I disagree. But if you insist on pushing this point, then give me an example. What does the fact that I enjoy violent movies say about me?
I'm not suggesting that I can read fundamental truths about your life, and certainly not from what little information you've disclosed here. And I would not be so rude as to toss around those sorts of conclusions and overtly personalize this discussion, anyway.
That said, I'm not sure how somebody would even go about disagreeing with this point. How can someone say that what movies they watch and enjoy say nothing about them? The only way for this to be true would be if a) everyone liked the same movies, or b) the movies we liked to watch were completely random. Obviously neither is true, and thus our personalities and experiences have a big role in what we find enjoyable. This is plainly obvious: everything we see and experience informs the rest of our lives. I can't imagine the logic behind suggesting that somehow, the art we consume and enjoy is magically exempt from this simple truth.
It can have some sway, yes, but it all depends on what criteria you're using to determine your opinion. If you base your opinion of something exclusively on your visceral reaction to it, then certainly you aren't going to appreciate something that doesn't fit with your own personal beliefs. But if you can separate yourself from that sort of knee-jerk reaction, you may be able to appreciate what the filmmaker is trying to put across without actually agreeing with it. Or you may be able to appreciate the film for its cinematography, performances, special effects, etc.
Yes, you
may be able to do this, but the fact that some people can't, or simply don't, is my entire point.
There seems to be a bit of confusion here. You made a very broad initial statement: there is no such thing as bad taste. Later, you made another: the movies we like don't say anything about us. Broad statements require broad evidence. I've been questioning these two statements, and your replies have often been about how it can be possible for seemingly "bad" taste to really just be subjective, and how someone who has an ideological slant could appreciate a movie from another angle. But I'm not disputing that these things
can happen, I'm disputing the idea that they always
do, which is what you've been claiming. If they only happen sometimes, then the two statements are false.
The fact is that though people
can appreciate a movie espousing different ideas than their own, sometimes they don't. And when they don't, that tells us something about them: that they dislike watching movies espousing different beliefs enough that it can spoil whatever else the film might have to offer. It also tells us that some film-related opinions are based in ideology, which means a number of films can be disliked regardless of artistic merit. Does that strike you as a good way to judge a film's quality? If not, wouldn't that be an example of "bad taste"?
One type of violence is real and another is nothing but props, make up, and special effects. To me, it's pretty self-evident why one is disgusting and the other isn't. If you can't see it on your own, you won't ever see it at all and no amount of explaining from me will change that.
I see why there's a difference, what I don't see is why you think there's a massive difference, given the reasons you used to defend the fictional kind. You think sheer gore has value (as much as inspirational, uplifting tales, apparently) simply because it provides a "thrill" and an "adrenaline rush." If someone gets the same things from
Faces of Death, why is that wrong, exactly? You seem completely unwilling to judge anything else, so why this? They're not actually hurting the people on the tapes. Watching the tapes seems to cause no discernable increase in suffering. It's presumably based in the same curiousity as wanting to see incredibly graphic recreations of the same thing in horror films.
Yes, the word has meaning but I still maintain it does not have a truly solid, undebatable definition. The word means "lacking knowledge." But knowledge of what? Science? The Bible? Popular opinion? Film history? What? And just how much knowledge is enough to make someone informed rather than ignorant?
Film history, or film craft, obviously.
The word "ignorant" doesn't need to have a perfectly undebatable definition related to film, specifically, for the point in question to be made. And, to my mind, an argument based on questioning whether or not words really mean anything isn't much of an argument at all. I'm sure you understand the concept being conveyed by the word, which is all that's needed.
Whether or not we can draw a perfect line as to where ignorance ends and begins (obviously, it's a sliding scale), we can certainly recognize that in some instances, there are people very ignorant of film, and that sometimes, these people still have strong opinions about what films are the "best." And we have countless examples of people liking one kind of film growing up, and liking another when they've matured. All of this is plainly true.
Thus, if ignorance is bad, and maturity is good, and both often seem to heavily modify one's idea of what is a good or bad film, then clearly our taste is influenced by these things. It follows, then, that taste based in ignorance and immaturity is "bad" taste, and taste based in experience, knowledge, and maturity is "good" -- or, at least, better than the opposite. Given that taste can be the result of things we all agree are good or bad, why is it somehow unacceptable to use terms like "good taste" or "bad taste"?
If by "film" you mean "movie" (in other words, fantasy), then no.
I don't think you can say a movie is "in other words, fantasy." Movies are based on real events all the time. The ones that aren't are often inspired by real events, and even outrageous films sometimes depict things that have actually happened.
Regardless, I wonder if it's really true that the movies someone likes could not cause you to think less of them. You've railed against "elitists" and "snobs" (even when unprompted) on several occasions in this thread. You've never heard someone reel off a list of artistic/indie films they liked, and thought to yourself that they probably fit one of those two words? Nothing even remotely like this has ever happened?
Not really, no. When I say "something I'm interested in," that can include genre, subject matter, cast, director, screenwriter... any number of things. Deciding to watch a movie based on any of these can expose me to something I might not otherwise see.
But this is only an explanation of the many ways in which you can be interested in something; it doesn't change the fact that films are being excluded.
Just because you can be interested in a film based on its genre, it doesn't mean there aren't genres you've written off erroneously, and the same goes for actors, directors, and screenwriters. By definition, deciding to only watch films you're interested in is to declare that anything that doesn't interest you will not be worth seeing. Obviously, no one can know this, and statistically the idea isn't even feasible. There are simply too many films out there that each of us hasn't seen for this to be true.
What you're really doing is deciding that you'd rather miss those new, different films you would like, rather than have to sit through other different films you wouldn't like. It's a trade-off. But it's done blind: you can't possibly know whether or not you like the things you're not interested in if you don't see them.
Reply to Topic
