[squarejawhero]

It's the films you've seen that makes you a fan. You may not like people who ghettoize themselves into one genre, for example, but someone 100% into cowboy movies is still a film fan and could tell you more about that genre than you will ever learn. This doesn't make you or the cowboy fan any more or any less a movie fanatic.

I don't see how watching thousands of films, both good and bad, compared to watching those that're only reputed as classics or people who prefer certain fields of film makes people less or more fanatical. I doubt I've seen half the films you've seen and I doubt you have as much knowledge of direction as I have. So who's the bigger fan? Who's got the right to comment or critique more? What about PinkGothic... she has a particular taste and is free to argue against your opinion based on those tastes even though she may not have seen the creme de la creme of the movie world. Likewise, you can come around and give comment as to the good things that come out of a film like War Of The Worlds, those parts that're worthwhile, as well as simply call it crap. Surely that'd make you an even bigger fan? After all, this is exactly what Harry from Aintitcool tries to do, see the best in movies even if they're rancid turds.

I've found that I've gone backwards and forwards in my time between different genres and tastes... hell, I've got part of the Cremaster Cycle in my DVD collection next to The Fast And The Furious. My friend Ben recently came around, knowing how much I do about films, and expressed great suprise as to how many I didn't own. I told him I only buy the ones I already have interest in, I don't buy films I've never seen unless they're a sure thing. I see movies on television, I rent, I don't go out of my way to see as many as possible but I do ingest those I do see. Is my field of vision any narrower than yours? Well, evidently not as you're willing to relegate certain films to the sidelines even if you do say you think that watching all these movies gives you a wider field of view.

It's all about taste, not how many movies you watch and what you should like based on overall critical opinion. I've seen The Shining, which I regard as a failiure in terms of overall tension and pacing towards the end (I've stated my views as to why), and I've watched Godfather, which I took from but didn't enjoy. It took me three times to watch the entire film. I doubt everyone's going to like Citizen Kane, I could pick holes in it (not that I would want to, I love it), but if that person likes Ghostbusters and Freaks then I'm sure I could talk to them with as much passion as someone who's seen Kane and enjoyed it as much as me. Just because they haven't seen Kane doesn't mean their opinions aren't any less worthwhile or lesser than mine.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

It's the films you've seen that makes you a fan. You may not like people who ghettoize themselves into one genre, for example, but someone 100% into cowboy movies is still a film fan and could tell you more about that genre than you will ever learn. This doesn't make you or the cowboy fan any more or any less a movie fanatic.

Disagree. I despise "genre ghettoizers". How can someone like that even pretend to be objective whatsoever?

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

I doubt I've seen half the films you've seen and I doubt you have as much knowledge of direction as I have.

Whoops... I guess that's what I get for not having much of a profile. That's part of what I do man. Write and direct short films, heh. At least for now... I'd love to do a feature length someday. It's all very experimental, some of it even Brakhage-esque, but that doesn't mean I only like experimental films or strange, obscure stuff. That would be silly and limiting in my opinion.

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

What about PinkGothic... she has a particular taste and is free to argue against your opinion based on those tastes even though she may not have seen the creme de la creme of the movie world.

She can argue all she wants, but what can she say to make War of the Worlds a classic and Citizen Kane a turd? It's not even fair really. And how can someone compare say...Terminator 2 to Humanity and Paper Balloons, if they haven't even seen Humanity and Paper Balloons? It's a disadvantage, period. It's like fielding a high school football team against a college team. Call me an elitist son of a bitch if you will, but you wouldn't be calling a surgeon an elitist when he's saving your loved one's ass (though I'd be willing to bet he knows more about surgery than the average person).

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

Likewise, you can come around and give comment as to the good things that come out of a film like War Of The Worlds, those parts that're worthwhile, as well as simply call it crap. Surely that'd make you an even bigger fan?

Guess I'm a "bigger fan" then. I said good stuff about War of the Worlds in the thread about that film. I simply said it's a dumb movie. Entertaining, but stupid as hell.

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

Well, evidently not as you're willing to relegate certain films to the sidelines even if you do say you think that watching all these movies gives you a wider field of view.

What films do I relegate to the sidelines? By the way, isn't your name Ben? Your friend's name is Ben? My name is Ben. And we all like movies. Cool.

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

Just because they haven't seen Kane doesn't mean their opinions aren't any less worthwhile or lesser than mine.

I guess it's good for people's self esteem to say that, and maybe you even believe it... But, there are certain films everyone should see before claiming to be a movie fan. Sorry, I feel very strongly about that.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

I haven't watched The Seventh Seal, I haven't seen a Warhol, I've not sat down to His Girl Friday and I keep coming in on the end of Some Like It Hot.

As in anything else, diversity is the key to understanding and truly appreciating. And, more important for this discussion, it is the key for a better judgement, because it provides comparisons, and a judgement is a relative thing.

If I take your examples as "I haven't seen many art/foreign movies" (I don't know about that), then it means that you've deprived yourself of a good part of what could actually refine you judgement, making it less accurate than Once a Villain.

Of course, since taste enters the equation, there's no such thing as a good opinion, but certainly some opinion are more educated than others, and as such more valuable. Hence the use of movie critics...

Once a Villain: I'm curious about your top 10.

And sorry about the repeated use of "judgement". I was at a lack for synonyms.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Ninth

As in anything else, diversity is the key to understanding and truly appreciating. And, more important for this discussion, it is the key for a better judgement, because it provides comparisons, and a judgement is a relative thing.

Wow. I must say, that pretty much makes everything I said obsolete. That sums it all up perfectly I think. Especially that last sentence. Nice.

Originally Posted by Ninth

Of course, since taste enters the equation, there's no such thing as a good opinion, but certainly some opinion are more educated than others, and as such more valuable. Hence the use of movie critics...

Precisely the reason that I respect critics as well. They see everything that comes out each year (or damn close to it), and we can already look back on Ninth's first quote above to see why that matters.

Originally Posted by Ninth

Once a Villain: I'm curious about your top 10.

And I yours buddy. I've always enjoyed talking movies with you. I really respect your opinions. I am a perfectionist though when it comes to my lists, and it's not finalized at the moment (I am currently viewing a lot of my favorite movies again). I can tell you that Citizen Kane would be on it, and a good example of a visually brilliant movie that really exploits the strengths of cinema and would probably be on there at #10 or 11 or so would be Andrei Tarkovsky's Mirror. For the rest, let me finish the list first. What are some of your favorites?

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

And I yours buddy. I've always enjoyed talking movies with you. I really respect your opinions. I am a perfectionist though when it comes to my lists, and it's not finalized at the moment (I am currently viewing a lot of my favorite movies again). I can tell you that Citizen Kane would be on it, and a good example of a visually brilliant movie that really exploits the strengths of cinema and would probably be on there at #10 or 11 or so would be Andrei Tarkovsky's Mirror. For the rest, let me finish the list first. What are some of your favorites?

I always have trouble with this kind of list, myself.
Firstly, because making choices is always difficult.
And secondly, because a lot of elements come into the equation to make a film a "favorite". For example, you probably won't find many, if any, black and white movie there, even though I've seen a lot of incredible ones, simply because colors speaks to me more loudly, if you know what I mean.
Also, as is the case for books, I tend to privilege movies that show me a universe in which I feel at home.

So.

My favorite movie is Blade Runner, without a doubt, and a few other ScFi movies will go in my top 10 as well. Dune, probably, and Terminator 1.
Exotica is undoubtedly there too.
Probably some chinese (or taiwanese) movies as well, but I would have to think about which ones. Perhaps something by Hou Hsiao Hsien, perhaps something by Wong Kar Wai.
Woody Allen, maybe there, too, why not Manhattan... or Match Point; I loved it (but I'm not that fond of including recent movies in a top 10, because I haven't really had time to really disgest them).
I have a weakness for Rohmer's Conte de Printemps.

Well, I'll try to make a real list one of these days (I don't worry about perfection the way you do, because my taste can vary slighly depending on the time).

Oh wait, I forgot Muholland Drive, and Blue Velvet. Granted, that's a bunch of Lynch, but hey, I just love what he's doing.

EDIT: I'm of course open to criticism and discussion about any of this, even though that might take this thread a bit more off-topic than it already is.
Perhaps one of us should open (or re-open) a favorite movie thread.

[Once A Villain]

Cool. I love Blade Runner also. And Allen's stuff, Rohmer's, Lynch's, etc. EXCEPT, I personally dislike Dune. :-( Anyway yeah, how about once we both get our Top 10 or Top 20 lists finalized, we start a new thread, like you suggested?

[Jeysie]

Ironically, I personally find Blade Runner overrated.

Great atmosphere and such to be sure, but IMHO a very muddy, confusing, weirdly edited plot. And this from someone who had no problems following (and enjoying) movies like Pulp Fiction, Dark City, Usual Suspects, and such.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[nikoniko]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Ironically, I personally find Blade Runner overrated.

I once sat in on a friend's class at UMass just because they were showing the director's cut of BR, and despite not being a student in the class, I received an honorary A+ from the prof for my participation in the after-movie discussion. She had asked, "What is the significance of the replicants being able to be killed by guns?" and was rather surprised by my answer.

See... you never know when watching cult film classics will come in handy!

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Cool. I love Blade Runner also. And Allen's stuff, Rohmer's, Lynch's, etc. EXCEPT, I personally dislike Dune. :-( Anyway yeah, how about once we both get our Top 10 or Top 20 lists finalized, we start a new thread, like you suggested?

Then this thread will probably never exist.

Originally Posted by Jeysie

but IMHO a very muddy, confusing, weirdly edited plot.

Dunno. Seemed pretty straightforward to me. Or maybe I just don't care about details...

[squarejawhero]

Who says I haven't watched any foreign films, Ninth? That was just an example. BTW it's not how many you've seen, it's what you've seen, whether you've understood it and what you've taken away from it that's more important. I stand by that. Understanding is entirely different to volume, hence having seen a movie by Tartovsky wouldn't make a bit of difference if I couldn't apply what I take from that in a valid way to other films. I'd argue that on occasion diversity can blind purity of opinion too. It goes both ways.

The problem is when people start using their knowledge of how many they've seen, rather than applying understanding, in movie criticism... often making blase opinions based on something obscure or barely related, or overcomplicating reviews in a mess of clever-clever observations. I've seen this happen far too often and if anything the "educated" can easily make as many mistakes as those who've seen far less.

Lastly, my film makeup is mainly populist work. I don't make a point of watching historic movies, mainly as I find that movies have come along so far in terms of direction, pacing and composition that it almost becomes difficult to apply their techniques in modern terms. I do see their value and importance, particularly in classics created by Lang and Cocteau, and I think people should hold an interest in them, but making sure I view them isn't something I let rule my life.

Just a little more on myself... I've been a storyboard artist and visual designer in animation and television for nearly five years now, and have found I do apply various techniques, ideas for pacing and composition from movies I've seen when appropriate. But I don't live by them or try to follow a dynamic precedent set by past masters, as that wouldn't be true to myself. Could I call my directorial style similar to any particular director? Actually, no... and I never would. I only lift things when I've ran out of ideas (rare) or when I've seen something applied that could work within a scene, or deliberately do something referential. The key to good direction, imho, is originality...

... but it doesn't hurt to rip someone off now and again.

[AFGNCAAP]

Okay, here goes the rant as promised.

A few quick points:

RE: the original topic. Manhunter, no disrespect on my side intended, either, but I notice that you didn't respond to my main point: that you are helping create the same borders that annoy you by inexplicable treating Minority Report as a movie focused on special effects, or falling for Pulp Fiction tricking the audience into believing there is any kind of second layer to it ("ooh, it's told out of order - it must be deep"), etc. Oh well, nevermind.

RE: Pulp Fiction. I didn't intend to say that those actors' careers were over (I see that those "15 minutes" could've been misleading, though), but that they weren't started (or restarted) in mainstream awareness up till Pulp Fiction. So saying that those respected stars agreed to appear in PF for a minimal wage, is (Willis excluded), a moot point.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Ninth actually said that, not me.

Sorry, I thought you agreed with everything he said regarding the picture.

Care to explain how it's unintelligent and hollow?

What, does it have hidden meaning or "deep sociological commentary"? It makes you reevaluate your life? Does it have real characters rather than paper-thin mannequins who recite dialogues on random topics? Is any of the excessive violence and swearing justified and not intended to appeal to the adolescent popcorn eaters (sorry, it's not me who started the age argument )? The style is something relatively fresh (doesn't mean I have to like it, now, does it?), but where is this substance you speak of?

RE: Good taste coming with age and number of movies you've actually seen. That's hardly false in principle, but using it to diss somebody's opinion entirely is kinda low blow. (I know it was originally said in jest, but it became a topic of the debate since, so I had to add it.) Villain, enlighten me about the nuisances I'm missing, if you think it's my inexperience showing (ignoring the fact that I love so many of the movies you cherish as well, and you know it). But I'd say 80% of PF groupies are blissfully ignorant that it's a pastiche of old B-movies and literature of or the fact that non-chronological storytelling was nothing new in 1994, so, not to sound arrogant, they could learn from me.

[squarejawhero]

You'd be suprised what you can take from even what some might think of as base movies... take The Fast And The Furious as an example. Not only does it contain a great, cheesy but well acted Vin Diesel monologue , but its racing scenes contain some of the best pacing, editing, effects work and basic storytelling (some effective use of emotion and comedy) in recent times. The film itself has incredibly flimsy structure, some obvious "twists" and a flat central performance from Paul Walker, for sure, but the script is scrappy and it moves at a cracking pace. The in-car camera work is stunning (notably the flip in the final race), the stunts are some of the best committed to celluloid and there's real invention in the CGI. It reinvented the race movie and kickstarted a gaming phenomenon too. So whilst some might file it under "guilty pleasure" I file it under "inspiring".

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Sorry, I thought you agreed with everything he said regarding the picture.

What, does it have hidden meaning or "deep sociological commentary"? It makes you reevaluate your life? Does it have real characters rather than paper-thin mannequins who recite dialogues on random topics? Is any of the excessive violence and swearing justified and not intended to appeal to the adolescent popcorn eaters (sorry, it's not me who started the age argument )? The style is something relatively fresh (doesn't mean I have to like it, now, does it?), but where is this substance you speak of?

In Pulp Fiction's case, I'd argue that the brilliance of the dialogs comes from their style, not from their meaning.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

but IMHO a very muddy, confusing, weirdly edited plot.

Er, but dude, good SF is all *about* details, IMHO. Science fiction is best when the details complement and tie into the plot (though not necessarily in a neat little bow), not obscure it or overshadow it.

I want to like Blade Runner, honestly. The atmosphere is intriguing, and I like many of the individual scenes. (Mostly the ones featuring Roy... they need to bottle that actor!) But they just don't *flow*... I spent most of the movie feeling confused and wondering why everything that was going on was going on. And since I generally like stories with lots of complex stuff going on, I'd like to think my confusion isn't because I'm an idiot. IMHO there was definitely some weirdness in the way the movie was edited. My roommate (a fellow SF fan) felt exactly the same way.

Moving on, I have to admit that completely trashing Pulp Fiction seems a little like rebellious criticism to me... but then, I'm not a film connaisseur either way.

On the one side, I do agree with the thought that PF's fun is in its sheer style, including the dialogue. On the other side, I also agree with the thought that anyone looking for major depth in the movie is barking up the wrong tree.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[RLacey]

The problem I had with Blade Runner is that, once the narration was removed, the characters simply appeared to be doing things without a reason. I remember thinking several times "How could they have known to go and do that" and such things while watching the Director's Cut. It simply made no sense to me without the explanations, and felt like someone had cut out half the plot exposition ...

[Jeysie]

Yes! Mistah Lacey summed up my problems with Blade Runner exactly.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Ninth]

Well, I had no such problems, perhaps because I saw it with the voice overs the first time.

I actually love the way the narrative goes. It's not twisted (as in a Lynch movie), but it's not mapped out either. It's just the same as watching people behave in real life; their behaviours follow some recognisable patterns, but the details and the motivations of these behaviours can never be clear to an outsider.

[Jeysie]

Ninth:

I dunno, that kind of smells like a major cop-out to me. "But the story doesn't have to make any kind of motivational or continuity sense... it's just like real life that way!"

I don't like being spoon-fed exposition, but I'm not all that keen on the "Rorschach test" plot method either.

I do think that the version I saw was the Director's Cut. However, seeing as how IIRC the director fellow hated the voice overs - and the Director's Cut is, presumably, closer to the way he intended the movie to be - the fact that IMHO the movie makes little sense without the initial benefit of the voice overs says a fair bit.

In any case, I don't think Blade Runner is bad, but I do think it's overrated.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

I don't make a point of watching historic movies, mainly as I find that movies have come along so far in terms of direction, pacing and composition that it almost becomes difficult to apply their techniques in modern terms.

I used to think the same way, but now I see that the majority of modern films have actually taken a step back instead of a step forward in terms of all three. I made a post about Buster Keaton's The General about a week ago, and I'd like to use it as an example. In my view it's a far more exciting piece of cinema, despite being being made in 1927, than something like The Matrix or a modern action film. Why? Because with the exception of some Chinese films, action films today don't allow the viewer to appreciate what is happening.

Even Braveheart or Gladiator, period epics for crying out loud, try to spice things up with a rapid series of cuts, slow motion, handheld cameras (this works great for Saving Private Ryan, but it's certainly not a fit with all films), etc. All of this serves only to obscure what is really going on. Orson Welles had it right when he said, "A long-playing full shot is what separates the men from the boys. Anybody can make movies with a pair of scissors and a two-inch lens." In Keaton's The General, we really get to see what is going on. Brilliantly choreographed sequences, that are both impressive and funny, play for us in all their glory. No tricks, no gimmicks, no Buster Keaton leaping from car to car on the train in slow motion, no pounding soundtrack to fool us into being excited when what is happening on screen does nothing to earn such a reaction, no wobbly cameras so we can't see what the hell is happening, and no hectic cuts that try to hide the fact that the filmmaker blows. And of all things...composition is very much inferior to what used to be done. Oh well...moving on...

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

What, does it have hidden meaning or "deep sociological commentary"? It makes you reevaluate your life? Does it have real characters rather than paper-thin mannequins who recite dialogues on random topics? Is any of the excessive violence and swearing justified and not intended to appeal to the adolescent popcorn eaters (sorry, it's not me who started the age argument )? The style is something relatively fresh (doesn't mean I have to like it, now, does it?), but where is this substance you speak of?

Uh, there are different kinds of depth in films. Pulp Fiction is by no means as intellectual as a Bergman film or as challenging as a Tarkovsky. It doesn't make me reevaluate my life, no. That's not my argument. Pulp Fiction is a nice blend, however, of style and substance. It's not all style. The characters aren't paper-thin at all, I'm not sure what you're after? A thorough backstory for each of them? All the characters are interesting in their own ways, and they each have an arc. All of them are changed.

Jules gives up killing because of what he believed to be an act of God sparing his life. This change of heart stayed his hand at the end when he could have killed Tim Roth's character (which I like to think may have changed Roth's character as well). Vincent, after all that he gets through, disagrees with Jules about miracles (and just about everything else over the course of the film), has no interest in changing his ways, and ends up dead at the hands of Butch. Butch is the proud one, the one with the family heirloom (with quite a legend attached to it) that goes way back to the first world war. His pride won't let him follow the orders of Marcellus (though Vincent and Jules were always more than happy to), and the result of that is quite self destructive. Still, that same pride is what keeps him from running away later in the film when he had the chance. By staying and saving Wallace from the redneck thugs, he redeems himself. As a reward, he stays alive and basically rides off with his girlfriend into the sunset. Mia Wallace also goes through quite an ordeal, and one can imagine that she would also be quite changed by it. <---- Please forgive my obsession with parentheticals in this paragraph

As for their dialogue, it couldn't possibly be more refreshing. Why? Because it's presented as normal conversation between characters doing abnormal things. Instead of discussing "the job" or their "favorite shotgun" or something, instead of the dialogue being plot-driven, it is only driven by developing the sense of the character's themselves. Their interests, their relationships, their concerns peripheral to what they are actually doing, etc. And the violence and swearing in Pulp Fiction are as justified as they are in films like Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and Boyz in the Hood. The characters aren't aristocrats. They're hoodlums, drug addicts, hitmen, thieves, and general f*** ups all around. Leaving out the violence and language would be the unjustified approach. And now, since I just read Ebert's "Great Movies" review of Pulp Fiction this morning and can't say this any better than he does, I quote his last two paragraphs:

"But it isn't the structure that makes ``Pulp Fiction'' a great film. Its greatness comes from its marriage of vividly original characters with a series of vivid and half-fanciful events_and from the dialogue. The dialogue is the foundation of everything else.

Watching many movies, I realize that all of the dialogue is entirely devoted to explaining or furthering the plot, and no joy is taken in the style of language and idiom for its own sake. There is not a single line in ``Pearl Harbor'' you would want to quote with anything but derision. Most conversations in most movies are deadly boring_which is why directors with no gift for dialogue depend so heavily on action and special effects. The characters in ``Pulp Fiction'' are always talking, and always interesting, funny, scary or audacious. This movie would work as an audio book. Imagine having to listen to ``The Mummy Returns.''

Originally Posted by Ninth

Well, I had no such problems, perhaps because I saw it with the voice overs the first time.

I did too. I can't stand the narrated version now.

[nikoniko]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

I do think that the version I saw was the Director's Cut. However, seeing as how IIRC the director fellow hated the voice overs - and the Director's Cut is, presumably, closer to the way he intended the movie to be - the fact that IMHO the movie makes little sense without the initial benefit of the voice overs says a fair bit.

That's exactly why they added the voice overs. With the film essentially complete, they tried it out on an LA test audience and nearly everyone came out saying either "Huh?" or "That's so depressing." So the studio and its investors panicked, and addressed the huh's with the voiceovers, the depressiveness with an incongruously bright ending. One of Ford's costars claims that he was so unhappy about doing the voiceovers that he told her he was going to make them as bad as he could so that there would be no way the studio would use them. Then, much to his surprise and horror, they used them exactly as they were. Apparently his experience with the film was so bad, for that and other reasons, that it's the only movie he's made that he refuses to talk about.

Interestingly, the director's cut largely came about by accident. A theater which was reshowing the movie several years later for diehard BR fans was mistakenly sent a working print of the movie instead of the release version, and the fans loved it so much that the director's cut was born.

The movie is definitely flawed, but it's one of the few that wowed me so in its presentation and dark vision that I can happily overlook the rest. Besides, it's the only movie that ever got me an A+, even if it wasn't in my own class.