debate between art and entertainment. although it's still my contention that a post-modern viewpoint in a discussion will never really lead to any answers (thus, i don't think we're "close" at all), I do think there have been some great ideas on both sides of the argument that have made us think quite a bit. and that's the whole point of this as far as i'm concerned.

"i think if you just came out and said "most people are very stupid and incapable of appreciating anything beyond the most base and shallow pleasures, they lead shallow and pointless lives" i would respect the audacity of the claim. i am even enough of a misanthrope to agree at times."

the only problem is, i don't feel that way at all! i don't think anyone is "too stupid" to appreciate and acknowledge good art when they see it. I just feel that they have to 1) be at a point in their lives when they're ready to accept something on a higher plane and regard it as art, and 2) most importantly, that have to be willing to WORK FOR IT. entertainment is easy and passive, art is complex and difficult. you have to watch it more than once, think about it, study it. not a lot of people are willing to do that, either because they don't want to or they don't have time to. and that's fine, i'm not condemning these people as idiots or anything. i'm just saying that these people don't have as qualified a judgement as to what represents artistic achievement. and i'm sure most of these people would agree wholeheartedly with me.

"the problem is i cant help but include myself, and our rather excessive love of film, in that description. and even if i was somehow able to (disengenuously) exempt myself from that status, it's enormously depressing to think that art is only for a small portion of humanity."

why is it depressing? they have other things they love. open-heart surgery is only for a small portion of humanity; why can't art be.

one huge point we never brought up is the degree of weight we put on the word "art"--it seems like you're interpreting it as this all-encompassing enlightenment, where if you can't accept art into your life, you have no soul. this isn't it at all (even though some of us treat film as a religion).

a person can lead a deep, meaningful, loving, soulful life & have no understanding or appreciation of art at all. Just like I know nothing about repairing an artery, but i'm still pretty fulfilled.

lastly (because my girlfriend is yelling at me to get off of the computer so we don't waste our entire saturday afternoon), there is nothing wrong with being able to retain an appreciation of a film simply for passive enjoyment purpose. it's just nice (and rather important) to be able to know how to appreciate films for artistic purposes as well.

or, in other words, a work of stylistic and content complexity. think the raw emotional power of a film such as "a woman under the influence" compared to , say, lord of the rings? :)

Christ, this makes me angry. Look, it's because the vast majority of people never perform open-heart surgery or even have cause to think about it BUT millions of people experience art (visual art/film/literature/music/etc.) on a regular basis and have interesting opinions and experiences about them. And this, for me, is one of the great things about art (and probably why I'm more passionate about popular arts like film and music than anything else) is the ability to join in a common dialogue about something that's arisen out of our culture. And not just with "experts" -- with anyone who was engaged in an interesting way. I mean, that's one of the main reasons I like ILM -- professional music critics having conversations with college kids about the new Jay-Z album!

This reminds me of Monroe Beardsley's proposed objective values for aesthetic goodness -- he said that a good artwork could be identified by unity, complexity, and intensity. Which makes some sense at first, until you realize that it's quite easy to imagine a piece of art that is unified, complex, and intense, and also terrible.

*intimations of objectivity
*one eye on longevity/importance ("you think that will still be
played in 20 years?")
*importance of meaning
*focus on individual genius rather than incremental scene advances by many different people
*the canon

These are the kind of statements that simply stop me in my tracks. It’s a loaded question – how can I best answer that? Are all authors on the same plane for you then? Is John Grisham on par with Balzac?
I never said radical subjectivism was wrong, just dull. It doesn’t get us anywhere. I don’t learn anything about the film, just that X liked it.

As for categorizing films, maybe we are doing so NOT to judge its worth, but rather to fit it into some sort of context (historical, aesthetic, whatever). Let’s take a director like Gus Van Sant. There are those that know him primarily from his more popular films Good Will Hunting and that other one which was basically Good Will Hunting 2. Some people who enjoyed those films might not like Elephant or Gerry. If I write a piece talking about the influence of Bruno Dumont on GVS and Gerry am I an elitist? If I compare Gerry to Good Will Hunting and I base my argument on several factors, am I a film snob? Directors (like Soderbergh) have admitted that they make the crowd pleasing stuff (Traffic, Erin Brokovitch) in order to raise money for their more experimental stuff (Full Frontal). So there we have a very important distinction – film as commerce vs. film as ANYTHING BUT commerce. Herein lies the distinction between Hiroshima Mon Amour and Total Recall. Has anybody involved with TR ever claimed that it was meant to be anything more than an entertainment? Of course not.

i did attack 21 grams because i hate it. i do think it is fashionably bleak, pointlessly so. if i could remember the movie we could talk about that point if you disagree, i would love to hear a defense of the movie!

What you are guilty of here is assuming intent. I hear this argument all too often from people, and it never sits well with me. Now, I think there certainly are films and filmmakers who are guilty of that, but that is just not the case here. I don’t buy this “fashionable bleakness” thing. When is it unfashionable? Is Mystic River fashionable or unfashionable? What’s an example of a downbeat film that isn’t doing it for the sake of effect?

do you disagree that film snobs are a distinct audience with certain expectations just as much as teenage boys or whatever?

Film snobs are an annoying lot. But I haven’t encountered any here on the board yet. To me, a film snob is somebody who limits their viewing to, say, only French films. Or who spouts something like “There hasn't been a good film made after 1973” or some similar retarded statement. A film snob is NOT somebody who categorizes or attempts to assign some sort of value judgment.

what I DONT like is people scoffing when someone dares take a peter jackson movies as seriously as a tarkovksy movie. i'd like to see "this is why the tarkosky movie is better you silly" rather than "the tarkovsky movie is so much better this doesnt even warrant discussion, away with such absurdities!" i want active, engergetic critical discussion, not (your word) "kneejerk" critical responses.

You’re absolutely right. But I don’t think anybody was questioning how serious or not you took a film – there may be passionate arguments and dissections to come to some sort of understanding as to the methods and meanings of the two directors, and you may be put to the task of defending your position – but that’s what intellectual discourse is all about. I often find myself in your position – passionately trying to defend a film that others hate – and sometimes, I have to admit, my reaction is PURELY subjective and my grounds for arguing otherwise are flimsy.

But as to your statement above, the opposite must also be true – you must be able to accept arguments AGAINST films that you deem worthy. We probably should start a thread like that – see how it works. Pick a film and dissect it until somebody cries “uncle!” Master & Commander would be an EXCELLENT pick.

I'm not sure I follow the argument. Two pieces of music in the key of A-Minor. One, a piano sonata. The other, a power ballad by [insert power ballad band here]. Is it fair to call the first one classical, and the second one not-classical? Is that not categorizing? Are the criteria untrustworthy?

When talking with people about this film (to this day, in fact) people have a hatred for this movie that I've not often encountered. "It was boring." "Nothing happened." "All I saw for three hours was what a bunch of guys were thinking." "Thin Red Line SUCKED compared to Private Ryan." etc.

Now, do you think Malick went out and spent a shitload of money to make a film for an elite few? No, he didn't. He wanted to make a war film that just wasn't like all other war films. To show something other than simply the blood and guts. That people call this an "art" film is ludicrous -- By that definition "art" = non-action. You see how ridiculous this is? It's entirely one's right to hate the Malick film, but at least be prepared to say why. To simply say "It's boring" isn't an argument. But folks who hated Malick but love Pvt. Spielberg probably did so because Pvt. Spielberg didn't give us any time or room to reflect. He dragged our hands and told us what to think, feel, etc. This is what they are used to, and THIS is the tragedy.

Your hillbilly proved it -- people can handle more than the studios give them credit for.

"Classical and not-classical" seems to indicate a genre distinction. That's more akin to the distinction between, say, comedy and horror, which most of us would have no problem categorizing in an objective fashion. (And most of us would probably agree that this kind of categorization is useful on a strictly descriptive basis, and probably also when discussing expectations and subversions of genre and how that affects the viewing experience.) The distinction between art and entertainment can NOT be treated in the same kind of obvious objective way, because it entails value judgments (certain films are, if not "better," then "more complex" or on a "higher plane"), and value judgments are NEVER objective.

Is it fair enough, then, for me to call certain films classical?

Doesn't that last part sound terribly rockist?

Can I then speak of films that are part of a long especially formal tradition and to be of lasting value?

Is time the issue here, or the "formal tradition"?

describes music that is considered to be part of a long especially formal tradition

I'll agree with this. I think this is implicit in the definition I posted, with regard to "the educated European tradition." I'm a bit vague on what you mean by "formal" (like "formal attire" or like "form vs. function"?), but to say it's a long tradition is perfectly factual and descriptive. (Actually, you know, I am bothered by "formal" -- please define?)

and to be of lasting value

Is this really at the heart of what classical music is, ontologically? Obviously, many people do consider classical music to be of lasting value, but need it be considered as such to be classical music? Certainly, there have been many pieces composed in the classical (i.e., "educated European") tradition that have not survived because they did not, in their contemporaries' eyes, have "lasting value."

In order to encompass all of the works that I think most people would think of as "classical" (including that great contradiction in terms, "contemporary classical"), I think reference to the tradition it's borne out of, and what it is not, should suffice.

Anyway, was trying to make a connection with film, but I guess I failed. Or, my brain hurts too much now to think.

Classical composers, by and large, come from an academic setting and tradition, having studied composition from other composers. They work within prescribed musical forms that are uniquely historical to classical, such as sonatas or operas.

But what so objectively distinguishes films-that-are-art from films-that-are-entertainment? I'm sure we could think of filmmakers who went to film school who make dumb crowd-pleasers, and filmmakers who are self-taught and make philosophically challenging cinema. And it seems to me film has no unique forms that are the exclusive province of a historical tradition in the medium. People have always been making comedies, dramas, documentaries, etc. (And the "populist" strain of cinema is probably even older than the "avant-garde" strain, as the first filmmakers sought to simply catch fanciful, crowd-pleasing moments on film.) Ultimately, what bothers me about the art vs. entertainment distinction is that I don't think it's all that obvious, or at least not in the same objective way as classical music vs. non-classical music.

*intimations of objectivity
*one eye on longevity/importance ("you think that will still be
played in 20 years?")
*importance of meaning
*focus on individual genius rather than incremental scene advances by many different people
*the canon

I don't think it's a value judgement at all. I've said that cinematic art is "better" than entertainment movies at any time, nor have I condemned anyone for preferring entertainment over art in their viewing experience.

but to say that you can't say that there is a distinction is insane. the directors know it, the studios know it. it's the reason they have audience test groups before these films come out.

i'm becoming more and more disillusioned by the forum because it seems like we're coming from two irreconcilable sides--those who think we should just watch movies in a big cinematic melting pot, and those of us who make a distinction between true artistic achievements in the medium of film, and commercial escapist rubbish.

In fact, when I think back to the old 70's "film school vanguard" of lucas, spielberg, and scorsese, these are the ones making the dumb crowd pleasers. film school (at least production-wise) doesn't make anyone an artist--it gives them the tools to be a craftsman. the artistry comes from elsewhere.

"And the "populist" strain of cinema is probably even older than the "avant-garde" strain, as the first filmmakers sought to simply catch fanciful, crowd-pleasing moments on film."

yes, but this was when filmmaking was seen as purely a technological innovation. they were not "making movies", per se, simply showing what the machine could do. and whether or not filmmaking started as "populist" or not is actually pretty irrelevant to this discussion.

"And it seems to me film has no unique forms that are the exclusive province of a historical tradition in the medium"

uh, what now? do people simply forget about avant-garde cinema or are they just not aware of it?

And let's not forget that we probably have more in common than we think -- I was pleased to see BabyBuddha's top 10 list because it illustrated that no matter how our philosophy of art differs, we can still agree on the worth of individual films.

I also think you're right about avant-garde/experimental film clearly belonging to a cinematic tradition that's similar to how classical music fits into general music culture. And so I'd feel perfectly comfortable making an objective distinction between popular cinema and avant-garde/experimental cinema. But I'm not sure this is what you mean by the difference between entertainment and art, right? (I mean, if you're talking about folks like Kubrick and Malick and Godard as artists, then you're allowing that popular cinema can be art.)

I do think, however, that being aware of rockist tendencies is useful in helping us to question our own assumptions. For example, I don't want to dismiss an aesthetic experience just because it strikes me as an ephemeral pleasure, because I understand that's a rockist conceit. So I ask myself, what's wrong with that particular ephemeral pleasure? And then perhaps I'll find a way to criticize it in a more rigorous and substantial way.

Wow, that's strange...i was just about to counter your argument re: avant-garde film & tradition, then i re-read your post and realized you agreed with me. i guess i'm just used to the conflict by now! :)

I guess one thing that I should have stated from the start is that 60-70 percent of the films that i watch & 100 percent of the films I make are in the "avant-garde/experimental" category (although I prefer just refering to it as "film"), so I'm coming from an outlook that includes more than 90-180 minute narrative features in my critique and theory of cinema.

"And so I'd feel perfectly comfortable making an objective distinction between popular cinema and avant-garde/experimental cinema. But I'm not sure this is what you mean by the difference between entertainment and art, right? (I mean, if you're talking about folks like Kubrick and Malick and Godard as artists, then you're allowing that popular cinema can be art.)"

Here's where the problem lies--while folks like Kubrick, Malick, and Godard produce within the sphere of "popular cinema" (studios, feature-length running times, etc.), I would qualify these directors (especially Godard) as having roots within the avant-garde. I also don't feel that avant-garde or "art" film needs to exist within the confines of short films that a handfull of people need to see. Some true film artists happen to create feature length works that happen to show in theaters to decent-sized audiences.

I think this is what BabyBuddha and myself have been saying all along--that there is a need for analysis in differentiating between simple, passive, manipulative, escapist pleasure and the deeper emotions and re-conceptualization brought about by art.

I don't think Buddha or myself at any time said that there is no cinematic art in the popular cinema. What we have stressed is the second part of your statement--an analysis of the criteria which have created the ephemeral pleasure. It seems that this important step of analysis has been absent from your and ryan's arguments, or a least the ability to learn from your analysis. you seem to be saying that every film out there deserves an in-depth analysis, when often times the output of the major studios is so repetitious that this becomes a severe waste of time.

i think what this is really coming down to is simply a difference in criteria by which the two sides judge a "good" film.

Now then: are there certain filmmakers more than others that I revere as artistic geniuses, for the intelligence and beauty their films evoke? Certainly. But at the same time, pleasure is pleasure, and if I receive as much pleasure from a non-genius as I do from a genius, I don't want to second-guess what I felt.

Haha, well yeah, that too.

And nobody's asking you to! But this adherence to blind pleasure and ephemeral enjoyment as a measure of artistic worth is nonsensical at best. I feel it takes more than creating "pleasure" or some other immediate emotional/physical response in a human being to create art. Cheap thrills are for the realm of entertainment.

"it's made me question why ephemeral pleasures are necessarily considered less worthy experiences than, say, philosophical challenges. And I think using words like "simple, passive, manipulative, escapist" do much to color these kinds of experiences in a negative light."

look, if wanted to just shut off my brain and something that gave me the "warm fuzzies," I'

but we're not kids, we're adults (i assume at least most people on this site are over the age of 21?) and we have critical reasoning powers (i.e. brains) that are capable of giving us experiences beyond the unquestioning "that's funny" and "that's scary" & so forth. and i've never said that there's anything wrong with turning your brain off & giving into the fun of a film, but if you plan to have a serious, meaningful (i.e. beyond surface-level ephemera) experience, you should be judging with your brain first and your instincts second.

sorry if this sounds harsh, but i'm lacking patience today & i'm always wary of the type of thinking that results in doctoral dissertations about "kangaroo jack", etc.

That's interesting. I think I'd probably reverse it. Which is not to say that thinking is NOT important, but that almost all of my positive aesthetic experiences have been rooted in some form of pleasure (which you'll note I'm thinking of broadly) that I've then found a way to intellectualize. Nothing turns me off more than the kind of modern art that requires an artist's statement (or other wall text) to become interesting. If it hasn't attracted me with its aesthetic properties first, I'm not that interested. (Or, to be charitable, I'm interested in it in a much different way.)

the people who contribute to this site are educated and passionate about film. and i respect everything they say and truly feel about film, but i lose respect when they can't dismiss something as trivial, meaningless or even stupid, just because some other people who have zero knowledge about film might happen to like it.

you seem to be saying that every film out there deserves an in-depth analysis

i dont care to analyze every film because i dont care--some films dont seem worth it to me once i see them.

thing is, i dont understand how you can automatically know what films will reward analysis until you analyze them?

well, my tastes in painting reside along the lines of pollock, kandinsky, klee & rothko, so that may be our problem right there! :)

i will say that formalism is a huge factor for me, in all of the arts, including film. there are many different ways of defining "aesthetic properties" and your definition may be quite different from mine.

the fact that painting and music have come into this discussion are important, seeing as i wish film were judged by some of the same criterion as these other mediums. (and i don't buy into a "lack of history" excuse either).

and lastly, i don't see how someone who is capable of intellectualize a film after watching it isn't capable of doing it while watching the film. it should be a natural thing. i just don't understand why a person wouldn't want to look at art with an uncritical eye. entertainment maybe, but not art. art is to be engaged with, not just experienced.

"i dont care to analyze every film because i dont care--some films dont seem worth it to me once i see them.

thing is, i dont understand how you can automatically know what films will reward analysis until you analyze them?"

ok, i little analogy. you eat a rotten apple. you know you don't like it, it gave you diarrhea, you know that there is something obviously inherently wrong with rotten apples.

so why keep eating rotten apples? do you keep trying them in the hopes that one might not make you sick? analyse what type of food poisoning each gives you?

no, you classify if as something you don't touch. you have reasons why you don't touch the rotten apples anymore.

somethings, after practice, just become clear. i don't need to watch "dude, where's my car?" to know that its not going to change my life. you get older and more experienced & you don't have a need to question every little thing in life. i knew a person once who had this need to press himself to the limit just to prove the effects to himself. he would stay up for days at a time, touch hot stove burner, etc. he knew it wasn't good for him, he knew what the effects would be, but he did it anyway.

i just don't see the point in wasting my time to analyzing or trying to give higher meaning to film that is nothing but shallow surface, and what's worse, was never meant to be analyzed as anything more than a shallow surface.

that's what's great about artists like stan brakhage and peter kubelka--they force you to change your priorities!

you say tomayto, i say red spherical fruit...

true, but you have to admit from that that art must be something more profound than just eye candy--otherwise we would have never gotten past the pastoral landscapes and reclining nudes phase.

Mmmmmmm......reclining nudes.

This is a REALLY interesting statement, and it's something that I've never reconciled with myself as well. I stare at the solid black canvas. I've been told it's genius. I don't get it. Is it me? Sure, I don't want a painting to immediately speak to me ("Oh, look at that lovely painting of a chair") but if I don't get it, I want to at least know/feel that the artist really had something to say and wasn't just crawling up their own ass.

However, I don't think such things exist in film nearly as much. Film just requires time -- esp. time to reflect on what you saw. Perhaps you need to view it a second time to be sure. Sure, it may not be evident at first that the cabbage is meant to symbolize man's struggle with God in the late 20th century, but it will come to you if you think about it. All the pieces to understanding are there on the celluloid and soundtrack (if there is one).

I get the impression from many people that if the film doesn't immediately present the guy, the girl and the gun then it's an art film and not worth the time. This pisses me off, and is partly responsible for my 'rockist' comments now and then. Certainly not EVERY film has to be a complex, complicated work, but better that than films that TELL and FORCE you how to feel. Yuck!

Admittedly, avant-garde film does take a bit of work. But that's part of the fun. Perhaps it's because I love film as a medium that I'm willing to work through a Maya Deren film but not a black canvas. I don't know for sure. . .

That's not to say there aren't avant-garde films that are full of shit, mind you.

I probably saw more Hollywood product in 2003 than I have in a long time, but I had some specific interest in each one - (i.e., I didn't waste my time on any cookie-cutter nonsense.)

Yes - most Hollywood films these days DO suck. (Is that 'rockist' enough?) But then again, more and more American 'indie' films are starting to suck more and more.

Ever since I got this digital recording device from my cable company, I've been recording a lot of lesser-known films from TCM and Fox Movies -- have really discovered some hidden gems (but I'm getting off-topic here.)

fair enough, i absolutely agree with this even. but part of what made me upset way up-thread is what seemed to me an attitude that because you dont care about a certain movie enough to analyze it it becomes an worthless movie that NO ONE should take seriously. it just seems that your arguments all end with you being the authority, rather than any objective criteria.

i still would like to see where i ever said that i'm the final authority on cinematic art....

all i'm saying is that there are criteria which the discerning cineast, after personal experience combined with study of cinematic theory and history, learns to develop to determine which films are worth taking seriously. and both ryan and jaymc have admitted to using such criteria themselves, whether it be in foreseeing the "dude where's my car" won't be the masterwork that causes their great cinematic enlightenment, or the fact that jaymc chooses not to watch a lot of hollywood movies. you watch, you learn. that's all i'm saying. i never said i had any kind of final say on what "makes the cut"--i'm saying that history has a say.

i think Buddha brought up a great point with his analysis of modern painting vs. film, especially in regard to our conversation regarding the cinematic chicken or the egg--emotional response or intellectual response being the criteria that draws us to a film. it's a good argument for the latter being the viable choice in regard to cinematic art.

when i first watched stan brakhage's "dog star man" at sixteen or so, i thought it was boring as hell, but i was intrigued because i saw elements that led me to know that there was something deeper going on. and this was before i knew of the film's "importantance" and being listed in the national film registry, etc. as far as i was concerned, this was just another film some guy put together, but i recognized some element of greatness behind all of the seemingly random images & bad photography.

so i watched it again. and again. and again. and after a decade of re-watching this film, i've come to a greater appreciation and understanding of it, and i still realize i have more to understand and i look forward to viewing it again in ten years and seeing how my reaction will be different and what else i can gain from the film.

there are few hollywood films i can say the same for. i can watch "jurassic park" ten years from now & i doubt i'll gain any substantially new insights from it. same with lord of the rings. and this is where i draw the line between entertainment and cinematic art--art grows with you as you grow with the art. maybe this is "rockist" because i think that some films having a lasting, growing timeless quality, but you know what? i don't fucking care--good art is timeless, no matter what some hipster dilletante music fan wants to say because his crappy band's hit record only lasted three days on the college charts. there's a difference between the ephemeral and the timeless, a difference between the complex and the simple, and there's a difference between good cinematic art and easy commercial movies. and i find no shame or conceit in identifying it as such.

Uh, if this is supposed to be a caricature of ILM, it's a pretty inaccurate one.