Difference between Recognition of Technical Excellence and Enjoyment?

True. And that, for me, is where the importance of things like Dogme 95 come in---in some ways technically "bad" but still amazing given as reactions to the the historical context, etc. Making contrast that is genuine is something that is much harder for a computer to reproduce...

Eh, idk. Maybe sometimes he shows those tendencies, and he definitely could have worded his response to Tak much better, but I’ve noticed he tends to also go against the popular thought among cinephiles, chief among them disagreeing with them over Naruse best film, or Pedro Costa’s best film, or his general dislike of a few directors most cinephiles tend to love more (Tati, Kiarostami, Staub and Hullet, Svankmajer, and Scorsese for example).

For all his faults, I do find his thoughts mostly his own, even if some of his thoughts tend to align with the crowd at times.

How about 5x and watching 5 movies at once? Now that's how that high school kid watched more films than all of us combined.

Sure, there's no problem inasmuch as it's OK to dislike a particular film regarded as an all-time masterpiece if it's not up your alley. However, if you want to dig deeper to find out why you disliked it, you almost always conclude that the problem is with you, not with the film. Sometimes a great work of art is just too great for a puny human being, it's too deep, it's too subtle, it's too sublime, it's too masterful. Or the issue is even simpler: You were jaded, tired, and unready, but still decided to put on that 7-hour-long film on Hungarian villagers. Or put another way: A high-schooler goes to the Louvre, and looks at Venus de Milo. They conclude it's bad. Is the problem with Venus de Milo or the high schooler?

The point of watching films as a serious cinephile is to put films with the highest critical consensus in front of your face and try to find out why they're regarded so highly REGARDLESS of your personal enjoyment. You can then rate them low but still appreciate the "technical excellence", as per this thread's initial idea. BUT as you keep watching films (or right away, like in my case) you develop a good sense (or intuition) so that you can discern between gold and crap, where gold can be "highest critical consensus" movies, obscure rarities, and unashamed mainstream cookie-cutter cash-grabs.

As Corax notes, AI doesn't have this sort of sense. BUT this sense I'm talking about is not the same thing as taste. As you watch more and more films, you modify your taste and your sense through discernment. So, saying you love Nolan's movies or that Christopher Nolan is one of your favorite filmmakers is perfectly fine. This is taste. However, saying Christopher Nolan is one of the best filmmakers ever is low-key ridiculous if you're 100% serious. If your cinematic sense is well-developed, you would never say something like this. Now, having good taste means that your sense and your taste have a large intersection. You will also notice another interesting thing: While tastes differ, that sense I'm talking about is fairly homogeneous throughout all notable cinephiles. For example, almost all serious cinephiles sense something immense when they watch a Tarkovsky and they don't when they watch an Edgar Wright.

Well, fair enough. Watch 5,000 more movies and give it a third shake. If you still dislike it, then forget about it and move on to revisiting another highly-regarded film you dislike.

As long as the "crowd" has a taste that aligns with mine, sure. Why wouldn't I? That's exactly how you find more great movies. You find people with similar tastes to you and you watch films they rated high that you haven't seen yet. And if your favorites intersect heavily, then it makes sense to look forward to watching a film they rated very high yesterday and to at least assume it's going to be amazing. Of course, it can be crap, as it may be one of these movies where your tastes differ. But the likelihood of that is much lower than in the case of picking the next watch randomly.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

When it comes to evaluating the worth of any piece of art, only two factors actually matter. One is the personal, which doesn't need to be explained or validated or proven or ever even spoken of. It is simply an elemental reaction,maybe caused by the films actual greatness or badness, or maybe effected by something completely outside of the movies control.


The only other metric that matters is conversational. How we talk about a film and how we explain why it matters or doesn't matter. And, similar to the personal response, whether or not it is any good is immaterial. Whether arguing the greatness of Vanderpump Rules, or the irrelevance of Kurosawa, its all about whether any illuminating or at least interesting points can be made. And if someone can't do at least that, then who gives a **** whether or not their taste is any good.


As for as I'm concerned, you can really only judge the worth of a piece of art from the discussions it generates. If no one is saying anything worth responding to, it's probably not very good. If lots of interesting points are being made, it might at least be worthwhile, even if you ultimately hate it.


All of this is why it becomes pointless to build these hierarchies and standards of what allows something to become good art. It's why, regardless of how technically terrible Neil Breen's films are, they have considerably more worth than a lot of the lukewarm films being released by studios, because Breen doesn't box us in in how we appreciate and ultimately talk about his work. His films aren't just about his stories and how well they have been rendered cinematically. They are about Breen himself, his delusions and his seemingly overwhelming loneliness. Right away, his piece of shit movies are considerably more human than all the piles of pandering garbage out there that don't say anything about either the characters in their films, or the director themselves

Suppose that you're looking for a useful analysis of a film.

You may choose, without any additional information provided, one of four people

a. Enjoyed it highly and found it to be technically excellent

b. Did not enjoy it, but found it to be technically excellent

c. Enjoyed it highly, but did not find it to be technically
excellent

d. Did not enjoy it and did not find it to be technically
excellent

Which person do you believe would offer you the most fruitful input? Or would you choose at random as you see no inherent advantage to any of these?

This has been a wonderful conversation so far. One of the more thought provoking, for me, that we've had recently on the board. It seems like this is a common phenomenon. Everyone is agreeing that this dichotomy exists for them, that we can recognize the technical artistry or excellence on display in a film, or TV show, or find individual components technically proficient, but not enjoy the movie as a whole. Are there elements in common that have to be present for you to enjoy a technically excellent film? I know there is that indescribable element of it speaking to you or moving you in some way that you can't pin down, but are there elements in common that must be present, or usually need to be there, for a technically excellent film to be enjoyable for us? For example, three for me come to mind. If I do not like the plot of the film, I will not enjoy it. If I do not like the stars of the film and how they interpret their performances, I will not enjoy it. If I don't like the pacing of the film, I will likely not enjoy it. For me, these three elements stand out as needing to be present for me to enjoy a film, even when there is technical excellence or artistry that I can see on display.

This may just be a rewording of what you said, but if I am impressed with the craft of a movie, but nothing else in it resonates on emotional and/or intellectual levels, I pretty much do the same thing: file it under "I appreciate it, but I cannot say that I like it" and more often than not give it a 3 out of 5 rating.

Most recently, I reacted this way to Ingmar Bergman's Through a Glass Darkly, for what it's worth. It was hard for me to relate to and empathize with - in this day and age in particular - people who appear to have all of their needs on Maslow's hierarchy more than satisfied except for the self-actualization and transcendence ones even though it is exquisitely shot, directed and acted.

That's my reaction to every single Bergman film that I've seen. I find them technically perfect, artistically skilled and yet his films say nothing to me. Most importantly, I don't care if I don't dig them like every one else. PahaK said it best:

I don't know, honestly, as so many other factors are obviously lurking in the backgroud. While I understand the reason to be distrustful of (d), I don't think one necessarily should. Think, for instance, of someone who goes into a movie very excited/motivated, only to find that it did not meet their expectations for either of the criteria you mention.

For the same reason, though, I imagine that you could equally distrust (a), as excitement/enjoyment of the film might influence one to rate technical aspects higher than warranted---or they might just not even pay attention to those aspects because they are having so much fun in general?

I feel like the operative difference here is between "like" and "respect." I can respect Jodorowsky for objective reasons, but I will never like him after watching El Topo for reasons outside of film/art.

I've only reacted coldly to that movie and The Virgin Spring. The rest of the ones I've seen satisfy on craft and emotional levels. My favorites are probably Fanny and Alexander, Wild Strawberries and Summer with Monika. I can see how anyone can react that way towards his movies, though.

This may be another topic entirely, but there are some movies where the craft is so flawless, where everything fits in to place, etc. that it doesn't matter if it's about something that resonates with me. They become so good, it's bad, in other words. A lot of recent Disney and Pixar animated movies are like that to me such as Coco. It doesn't help that they're engineered in a way where they know how the average person will react to every moment.

Sure, so the question is "does knowing this much really tell us anything useful?" I think that it does. Moreover, if it does tell us something useful then the exercise in holding background factors to be equal, even if unrealistic in practice, still tells us something in principle.

A poorly made movie that is unlovable will produce a response of "d" in a competent and fair critic, right? Therefore, I agree that we should not automatically discount "d" as being "wrong." Even so, the question is whether this person will tell us anything useful/insightful. I think that this is unlikely. Even if the person is right (i.e., the film is a poorly made stink-fest), their analysis of the film will be more likely to be a surface-level as there is nothing that attracts their attention here (rather they are repelled). Thus, it still seems to me that we are more likely to get something useful and insightful from someone who, in some way, appreciates the film.



There is still a counter-point here and that is the case of the critic who is SO repelled by a poorly made stinker that s/he delivers an inspired rant against it (e.g., Red Letter Media's original film critique of the Star Wars prequels wayyyy back before RLM was even a "thing").

When a person loves a film there is always the threat that their love will color their analysis, true. It is just as likely that they will be "wrong" in their overall assessment. That stated, as the film actually did capture and sustain their interest, they are more likely to say something useful/insightful about the film as they were drawn in and paid close attention. So, yes, just as likely to be globally wrong in their assessment, but more likely to tell us thing which are locally true because their brain was attracted to interact with the artwork.



And if so, arguably, the best person to ask would be the person who has no personal stake in defending the film, but who does recognize the technical excellence of the film. They would both be engaged (minimally by their appreciation of the technical achievement), but not as badly biased by a favorable appraisal. This is not unlike the Kantian misanthrope who is "really" moral because he ONLY acts out of a sense of moral duty rather than his empathy for others.

I think I agree with everything that you say---but especially the end. There is always some level of objectivity in these matters!

I can recognize a films as being technically brilliant but still a king over all as a film. A movie is judged by the whole of its parts.

I can recognize Singapore asking as technically slick, but it’s story and subject matter is so off putting it doesn’t work for me.

Another example, I consider 2001 a brilliant film, a masterpiece even. Both on a technical and story line level. However, I prefer A Clockwork Orange over it as Kubrick’s best, simply because it too is technically brilliant and philosophically delves into the topic of free will and behavior modification and the ethics behind it.

No, I don't think there is any one particular thing a film needs to have that is necessary for me to like it. The less there is an exact prescription for greatness, the better. The harder it is for me to explain why it matters so much to me, the happier I am, because then the artwork seems to be transcending simple things like language, and even if this is just an illusion, that's where all the good stuff lies.


But I think that there is one element that, if present in some way, will definitely help me along in liking the film. I like passion. Some form of ecstasy coming from the characters, or from the images or from the director themselves. And this doesn't always need to manifest in obvious ways. I will respond to the quietly desperate passion you can find in moments of a Robert Bresson film. Or a passion towards ideas and wrestling with the paradox of existence that fill nearly all of Bergman's movie. Or passion stifled and restrained and frustrated, like any number of Fassbinders films. Even experimental films by Stanely Brakhage or Michael Snow are basically about the ecstasy of creation and you can feel it in the dogged determination with which they make their art that defies basic expectations of what a movie is supposed to do. Such rebellion as this takes all sorts of passion to even bother, even if their films are basically completely without narrative, or characters or dialogue.


So if there is any one thing (which there isn't) it would be that.

For me, if the plot and the subject matter is something I don't like then that will be a possible strike for the film. I don't like modern horror films, you could show me 10 of the greatest horror films made this century and I wouldn't like them. I know people feel that way about romance, comedies and musical movies...so it must be common that we stay away from, plots/subject matter that we don't like.

There are a few stars I don't like but I don't think they would ruin the movie unless the movie is built around them and their character does all the things that usually annoy me about them...I'm thinking of Gravity here.

Lots of films IMO are ruined by stretching out the run time to close to 3 hours or more. There needs to be substantial story in the script for a movie to be that damn long. I'm looking at you Scorsese and the last few films you've made.

Right . . . so then why is it a problem to say I'd rather revisit Wizard of Gore than revisit Barry Lyndon? I know why it's considered great. I've read many essays and reviews about it, as I always do when something with a good reputation falls flat for me. I can see the technical elements at play in the film, they simply do nothing for me.

I didn't say that Barry Lyndon was crap. I said I found it hollow. That's about the intersection between me as a viewer and what is on screen. What did I get out of watching it (especially the second time)? Very little. I felt utterly unmoved. And I don't think it has to do with me having immature taste or a lack of discernment.

I can accept that it does nothing for me, or I can keep throwing myself at it, trying to "get it." And I think the latter is kind of stupid at a certain point.

No thanks!

Whew, I was worried that I didn't still have a chance to ruin it.