When you binge on a specific director...
Unfortunately, this isn't a conversation. I've asked a number of sincere questions which you've ignored. I don't take it personally that you've chosen not to engage with the subject at hand, though the absence of a response means I'll have to fill in some of the blanks myself.
How about a nap?
How about a nap?
A: I've answered every question you threw at me. You'd ask four questions at once and I gave you answered. You alreasy proved you aren't reading my responses correctly, so I'll go against my better judgment and assume that you're the one who doesn't understand my answers at all. And as proof that I'm not delivering "bad answers," other people understood just fine.
B: If you can't grasp simple concepts other people here could, you're the child. I do everyone here the benefit of a doubt by assuming that they're NOT commonplace moviegoers that just wanna see cheap special effects and only believe something's good if the critics say so, the kind of person I worked hard for nine years trying NOT to become. I assumed everyone here had more experience than that and I still do. And I never brought it up until now because apparently, I'm not shown that same courtesy.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
You alreasy proved you aren't reading my responses correctly, so I'll go against my better judgment and assume that you're the one who doesn't understand my answers at all.
Among the unanswered questions: 1) Why Jesus Franco? I mean, besides that you saw one of his films on MST3K, and it was the worst film you ever saw. What are you curious about him? What are you hoping to learn about the specific types of films that he makes (beyond "good", "bad" generalities)? 2) I've mentioned the style of these pictures, now that you've (presumably) finished the film by now, how do assess those elements of the film which are not like what you've seen in other films? Has it expanded your palate? (Standard question for auteurist evaluation.) 3) What are your thoughts/interests in the context of the overall genres involved? Because that might be pertinent for the viewing of the remaining dozen Franco films you may be seeing?
And as proof that I'm not delivering "bad answers," other people understood just fine.
Do me a favor, everyone, and when you have a response all written up that's substantive, maybe don't include that little sardonic barb (or defensive swipe) at the end which adds nothing? If that keeps happening I'm closing the thread.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I guess I found the "in-depth review", which presents Franco as a "simple director" "who doesn't put that much effort into his movies because he feels like he doesn't need them." So good faith?
But I should also apologize because I didn't have a very clear idea about Keyser before posting in this thread, and I realize now that I'm being unfair. You do you, KC.
But I should also apologize because I didn't have a very clear idea about Keyser before posting in this thread, and I realize now that I'm being unfair. You do you, KC.
I guess I found the "in-depth review", which presents Franco as a "simple director" "who doesn't put that much effort into his movies because he feels like he doesn't need them." So good faith?
But I should also apologize because I didn't have a very clear idea about Keyser before posting in this thread, and I realize now that I'm being unfair. You do you, KC.
But I should also apologize because I didn't have a very clear idea about Keyser before posting in this thread, and I realize now that I'm being unfair. You do you, KC.
Thank you. The apology means a lot to me.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
apologize for belittling me and respect my movie going choices
Do you have to watch a TV show in one sitting, read a book in one sitting, play a videogame in one sitting, etc to experience them to their full potential?
If you're watching a movie and feel like you'd enjoy it more if you watch it in 2 or 3 or however many parts, I'd argue that refusing to break it up and watching it all in one go may actually cause you to get less out of it since
In fact, I think reading is very similar. If I'm reading something engrossing, like a book, there's a flow, a zone that locks in after a few minutes, that state where you're no longer cognizant that you're physically looking at black letters on a white page. Breaking up my concentration every few minutes keeps me out of the zone, makes it harder to get back into the flow.
Right, but obviously I'm trying to tease out what "quality" means here, to determine why some films qualify for this kind of praise and some don't.
Just referencing "taste" is kind of a dead end. And if that's really all this is, it ought to have killed the beginning, too, since there's little point in contradicting people for having different tastes
You can explain why something is good when talking about a particular film. But if you're using your feelings and emotions to explain it, others may still not get it. And the taste is mostly about feelings and emotions. You can put it into words and attempt an intellectual explanation, too. But this isn't easy, and it's mostly boring because it then most often boils down to either "this film is personal to me for this reason" or "hey, acting was good".
Anyway, I thought that the sunglasses emoji made it clear I'm being conceited here. I actually said this before, albeit maybe didn't phrase it best.
__________________
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.
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.
X
User Lists
Smarter people already explained why taking pauses when watching a film is wrong.
Bless you for your charitable arrogance.
X
User Lists
Not sure how to interpret this, but I do admit my sentence can be understood in at least two ways. What I meant to say was that your explanation was good and you're a smart person.
My fault - should've phrased it better. I was responding to the previous person, SpelingError.
X
User Lists
You'll not tease it out of me. Quality is accessed on a singular basis. You get a gut feeling of what is quality and what isn't.
You can explain why something is good when talking about a particular film. But if you're using your feelings and emotions to explain it, others may still not get it. And the taste is mostly about feelings and emotions. You can put it into words and attempt an intellectual explanation, too. But this isn't easy, and it's mostly boring because it then most often boils down to either "this film is personal to me for this reason" or "hey, acting was good".
I'm not sure I've ever heard the idea that "taste is mostly about feelings and emotions." I usually think the opposite, that "taste" is the name we give for the understanding we glean by absorbing more of something.
Anyway, I thought that the sunglasses emoji made it clear I'm being conceited here. I actually said this before, albeit maybe didn't phrase it best.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I'm not sure if I agree or not, but assuming I do, what would be the point of comparing or contradicting things which can only be accessed on a singular basis?
I agree it's not easy. I also agree it's mostly boring, but I think that's because most people are very bad at exploring and articulating those kinds of feelings.
I'm not sure I've ever heard the idea that "taste is mostly about feelings and emotions." I usually think the opposite, that "taste" is the name we give for the understanding we glean by absorbing more of something.
X
User Lists
Thanks for expounding.
I dunno if that's problematic. I guess it's not super conducive to discussion, but that's only problematic for a discussion forum. I don't find myself immediately emotionally overwhelmed by films much, but it has happened (Magnolia is one of the first that comes to mind). Maybe it's just how I am, and if I were different it would happen more often, and that kind of experience would be a bigger part of how I approach films. Hard to say.
I dunno if that's problematic. I guess it's not super conducive to discussion, but that's only problematic for a discussion forum. I don't find myself immediately emotionally overwhelmed by films much, but it has happened (Magnolia is one of the first that comes to mind). Maybe it's just how I am, and if I were different it would happen more often, and that kind of experience would be a bigger part of how I approach films. Hard to say.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I'm not sure I've ever heard the idea that "taste is mostly about feelings and emotions."
I think I would probably also be one who looks at the notion of taste similarly.
Acknowledging the value of something academically, or being able to articulate how well it adheres were to the general rules of craft, is definitely a good tool to have in your belt when discussing art. But when that's all you've got, I find it to be mostly an empty intellectual exercise unless we have also learned how to feel towards the work.
Also, much great art simply cannot be adequately discussed in words. It really only matters in the moment that it is acting upon us. And maybe the memories of the experience it implants in us. For example, most writings on Stanley Brakhage are about as interesting as watching dust settle on a collection of unread volumes of Proust. But his works are deeply sensual pieces. Watching them unfurl is where the beauty comes in. Talking about them is, frequently, pointless.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
To be clear, I just took/take the word "taste" to refer mostly to the part of the process that comes from breadth of viewing. That shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of approaching all things through the lens of film history/convention (as you say, that leads to bloodless criticism), and heck, it shouldn't even mean that this is all we get from that breadth of viewing, either. Sometimes watching a lot of films means you've just deeply internalized certain things that make a film good, even if they're ineffable.
All that said, I do think that kind of bloodless criticism is the kind that's more lacking today. We do not lack for people just talking about how they felt about a film, and holding that fact up as self-justifying. The kind of criticism I'm thinking of is the kind written for the reader, not just the emotional journaling of the writer. And I think for the reader the best criticism is one that transfers bits of their taste and expertise.
All that said, I do think that kind of bloodless criticism is the kind that's more lacking today. We do not lack for people just talking about how they felt about a film, and holding that fact up as self-justifying. The kind of criticism I'm thinking of is the kind written for the reader, not just the emotional journaling of the writer. And I think for the reader the best criticism is one that transfers bits of their taste and expertise.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I've*read some Proust, notably Swann's Way. To be fair, I think Proust is more fixated on appearing fancy than telling a compelling story, but on the subject of taste I find his grammatical style to be very tasteful
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The above are media that are usually not meant to be experienced in one sitting in the first place. Films are. Canonically, you go to the movies and watch a film in one sitting in a dark room with no distractions or pauses. Yes, long films have intermissions but these are pauses intended and planned by the makers. It's OK to take breaks if you really must go to the toilet or if the film is more than 5 hours long and you can't take it. But any film of moderate length deserves your full attention and no pauses.
It's not really what you prefer but what the filmmaker wants. A proverbial filmmaker. Use common sense, Jesus. And no, Lav Diaz saying it's OK to take a nap during his films doesn't make it OK to do so during his movies. In the end, of course, you can watch a film while texting with your friend, jumping on one leg, and studying Cambodian, but your experience is never going to be as good as if you just sat down to watch it in peace and quiet.
It's not really what you prefer but what the filmmaker wants. A proverbial filmmaker. Use common sense, Jesus. And no, Lav Diaz saying it's OK to take a nap during his films doesn't make it OK to do so during his movies. In the end, of course, you can watch a film while texting with your friend, jumping on one leg, and studying Cambodian, but your experience is never going to be as good as if you just sat down to watch it in peace and quiet.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I can only go off of what information is provided. It is telling the lack of discussion on the actual films and filmmaking being done here. I think that's the problem. None of the things I've mentioned pertaining to the genre and filmmaking style of this particular film and director have been responded to.
X