Introducing non-cinephiles to film

Also, if he compares Fellini's fast-paced 8 1/2 to watching paint dry, I wonder what his assessment of Benning would be.

__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.

And that bit of drying paint was an internationally succesful film. The kind that not only gets critical appreciation but also makes money. Which is one of many examples from that time when you would regularly see that dense and difficult and experimental art can sometimes reward investors. All it requires is for us to have a society that is engaged culturally, politically, emotionally and artistically.


Not whatever the **** has happened that last twenty years or so when it's just assumed everyone wants nothing more than to be placated until the coma arrives. That's when we end up getting a glut of boilerplate films that take no chances and say absolutely nothing and people don't have to worry about ever thinking about or talking about ever again. And when enough people just throw up their hands and agree, yes, this is all we want...guess what? That's all we are going to get. So eat up and fall immediately back to sleep, fellow 'movie lovers'


It's basically the perfect recipe on how to manufacture apathy and disconnect from you fellow humans. To turn thinking into a bad word. Something we are supposed to be resentful for being forced upon us because it's such a burden to not have all these thoughts and feelings pre chewed for us.


But let's not let that spoil our dinner.

With the greatest films you don't even have to think to get their brilliance. They're so excellent they knock you off your feet even if you watch them without subtitles. Of course, thinking about them brings you even more enjoyment but we should strive to not overintellectualize movies per the story about the critics and the cleaning lady at the screening of Tarkvosky's Mirror.

But yes, Fellini was a hugely successful filmmaker - both artistically and commercially. These two things could coexist back in the 50s and 60s. You say something happened about 20 years ago but I think it was a gradual process that started in the 80s with the advent of blockbusters. Equivalents of blockbusters had been in the making since the conception of cinema but I daresay it was the 80s when the whole infantilization and de-artification of cinema happened.

Spielberg is partly to blame, with his idea of the cinema of the center, occupying that weird area between the slightly artistic and wholly commercial. Spielberg capitalized art and made the audiences think that what he's doing is the peak of what art can be and anything beyond that is artsy and deserves to be degraded. Spielberg was the first of the pseudo-artists whose films stopped being sincere. Ford or Hawks would never call themselves artists but their films were honest. Nolan and Villeneuve and, dunno, superhero movies - They're all Spielberg's children. There's no art there anymore. I'd rather watch a HK film from the gutter than a Spielberg or Nolan.

I can't tell if I am to infer that "Fellini, Bergman, Hitchcock, Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind and other war horses" are also being lumped in with Tarkovsky films as "grim and humorless".

Since you said 8 1/2 was, "like watching paint dry," so... yes?
Which then goes back to the question of what do you even find entertaining?

Watch more 1960-1970 Japanese films is my answer to this.

He'd die of boredom. Besides, he strikes me like one of those subtitles-hating types.

Eh, that’s fine. He doesn’t have to watch everything if he finds it boring. It’s just not for him, is all.

I have no idea which film makers are "sincere", nor do I really care that much. What I do know is that Spielberg has made more money getting more people to watch and love his movies than just about anybody. Just walk down the street and ask anybody who ET is and then ask them who the Stalker's Wife (Tarkovsky character) is. Yeah, I know that pop fame is a dubious judge of quality, but when a character endures, gets passed down from parents who saw it to kids who still love it and want halloween costumes, you have to admit that those cheesy Spielberg movies touch a vein that Solaris doesn't even know exists. Quality does not have to mean obscure.

This debate reminds me of one I've had over the music world, like with people who aver that music that's not old, Euro and played by guys in tuxes is just not up to their standard. You get that argument that a jazz or bluegrass virtuoso is not worthy since they lack a degree from Peabody and maybe even wrote their own music.

I've seen lots of genres of various visual, sonic and gallery art in my life, continue to love all that. It's a point of pride that I don't have a few sanctified icons, especially ones that get their fame based on obscurity. It's OK to put me out to pasture if I ever do.

"He'd die of boredom. Besides, he strikes me like one of those subtitles-hating types."

You know sooooo little of me. For the record, I'd pick subtitles over dubs about ten to one, but I do admit that most of the Japanese movies I've seen from the 1960's had giant monsters, so guilty on that charge.

Nuff said.

Sorry, I forgot you think that money is the indicator of artistic success. Jeez...

Oh, so now popularity is somehow indicating quality.

They touch a good marketing campaign and constant reruns on TV, is what they touch. Spielberg struck the goldmine in film just like Dan Brown did in literature. This doesn't mean that either Spielberg's films or Brown's books are quality art.

Nobody's saying it has to. Besides, Tarkovsky is not an obscure filmmaker in any way. Anybody interested in film as art knows him. Jeez, even you know him. Should be enough of a reason to never call him obscure.

If your idea is that whoever loves Tarkovsky is a snob critic, you are clearly missing the point of this "debate". Besides, you seem to spite most of art cinema, not just Tarkovsky. If it was just Tarkovsky, whatever man, he's not for you, watch other auteurs. But the entirety of art cinema seems to "not be for you" and "boring". And you don't seem eager to get to know it. You're not even a film buff. What are you doing on this site?

Let me put it this way:

If I either hated or never heard of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Gogol, Bukowski, Joyce, Orwell, Pessoa, Proust, Beckett, Rilke, Borges, Kafka, Faulkner, Rabelais, Solzhenitsyn, Apollinaire, Sebald, Pynchon, Gombrowicz, Poe, Twain, Dickens, Tanizaki, Mann, Baudelaire, Krasznahorkai, and so on... I couldn't call myself a bibliophile. I couldn't do it even if (and especially if!) I only liked the books of Stephen King and Stephenie Meyer. I could say "Yeah, I read books for fun!", but it'd be as clear as the sky is blue that I have absolutely no love or knowledge of literature. Further, if I started ever criticizing the preceding writers on the basis of them being supposedly obscure or earning less money than, say, E. L. James, I'd make myself look like an idiot to any bibliophile who knows a thing or two about literature as art. It'd be my prerogative to only read King, or to not read at all, but then, I'd have no right to sum up the impressive bodies of work of all those writers by saying they're "boring" provided I never even heard about most of them, and I'm basing my opinion on the few school readings from 10+ years ago.

See, the point isn't that you dislike this or that "sanctified" filmmaker. The point is that your ludicrous, ignorant takes about finding arthouse cinema boring and being entertained as a requirement for good film are just dumb. You hate Tarkovsky or Villeneuve's Dune? Fine, but you never mentioned any other filmmakers or films (even though I asked more than once) that you don't hate. Your sweeping statements are hardcore generalizations, so it's impossible to not use generalizations to respond to them.

Please, give me a list of your top 10 favorite filmmakers and then your top 10 favorite art filmmmakers.

Sure, but my intuition seemed to be right so far.

Starting your journey with Japanese cinema of the 60s with Kaiju is like starting your cinephilia journey with Tarantino. Oops, is that how you started?

Also, Spielberg films are artistic.

Yeah, maybe his 70s stuff. Still, they're artistic in that gray area way. They're never too artistic if you know what I mean. They're artistic in the Hawksian meaning of the word. But sure, Spielberg is a good craftsman, as he had good influences. Then, the next generations were inspired by Spielberg, and not by the greats who inspired Spielberg, so their films were worse. And then the next generation was the generation of epigones of epigones of epigones, and their films are mostly terrible. All that being said, I believe that cinema would be better off WITHOUT Spielberg, as in, if he never existed.

His 80’s stuff was pretty good as well. Even some of his 90’s work.
You’re just a tad harsh on his films, and those that came after him due to his influence, but that’s ok. I get that you have a different idea of pure cinema than most. Which isn’t a jab or anything.

Everyone has directors they don’t get, or don’t vibe with. I’m no different.

Well, I like Spielberg, especially his 70s and 80s output. I just don't consider his films art films. And I don't consider Spielberg a great filmmaker. He's fine, though.

Fair enough.

That's OK, since I do like Tarantino, almost as much as Godzilla (the old ones of course), Rodan and the rest of that reptilian crew.

He already has.

No kidding.

No. You just know what you like. What you like has nothing to do with art. It just means you like it.

Not you.

Agree

So...as the font of cinematic all wisdom, what movies should I see and where?

Do I have to go into isolation and hunger before I enter the theater? What should I do when everybody else has popcorn and drinks and I don't?

This all seems like movies as a sort of monastic exercise.

Personally, I still like to enjoy them. I can't imagine why I'd go if I didn't. There's a reason why it's called The Entertainment Industry. It gives us thrills and chuckles and vicarious lives, and we pay them for this. For two hours, I get to be Batman.

And for four hours, other people get to be Jeanne Dielman.

I don't agree with that. 'Polytehnique' is extremely artfully directed. 'Incendies' to a lesser extent too.

In the words of the great mark f, you should see them all. Why? Because they exist.

However, if you are a mere mortal, you should opt for watching a varied selection of different genres, movements, and types of films that will enrich you as a human being and a cinephile. Apart from the usual entertaining fare you watch, you should try and watch films that challenge your mind, touch your heart, and expand your horizons. This doesn't mean you must watch the few 'sanctified' directors ad nauseam! The world of cinema is so varied and diverse, that even though I'm well past 18,000 films watched, I still discover new films and filmmakers that amaze me and show me something new. Also, you don't have to give up the mainstream 100% entertainment movies! Just throw in something edifying and interesting between the movies from your usual repertoire.

Some of them indeed are! For example, Slow Cinema is all about meditation, contemplation, and seeing more by looking longer.

What I and Crumbs have been trying to tell you for the past 2 pages of this thread is that film is more than just entertainment. It’s a way of seeing the world and a way of showing the world who we are. Film can open our eyes to new realities, new perspectives, and new possibilities. Film can also touch our hearts and make us think. Film is a form of art that can express what words cannot, and communicate what we feel, what we believe, and what we dream at the speed of 24 frames per second. Film is a language that we can all understand, a dialogue that we can all join, and a conversation that we can all learn from. Film is a journey that we can all take, a discovery that we can all make, and an adventure that we can all enjoy. Film is a window, a mirror, and a canvas. Sounds like much more than just The Entertainment Industry.

I'm willing to give you (and Villeneuve) the benefit of the doubt on this one since I haven't seen Polytechnique! I hated Incendies but that was in February 2013!