Also, there should be a caveat to all wannabe cinephiles: Prepare for loneliness, no one is ever going to know what you're talking about ever again.
LOL.
I'm not interested in knowing whether I qualify as a cinephile, but I am blessed with a great group of friends who will trust me to watch stuff not in their wheelhouse. Okay, twice I lured a friend in with the promise of lesbians in great hats.
The idea that anyone is going to grasp why Tarkovsky is great, before they understand what is both good and bad, interesting and boring, in more conventional films, is highly suspect to me. You have to understand what makes things bad before you are every going to even begin to grasp what makes them good.
I came here to say this. Now I don't have to.
It is a bit naive to believe that you can show Tarkovsky to a blank canvas and they will be mesmerized at the genius behind it. It is far more probable that you will get a confused or even derogatory response to this kind of cinema and you are more likely to come off as elitist by defending it and turning someone off artistic movies.
I used to watch the top of all the best-of lists I could find when I started and I didn't get jack about why this or that movie was supposed to be so good.
You just FEEL it. If you don't, I'm at a loss as to what to say. I think people are too crazy about trying to UNDERSTAND it. Art is not to be understood, but to be felt. If you don't feel it, your taste is bad OR your sense is not developed yet (or it used to be but now has deteriorated).
Would your hope be for a non-cinephile to enjoy the directors you listed or just for them to have those films under their belts? Because if it's the former, they might not be the best entry points.
Oh, I'm a big fan of taking a deep dive. I think they're the right entry points because they show them what cinema is capable of. After being shown the best of the best, they have the right frame of reference. They WILL get it if they're the right person to do that to begin with.
Though great, their films are overall more impenetrable than the ones I mentioned and are more of an acquired taste.
Impenetrable is good. Teaches you to feel movies above understanding them. I do disagree they're an acquired taste, though. I think lesser films are an acquired taste. American westerns, or gialli, or pinku eiga, or European sleaze. I think with the truly best films, you love them right away and you need no preparation whatsoever.
they may feel discouraged to go further if they respond negatively
Their loss. I'm a strong believer in strong gatekeeping when it comes to introducing people to film. They will likely never branch out onto the traditional canon if they start with the middle-of-the-road "easy" stuff. Same goes for the new canon. Don't start from it! Recognizing that some films from the new canon are better than the ones from the old canon is a vital part of your cinematic journey. But this is something you do after circa 5 years, not right away. (How could you, if you don't know the old canon?)
All films, the good ones and the shit ones, the inspired ones and the hack ones, are all one giant organism. It doesn't matter what you watch, as long as you are committed to watching a lot of them. To not be afraid to be confused or bored or annoyed. To commit to just watching anything you can get your hands on.
This is great if you already have a considerable number of films under your belt. But I don't think this is good advice for somebody who's just starting out. You tell them to watch STALKER or PERSONA, not SHANE or JEWEL ROBBERY.
The idea that anyone is going to grasp why Tarkovsky is great, before they understand what is both good and bad, interesting and boring, in more conventional films, is highly suspect to me
You don't need to experience a lot of suffering to know happiness. Now, experiencing lots of suffering can make happiness even STRONGER, but it was strong to begin with anyway. All people in this thread sound like a guy some of you perceive ME to be, whom I'm not. Namely, that you somehow build up your love and appreciation for the best films ever made, such as those by Tarr, Tarkovsky, or Bergman instead of recognizing their genius intuitively right away.
You have to understand what makes things bad before you are every going to even begin to grasp what makes them good.
Understanding again. I think understanding is only good with good films. Truly spectacular ones don't have to be understood to realize they're incredible. I think understanding is cheating, in a way, oh, this film was good, but not as great as I thought, let me try to understand why it was great. But with true masterpieces, they DESTROY you, they AMAZE you, they ASTOUND you. You don't need to think. This is a much deeper, more intrinsic reaction within you. When I started out as a cinephile I didn't give a sheet about the story or what those films meant. It was all about the experience, and I think this is the most sincere approach to cinema you can have. It circumvents overrating stuff, it circumvents being a poser, it circumvents being a liar, etc. But I guess you have to just have this thirst for art, that hunger for something incredible. Or maybe you have to start early enough so that your sensibilities haven't been flattened out by TikTok frenzy and instant gratification crap.
Maybe the short answer is, just tell people to watch movies they know absolutely nothing about
This is a prerequisite both when you're starting out and also after 30 years of being a cinephile. Essential advice. But this gets tougher and tougher as you go on. Still, not knowing the plot, etc. is a low standard, but people don't reach it anyway. People want to know what the film is about before watching it. Most of the time it doesn't matter. (Before you watch it.) Spoilers aren't bad because you learn that the hero will die or something. (Bresson often spoils his own movies early on or even in the title like A MAN ESCAPED.) Spoilers are bad because they rise your expectations as to what the film will be.
Also, there should be a caveat to all wannabe cinephiles: Prepare for loneliness
This is probably a half-joke, but I don't think this is true. Even the greatest cinephile on this site, mark f, had a wife and a daughter, hardly a lonely person. Most cinephiles I know are KINDA normal.
It's either that or biting your tongue and smiling with your back teeth everytime they start to "discuss" the latest Fast and the Furious film
I think these days people would rather discuss TV series and even computer games than films. And if it's films it's something like PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN or BARBIE. Really sad that this kind of lukewarm quasi-feminist crap that is even hated by the serious feminists gets the most of the talk. I might disagree with the hardcore Communist or feminist filmmakers, but at least they have the balls to go to extremes, which SOMETIMES results in interesting movies. But the popular stuff like that is never interesting.
It is a bit naive to believe that you can show Tarkovsky to a blank canvas and they will be mesmerized at the genius behind it.
I was. And a few other cinephiles I know were. I doubt we're somehow special. I think most of that has to do with people making themselves callous to real beauty by engaging in digital debauchery. And I'm guilty of that, too, as of late. I think that tabula rasa makes it EASIER to appreciate Tarkovsky et al because you're not yet soiled with all the other irreverent stuff. But people frame Tarkovsky as some ultimate final boss of film (he isn't) that requires a lot of preparation (doesn't) and is challenging (he really isn't). Tarkovsky is Cinema 101. He's easier to get into than Howard Hawks. LOL.
It is far more probable that you will get a confused or even derogatory response to this kind of cinema and you are more likely to come off as elitist by defending it and turning someone off artistic movies.
I don't think you'll come off as an elitist if you engage in a discussion about the film and try to question the beginner as to what they liked and disliked about the film. And also what they understood (organically).
I think the bottom line is this;
I think contemplation is one of the keys to these greatest films. But the contemplative abilities of contemporary folks are severely undermined by how they're conditioned to want more and more instant gratification. And how they're taught to THINK about everything THINK, THINK, THINK. But I say DON'T THINK and see what happens. I was such an idiot when I first got into cinema, I wouldn't understand half of the films I watched. My English back then was at a much lower level, too, so I couldn't understand everything they said when reading the subs. But I just let it glide. I wouldn't force myself to understand the subs. I was glad to just enjoy the words for what they are, their beauty, their look. And I approached the films the same way. And it was back then when I had this approach to cinema, that I had some of my deepest and most profound experiences with art. The moment I started understanding more, I gained a lot. But I also lost something. I lost an element of a childlike ability to experience art unquestionably. Some cinephiles I know told me they watched some movies, like Mizoguchi's, WITHOUT ANY SUBTITLES. So they didn't even TRY to understand, like I did. They just accepted they didn't and experienced these films in perhaps the most sincere, unadulterated, pure way possible. I think understanding art is great and enriching, but I think we all should start experiencing film just the way we experience life: first like a child who doesn't understand anything. And then this child can become an adult. But if you're an adult right away, you'll never be a child. And I think you thus lose a big part of what's so amazing about art.
Anyway, here's a shot from De Palma's BLOW OUT. Not a great film, far from De Palma's best (Tarantino is wrong, as always), but this shot is among the best in his career. De Palma himself says that when he makes a film, he first sees the image, and only then thinks about the story. So, my question is: what's there to understand about this shot? Or is it pure experience?
Being obsessed with symbols is another problem, but let's leave that for another discussion. Here's Tarkovsky's SOLARIS.
It's just incredible. Just like that. There's no need to understand ANYTHING to feel that it's something sublime.
It's YOU people who make art some sort of homework, not me.
I also think you should watch all the greatest masterpieces first, and only then get to the weaker films. One downside of this approach that I see is that at one point you will have almost no masterpieces to watch. But then you can drop your standards or go and rewatch some stuff. A never-ending journey, indeed.
__________________
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.
Art is not to be understood, but to be felt. If you don't feel it, your taste is bad OR your sense is not developed yet (or it used to be but now has deteriorated).
I'm a strong believer in strong gatekeeping when it comes to introducing people to film.
All people in this thread sound like a guy some of you perceive ME to be, whom I'm not. Namely, that you somehow build up your love and appreciation for the best films ever made, such as those by Tarr, Tarkovsky, or Bergman instead of recognizing their genius intuitively right away.
But I guess you have to just have this thirst for art, that hunger for something incredible.
But the popular stuff like that is never interesting.
It's YOU people who make art some sort of homework, not me.
Why did I ever think you would come off as elitist? I suggest you take a blank canvas, sit them down Clockwork Orange style and show them a few hours of Tarkovsky, Bergman and Tarr before bombarding them with some of the above quotes.
Hey, I was wondering how would you approach introducing an absolute beginner to the world of film. A sort of 'becoming a cinephile' crash course and later the continuation of that with more 'advanced' schooling, branching out onto even more films.
I'm not asking about ideas on how to do it effectively, e.g., easing them off into films by first showing them something like Spielberg, and then gradually challenging them with more artistic stuff. Nope. I mean, just let them deep-dive from day one. But which films, or filmmakers, or genres do you think they should watch, and in which order?
Becoming a cinephile and watching films is obviously a gradual process, so I wonder how would you space it out throughout, say, 5 years, so that person is well-versed in the world of cinema after that time and now only has to spend another 10 or so years filling up the blanks.
A person will either be interested or not, and if it's the latter I wouldn't push it. My honest answer is try to get that person to join movieforums for fun and see if it happens naturally. That's what happened with me.
Why did I ever think you would come off as elitist?
Is stating obvious truths like the fact Tarkovsky is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time being an elitist these days? Like, I didn't even say anything about being Marxist, championing Straub-Huillet, Debord, and Reis-Cordeiro, arguably the main requirements for being a true elitist.
I suggest you take a blank canvas, sit them down Clockwork Orange style and show them a few hours of Tarkovsky, Bergman and Tarr before bombarding them with some of the above quotes. You'll get yourself a true cinephile in no time.
Those who will become one, will. I can understand that some people are not shaped to become cinephiles, though. Also, if I really wanted to challenge them, I'd torture them with Sharits and Tscherkassky.
My honest answer is try to get that person to join movieforums for fun and see if it happens naturally. That's what happened with me.
All they'll do after joining MovieForums is watch Young Guns II together with Sexy Celebrity and The Rodent. Or was it honeykid? Young Guns are shooting, and shooting, and shooting, and shooting, and shooting....
Oh, I'm a big fan of taking a deep dive. I think they're the right entry points because they show them what cinema is capable of. After being shown the best of the best, they have the right frame of reference. They WILL get it if they're the right person to do that to begin with.
Impenetrable is good. Teaches you to feel movies above understanding them. I do disagree they're an acquired taste, though. I think lesser films are an acquired taste. American westerns, or gialli, or pinku eiga, or European sleaze. I think with the truly best films, you love them right away and you need no preparation whatsoever.
Their loss. I'm a strong believer in strong gatekeeping when it comes to introducing people to film. They will likely never branch out onto the traditional canon if they start with the middle-of-the-road "easy" stuff. Same goes for the new canon. Don't start from it! Recognizing that some films from the new canon are better than the ones from the old canon is a vital part of your cinematic journey. But this is something you do after circa 5 years, not right away. (How could you, if you don't know the old canon?)
I'm curious how many people have had luck with diving into the deep end right at the get go. With me, I started with AFI's top 100 (and IMDb's top 250 to a lesser extent) and then gradually moved to Sight & Sounds' 2012 poll once I discovered it and initially believed I would be able to retire or would be fully experienced once I got through both lists. I found AFI to be a good way to prepare me for some of the international, more impenetrable films on the other one. 81/2 was among the first films I watched on Sight & Sounds' poll and I struggled quite immensely with it to the point I decided to go back to AFI for a little while longer to grow more accustomed to the slow paced, albeit more approachable tones of them. And eventually I felt more comfortable with sticking to Sight & Sound to the point I stopped in the middle of the AFI list. And, of course, after getting through both lists, I began to realize there were thousands of films at my disposal and was nowhere close to being done. If I had jumped right into Fellini, Angelopoulos, Mizoguchi (I did love Sansho the Bailiff initially though), and Tarr right at the get go, or realized that there were innumerable films like 81/2 I had to get through as well, I don't know if that would've discouraged me from film.
In short, while jumping into the deep end right away might work for some people, I also think it's important to grow accustomed to slow pacing and talk‐heavy dialogue before you throw other elements into the mix you need to develop a attention span for. It won't be long till you run out of films to watch on AFI or IMDb and start to look elsewhere.
Yeah, I hated 8 1/2 at first, too. But this has more to do with it being far away from Angelopoulos', Tarr's, or Tarkovsky's best, and also its peculiar style. Fellini isn't the best Italian filmmaker, though. Antonioni is a much more essential one to get down first.
Anyway, one other problem with starting with only the best of the best is that your standards get so high that all other great films seem mediocre in comparison to the unshakeable masterpieces you watch daily. It's good to have high standards, though. At least at the beginning.
AFI 100 isn't terrible but it has two big issues:
1. It's, by definition, just American films. So by going through AFI 100, you will never expose yourself to non-American movies, OR your first 100 films on your "serious" cinematic journey will be American, and that's TERRIBLE and LIMITING. I'd say your first 100 SHOULDN'T be American. It's OK to hate American cinema at first, and only discover its value later on.
2. Many of the placings are questionable. Plus some films should not be there at all. DO THE RIGHT THING? Really? But hip-hop and the whole culture surrounding it is trash anyway, arguably the lowest form of art blacks ever conceived, a true blemish on their otherwise rich artistic culture (with jazz being the obvious creme de la creme).
Yeah, I hated 8 1/2 at first, too. But this has more to do with it being far away from Angelopoulos', Tarr's, or Tarkovsky's best, and also its peculiar style. Fellini isn't the best Italian filmmaker, though. Antonioni is a much more essential one to get down first.
Anyway, one other problem with starting with only the best of the best is that your standards get so high that all other great films seem mediocre in comparison to the unshakeable masterpieces you watch daily. It's good to have high standards, though. At least at the beginning.
AFI 100 isn't terrible but it has two big issues:
1. It's, by definition, just American films. So by going through AFI 100, you will never expose yourself to non-American movies, OR your first 100 films on your "serious" cinematic journey will be American, and that's TERRIBLE and LIMITING. I'd say your first 100 SHOULDN'T be American. It's OK to hate American cinema at first, and only discover its value later on.
2. Many of the placings are questionable. Plus some films should not be there at all. DO THE RIGHT THING? Really? But hip-hop and the whole culture surrounding it is trash anyway, arguably the lowest form of art blacks ever conceived, a true blemish on their otherwise rich artistic culture (with jazz being the obvious creme de la creme).
These are all fair points. Nothing much to disagree with here, other than me being a fan of Do the Right Thing
Maybe a better approach is to first show several American classics to someone, introduce them to several international films afterwards, and then show them some films from the directors you listed. That way, you can get a taste of a few different styles.
Maybe a better approach is to first show several American classics to someone, introduce them to several international films afterwards, and then show them some films from the directors you listed. That way, you can get a taste of a few different styles.
Yeah, that should work. I'd say it's important to make it varied but also to not make it too varied by branching out to non-essential stuff too early.
Some popular movies are great. Why not show them one of those?
Because the main idea here is to introduce them to arthouse cinema first and foremost. Anyway, Tarkovsky is fairly popular, too, so it depends on what you mean by popular movies. I really don't think they should waste their time on romantic comedies for the first 10 or so years if that's what you mean. Well, except for The Apartment, which is a masterpiece.
Because the main idea here is to introduce them to arthouse cinema first and foremost. Anyway, Tarkovsky is fairly popular, too, so it depends on what you mean by popular movies. I really don't think they should waste their time on romantic comedies for the first 10 or so years if that's what you mean. Well, except for The Apartment, which is a masterpiece.
Find a movie that has qualities you wish to introduce to your friends which also has the quality of being appealing to normies. It does not have to be "popular" in the sense of being a blockbuster. However, if you know that a film is popular (the herd has already collected around this watering hole), then you have evidence that your friends are likely to be entertained by it too.
If you know your friends, then you may also calibrate in terms of their tastes. What films do they like? What art house films are up their alley (given your personal knowledge)?
I'm curious how many people have had luck with diving into the deep end right at the get go. With me, I started with AFI's top 100 (and IMDb's top 250 to a lesser extent) and then gradually moved to Sight & Sounds' 2012 poll once I discovered it and initially believed I would be able to retire or would be fully experienced once I got through both lists. I found AFI to be a good way to prepare me for some of the international, more impenetrable films on the other one. 81/2 was among the first films I watched on Sight & Sounds' poll and I struggled quite immensely with it to the point I decided to go back to AFI for a little while longer to grow more accustomed to the slow paced, albeit more approachable tones of them. And eventually I felt more comfortable with sticking to Sight & Sound to the point I stopped in the middle of the AFI list. And, of course, after getting through both lists, I began to realize there were thousands of films at my disposal and was nowhere close to being done. If I had jumped right into Fellini, Angelopoulos, Mizoguchi (I did love Sansho the Bailiff initially though), and Tarr right at the get go, or realized that there were innumerable films like 81/2 I had to get through as well, I don't know if that would've discouraged me from film.
In short, while jumping into the deep end right away might work for some people, I also think it's important to grow accustomed to slow pacing and talk‐heavy dialogue before you throw other elements into the mix you need to develop a attention span for. It won't be long till you run out of films to watch on AFI or IMDb and start to look elsewhere.
What counts as diving into the deep end right away? I know my film viewing is not as wide ranging as others here (and I certainly have not been watching films seriously for nearly as long as many), but my start was renting The Seventh Seal from my local library while in high school, I think.
This is great if you already have a considerable number of films under your belt.
It's not so much great as it is essential. Is your claim that you came to watch and appreciate the films of Bela Tarr or Bresson or Fassbinder before you watched the films that teach us basic (mainstream) cinematic grammar? Does anybody actually do this? Because I'm just trying to wonder how the revelation of a Tarr long take would affect a person who has only watched films where 'real time' has always been wholly preserved. Isn't part of their beauty the fact that they continue under the threat that another filmmaker would edit out all of this material. Consider it superfluous or boring or unneccessary. But Tarr's decision to keep it in, and let it continue and continue and continue, forces us to look at something mundane in a completely different way, simply because other films don't give us this opportunity. I would even wager that it forces us to watch it closer than we would even in our own real life.
You don't need to experience a lot of suffering to know happiness.
We're are just going to disagree on this. I think these two things are hopelessly tied together. I don't think any emotional state can be understood with any depth unless we have something to contrast it with. If the temperature in your room never changed, there would be little need to consider how hot or cold you are. Same thing with happiness. Why would it even matter unless it was a respite from suffering. And why would suffering even be worth complaining about, unless we understood how much better happiness felt?
Understanding again
I'm not talking about understanding art by breaking it down into its components and analyzing if all the pieces are working together well. Or if there are deeper meanings to be found in some subtextual moment or whatever. I don't mind listening to other people get jazzed about that stuff, but it's almost completely irrelevant to how a film affects me. I want my experience with a movie to be as naive and childlike as possible. I just want it to happen, and have the way it moves and sounds and looks, its images and faces and landscapes, how it expands or condences time through editing, have the very surface of the film medium itself affect me in some kind of alchemical way. No deep thinking necessary.
But, that said, I still think we usually need to bear witness to all the different types of things films can do, both for better and worse, to grasp when one particular movie begins to transcend the gravitational pull most of those bad and boring and usually popular cinematic instincts have over most directors.
You don't need to think. This is a much deeper, more intrinsic reaction within you.
I don't disagree with you. But as little thinking as I do when I watch a film, it doesn't mean it isn't beneficial to start trying to parse out why they made us feel a particular way if we are ever going to bother discussing them with each other.
I obviously don't need to explain to myself why I was personally moved by a film. I understand that without any words at all. But when we start bringing strangers into the mix, it's good to find ways to explain where we believe our strong reactions were born from
This is probably a half-joke, but I don't think this is true. Even the greatest cinephile on this site, mark f, had a wife and a daughter, hardly a lonely person. Most cinephiles I know are KINDA normal.
This isn't me saying cinephiles are hermits, or don't have loving families, or are raving madmen out of the street screaming about the German New Wave. What I mean is when you learn too much about any one thing, you are going to find less and less people capable of having the kind of conversations you are looking for. The kind you need to continue learning. To continue even being interested in talking about the subject of your passion. For an extreme example, think of a master in the mathematics behind quantum mechanics having a conversation with someone who only knows enough math to work a cash register. One person wants to talk about what the nature of subatomic particles means in regards to the entire cosmos, and the other is just worrying they made the right change for a twenty. Someone is going to leave this conversation unsatisfied.
Reply to Topic
Check out my podcast: 
