‘Ideal’ movie running time is 92 minutes, poll claims

I think we're probably talking past each other. I'm saying that a criticism of self-indulgence is more a commentary on the personality of the creator than the work itself, which seems to be more or less what you're saying: that, as a criticism, it's a category error.

I'm responding to all of this with "to each their own." You like what you like, I'm not gonna try to talk you out of it. I can merely explain what I like about its opposite, in the same way a director may just put out whatever interests them and see who latches onto it. And if you don't, fair enough.

This is surprising to hear. The creation of art that connects with people seems very difficult, to me. Except in a sort of shotgun approach, I guess, where if you get something in front of enough people someone will respond to it. Which factors into the self-indulgence stuff. Elaboration in a forthcoming post.

This is a real impasse. I feel (and have long argued) that breadth of connection is underappreciated among cinephiles. That there's something just as beautiful and profound in finding those broad overlaps, that smaller kernel of humanity that almost everybody shares in, as there is in making deeper connections with fewer people. I accept that this is an unusual view (and there's a definitional asymmetry that means the latter is going to be overrepresented in places like this) and I don't expect to convince (m)any people of it.

I don't think those are mutually exclusive. Saying someone's connection was a "coincidence" does not devalue the connection itself, but it does reflect on the work. I think of it like this:

Art by design: I have this feeling. I think others do. I will express this feeling and, when another person who feels this sees it, both of us will feel seen and connected.

Art by coincidence: I have this feeling and I just want it out.

I'm not saying one is more inherently valuable, but they're not the same. It's the difference between making something you explicitly hope is useful to others and making something random or idiosyncratic and then scouring the earth for the one person who happens to need it. That's what I mean by coincidence: human connection not through intent but through sheer scale.

I don't want either to exist exclusively of the other, I just have a general preference for the former, both in that I tend to get more from it and just on a personal level, in that I think it's good when people are oriented towards serving others. That's a bit of personal morality being smuggled into artistic criticism, I admit, but I also imagine you'd argue we're not supposed to pretend those things are really separate, anyway.

Re: self-indulgence and its definition.

First, as was noted, self-indulgence is excessive by definition. But that also means it would be a useless term to use literally. If excess is part of the definition then there's nothing to discuss: we all dislike self-indulgence automatically, in the same way nobody can say they like "too much" ketchup on their hot dog, because if they like that amount, they no longer think it's too much.

Second, it would be useful to determine whether people are disputing that something specific is self-indulgent, or whether they're saying self-indulgence does not actually exist in art. I feel like crumbs is saying the latter, but whatever he or anyone else means, these are very different arguments. Or someone could be saying that it does exist, but is rare, or that it does exist but most people who use the term "self-indulgent" are actually trying to say something else (the "expect art to conform to your tastes" thing).

And on that last point, the thing about expecting art to conform...couldn't that be said of any criticism? Any criticism is saying "it should have been different" and is therefore saying it should have conformed more to the speaker's idea of what is good. Unless what you're really saying is actually psychological speculation that anyone who would use the term "self-indulgent" really means this other thing, which is possible but a little uncharitable. And there's also not a lot of point in discussions where someone says things and the other person criticizes what they think they really mean even when they say they don't mean that.

I know what people generally mean by self indulgence. Just like I know what they mean when they say pretentious. Doesn't mean there can't be validity to what they are trying to say in these criticisms, only that these words mean absolutely nothing when they are just bandied about in and of themselves as flaws.


I also have very, very clearly never said self indulgence doesn't exist. I have in fact clearly said the opposite. That most artist are, by definition, self indulgent. They indulge putting on screen what their obsessions are and the feelings and beliefs they hold inside of them they hope to express. This is the nature of art. So when someone says, that movie was flawed because it was self indulgent, what the **** does that even mean. If I am not a fan of historical romances, and I'm sitting through a bunch of scenes of French Renaissance twats in smelly wigs making out in candlelit corridors, I would be completely correct to call that self indulgent. Because it is. And I guess because it's an indulgence I'm not into, I can consider that a flaw....even though it clearly isn't. I just don't want that thing indulged. It wasn't for me. I don't need to make it sound like it is some character flaw of the creator, or artistic flaw in the film. To make those claims it gets a lot trickier.


Generally speaking, we all know what people mean when they say self indulgent. It is frequently a specific type of indulgence they are calling out, this being (most frequently) what we would call the artsy fartsier fare (movies that deal with heavy philosophical matters, or the avant garde, or films that don't adhere to narrative rules and that have running lengths well beyond the norm). It's never a Michael Bay movie which, by literally any definition, is extremely self indulgent in how it fetishizes action and violence. But because this is the kind of movie that indulges the masses, that gets an exemption.


And that's why it is a shit criticism, and why I'm skeptical of how it gets used. And thus far, has anyone who loves the term so much been able to actually explain what they mean by it when they sling it around? Or is it one of those 'I know it when I see it' kind of things, and we just accept that they don't have to explain anything that they are saying. That we should just consider the conversation pointless?


No need to answer that last question. The entirety of this thread has already supplied me with that.

I haven’t read through a lot of the posts simply because there’s too much so forgive me if someone has already touched upon this but, should the director make the film for his own self, without concern for his audience? Or should he keep his audience in mind? Should he try to reach both? Obviously, it’s up the director in how he wants to approach the film, but if he chooses to indulge in his own ego, he lives with the consequences, wether it’s good or bad.
Self indulgence, as Crumbs has already noted, isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but yes, as he pointed out already, it can be a valid form of criticism, when applied correctly.

Now, does this mean we can criticize people who use the term pedantic as a form of criticism?

Yes. If that's what he/she wants to do...And if the director is fully in charge of the film making process. Today it's more common to have a director fully at the helm, then years gone past, but there are still producers bankrolling movies, who depending on their contract with the director get to have a say in the final product.


Not always, like I said there can be producers, studios, or film making companies financially partnering with the director and they are most likely looking to make a profit and would have legal say as to what the director can and can't do.

What I read Crumb saying was that, negatively stated one word or phrases criticizing a film is "s*** reviewing". True if someone is writing up a professional critique of a film. But if it's just somebody who watched a movie and is trying to relay what they thought of the film, then 'over indulgent' is just as a good describer as 'up lifting'. We live in a 5 second sound bite world, that's just the way it is.

Ideál (1964) is 14 minutes.
Idéal (2022) is 2 minutes.
Idéal (2023) is 12 minutes.

The people in that poll were way off in their guesses. Not sure which one they were asking about.

I'd say there's no universal "ought" here. But I would say that a lot of films are obviously made for some intended audience, and it's fine to factor that in. I think film criticism is generally better when it meets the film on its own terms and judges it based on how well it achieves its own goals, and that includes meta things like the assumption that it was made to please audiences and not purely as self-expression for its own sake.

A lot of arguments about the commercial side of things have turned on whether art must be concerned with an audience (clearly, no) rather than whether most of it is (clearly, yes).

Yes! The same way we can criticize people who say "pretentious" or accuse a film of having "plot holes" because they can't actually articulate what they dislike about it. But the fact that these terms are used carelessly does not mean no film is pretentious or that no films have plot holes.

For my part, I don't think I've used the term "self-indulgent" much before. Maybe not ever in the context of film criticism, though I'm not sure. But if I were to use it, what I would mean by it is a film uninterested in trying to communicate something to others. Exactly the same way I would call a person in a conversation "self-indulgent" if they only talked about themselves and didn't seem to care what the other person thought.

If we are creating a recipe for a film that would suit me best, I think the proportional sweet spot would be 75 percent for the self, 25 for the audience.


The important stuff is probably usually in that 75 percent, but the 25 acts as a guardrail to keep it from total solipsism (which would usually be not very good, but occasionally could be a revelation....don't bank on it though)


I also feel the more we swing towards catering to audience expectations, the more the film can't help but be a lie of some kind. Creation all becomes about this speculation over what certain people might like to see, and I actually find that considerably more obnoxious than an artist being disproportionately self centered. Very few artist can survive that kind of pandering approach. Spielberg gets about as close to the line as you can without going over, and still consistently making deeply entertaining but yet still personal films. Basically you've got to be a master.


I might actually even give a probably somewhat surprising shoutout to Adrian Lyne in this regard. Total trash aimed at the lowest common denominator viewer, but almost always riveting and fairly decent stuff.

But what you're citing as an example of "self-indulgence" actually isn't - at least not to me (nor do I know anyone else who would use the term in such a way). You describe as an example a movie that happens to deal with a specific time and place and you say, "I am not a fan of historical romances". But that isn't "self-indulgent" in and of itself - it's just a specific choice of the setting of the movie. That doesn't mean the movie could still be a monumental piece of self-indulgence on the part of the filmmakers. It could be. But it isn't necessarily so, just on account of where and when it takes place and what kind of a story it is focusing on. Whether the movie is good or bad in the opinion of most people could have less to do with the particulars of the story and more with the execution of the story, the skill of storytelling involved, etc.

I don't think that's true at all, a movie doesn't have to be arthouse to be self-indulgent, and indeed, it's more likely that it would be something financed by a huge conglomerate.

A movie isn't necessarily self-indulgent just because it deals with heavy philosophical matters, because it is avant-garde, or because it doesn't adhere to narrative rules and/or has a very long running time. None of those things, in themselves, make something seem self-indulgent.

Why have I gone back more than once to Heaven's Gate and Killers of the Flower Moon as perfect examples of self-indulgent films? There's nothing in the source material for either one that absolutely dictated that they should have to be self-indulgent films. Yet in allowing a director with a fairly large ego and a reputation (in Cimino's case, at least at the time) to take on these projects and giving them humongous budgets to work with, the end result was self-indulgent (and overlong) films.

There's practically no way a young, up-and-coming director - or even someone who was nothing more than a hired hand - would have taken that material and delivered a self-indulgent movie - for one thing, they wouldn't have had the clout to do that. The material would have been shaped to a large extent by the producers.

Both of these movies had pretty compelling source material to work with - and it could have worked perfectly way as either a somewhat shorter movie, or an even longer mini-series. The material was definitely there for either approach.

Instead, you end up with big, bloated, soporific movies that don't quite do the material justice. (David Grann's book, while not perfect, was far more gripping than the movie it inspired). And in hindsight it becomes clear that the director's own ego was getting in the way of telling a good story.

I hadn't seen this post before FilmBuff just quoted it.
I believe I have a handle of what Crumbsroom is saying, he believes an artist shouldn't be negatively criticized, yet it's OK to use the same criticism on a director that he disregards like Michael Bay. Isn't that an oxymoron? Either it's legit to call any movie self-indulgent or it's never legit, even if it's Michael Bay.

That's absolutely not what I said.

I think his argument is that it shouldn’t be used as a catch all phrase as criticism, especially in a glib manner.

I would agree with that.

There are a lot of horribly bloated movies coming out of the studios these days. I wouldn't consider many of them to be truly self-indulgent. Part of it is just the studio process.

I found Babylon a little self indulgent, and in a bad way.

I think it may be a touch self-indulgent, but still enjoyed it - and maybe if I wasn't such a big fan of that period of Hollywood history, I wouldn't have had the patience to sit through it all.

It's a shame, too, because that movie landed Chazelle in director's jail.

I don't want to misquote you or misunderstand you, so please explain how you meant this:
That sounds to me like you are saying Micael Bay movies are self indulgent.

Yeah I got that part of it and yet he used it as a catch all to describe Michael Bay movies and I'd say he did it in a glib manner, which once again is fine. Nothing wrong with being glib, flippant or dismissive of any movie or art form, if that's how one feels.

He wasn’t using it as a form of criticism towards his films itself, but rather as an example of a film that seemingly gets a pass (although I’m not so sure this so true here) because it is aimed at the masses, where art house and Avant Garde films are unfairly criticized by such criticisms.

I would say the biggest problem with Michael Bay movies isn't self-indulgence, so much as just a matter of style. His style is trashy, and almost proudly so. But some people seem to like it, so...