Introducing non-cinephiles to film

People are different. There's no one size fits all approach.

I've always liked film but haven't always loved it or 'gotten' art films. Then one day, when I was a bit older (maybe late 20s?) I watched Kieslowski's 'Three Colors Blue' and became obsessed with it, with art film, with the spirituality of film, with this clever way of film-making, with European film, with world cinema and with everything that was out there that I had previously pigeon-holed as 'artsy' or 'pretentious'.

That was the gateway art film for me, it moved me beyond words and beyond what any film had done to me before - and I doubt that I would have taken the path I had if that film had been a Tarr or a Tarkovsky or a Jodorowsky. The appreciation for those directors came way after as I have and still am consuming every cinephilic dose of celluloid I can lay my hands on.

Others may become a cinephile after one Bela Tarr film. But for me it was something that was a little more rooted indrama that I could relate to. Even though I have probably since watched better films - ( some by Tarr and Tarkovsky too!), I'm just saying that I feel 'Three Colors Blue' did it for me. It broke the cinematic mould in my head.

Same here, but it was Tarr's Werckmeister Harmonies for me.

__________________
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.

Colour me shocked! It's one of the best films I've ever seen, but I feel I saw it at the right time, I was more mature and more eager to learn about art film and had got into a rhythm of art film watching so that I knew I had to concentrate, be patient and try to absorb the right detail, then think about it for a long while after it etc etc

I feel the same way about films like Taste of Cherry or some Carlos Reygadas films. I'd never have appreciated them in my early 20s. It took a gradual ease into the world of art film for me to like them.

However, I have friends who were into that kind of thing at 16! We're all different.

My cinephilic journey is always continuing. One day, I'll be brave enough to explore Lav Diaz films. I haven't seen any yet (I don't feel I'm able to) but when the time feels right, I'll dive in.

I don't mean it to be quite that cynical, but wearing my other hat for a moment (opera fan), I know that you'd really have to almost try to not make a lovable filming of the Magic Flute. It's the opera that you can take your misbehaved 8 year old or your cynical music hater to and both will come out with a big smile. It has a monster, a witch, a noble king and young lovers. It's easy for someone who's not an opera fan but, for a hardened classical music person, the music never wears out and some of the arias are amazing, most notably the Queen of the Night aria. That's why it's still around after 250 years.

I give Bergman a break on this. He must have wanted something lite, so it's not even a little bit like Cries and Whispers or The Seventh Seal. When TMF is over, you're asking, that's BERGMAN? Huh? Why in the world did he not put something like the Papagena-Papageno duet in Wild Strawberries? Flute is a chance for an opera producer to go completely off the rails into craziness. Bergman went halfway and the result was quite good. I've seen this opera live several times and it's always crazy in a likable way. Another version -

Fair enough---I wish I could say that I have seen it in person before! I've never been to an opera at all, now that I think about it... I really should, because I love the theater so much (speaking of which, I just saw Matthew Broderick in his new one).

I know this is getting a bit off track from the thread topic, but what appealed to me a lot about Bergman's version is that it picked up on a thread of "joy of life"-embodying characters that have gone through a lot of his movies---including Wild Strawberries (in that case, the young hitchhikers). Similar characters appear among the carnival performers in The Seventh Seal or even in the general background of Summer with Monika. But they are always in the more general context of Bergman's philosophical concerns, which I think tempers the audience's reception of just how joyous they can be (at least in certain moments).

Bringing things back around to the thread topic as a whole and building on my suggestion above, that's why I would probably point to Bergman first as where to begin exploring art film. There are so many layers, characters, and ideas that anyone should be able to find at least one thread of interest that can push them further along.

Back to the starting point - "Hey, I was wondering how would you approach introducing an absolute beginner to the world of film." - I'd start by not using the word film, since somebody young enough to have never seen a movie probably did grow up in the digital world.

Then - I'd ask what they like. What's your favorite story? Name a few genres, pick something from that genre. Get good quality projection and sound. Get them in a seat in a theater, with a crowd.

Stop some place for some food first, go into the "big city" so there are lights, tall buildings and busy-ness and a crowd getting into the theater. Make it an occasion.

That should do it.

I've been thinking about this thread for a couple of weeks now and I have come to the conclusion that turning someone into a cinephile is something you cannot do. If someone comes to you and asks you specific questions about specific movies, you can answer offering history and backstory, but I don't think it's possible to teach somebody how to be a film buff or to introduce them to film.

So, how did they end up feeling about the hats?

I wouldn't. Taking a novice to see classic "film" is pretty pretentious, especially in an era where actual film is going away. I'd assemble a short list of box office hits that also have some merit and then work my way "uphill" from there.

If nothing else, box office hits are generally well crafted and keep moving. They're not dreary and moody like old Berman movies, not incredibly boring like My Dinner With Andre, or way too long like 2001, A Space Odyssey. They won't leave you wondering why anybody would pay to see this, like old Fellini movies, or Fight Club.

You really have to develop a taste for things like this and it's better to do it because you like where it starts, otherwise, it's like bringing a naive person into the classical music world with a two hour performance by an Oboe trio.

The hats (and the lesbians wearing them) were very well received. I know my audience.

Poor bait.

But you nibbled!

I just sit their ass down in front of something I think will pluck their heartstrings, and if my pick isn’t right well then their hearts are stone and they must go away. Far, far away. Until they learn that maybe it don’t matter shit in the end, but nerds gotta nerd.

Trying to make someone become a cinephile is like sitting someone into a chair and telling them they can't get up into they fall in love with you.


Doesn't work.


You've just got to find people who are already on that path. And nudge them towards shit that will make their lives better. Make them actually have some good taste.



But it's always got to be up to them.


Sadly.

Yeah....Bergman gained back a lot of the points he lost in Wild Strawberries with Die Zauberflote, what with its true love, comedy, witches, wizards and the dinosaur. I've seen that performed live several times in the opera theater and it's an all-time favorite. I was surprised to see that Bergman even had that light-heartedness in him. My thought was, "why did you wait all these years to do that?" You'd have to be a sour person to NOT like almost any decent Magic Flute and Bergman's was great.

Yeah, for sure. In my early years I recall trying to do that and it crashed and burned. I was pretentious and judgmental and that never goes over all that well, especially with the uninformed. In reference to my comment about The Magic Flute....even more so with opera. I guess the virtue of that movie is that, for the person you're enlightening, you get Bergman AND opera out of the way in a couple of hours.

I adore Bergman but have never watched an opera. Magic Flute is on my list for next round of Bergman watching. So, maybe I will discover a new art form to love.

__________________
Letterboxd

Yeah....The Magic Flute is much easier on the soul than most of Bergman. You do, however, have to completely suspend disbelief in witches, wizards and dinosaurs and go with something that's an 18th century version of silliness, cardboard scenery and all that.

And then, there's the sex scene -

Very true!

I've never seen a Tartovsky movie, but will gladly go do so now. (Curse of the Cat people turned out to be lame, family faire.)

I've sat through a couple of Tarkovsky's movies and, while they were at least interesting to me, like most of Fellini or Bergman, I'd only take a novice to see them after they got past "Film 101" and saw some movies that have merit AND are entertaining.

It has to be at least somewhat enjoyable or why would you go? Nobody NEEDS movies.

It would be like introducing a young kid to solid food with chili peppers. I'm not enough of a puritan to tell somebody that they should do this because it's good for you and it's me that decides what's good for you.

So, what would those be. It's a good topic for a list.....movies that have merit AND are fun or exciting or whatever.

What popped right up in my head was Gladiator. Having taken 5 years of Latin in school, I watched this one and it seemed like the "old daze". Production is great, acting great, it's a spectacle, it has color and it's historically plausible. It has merit without being Bergman or Tarkovsky. It leads me to Ridley Scott of course and I'd much rather see any of his movies than most of what's in the Film School list. By the way, I see that we are expecting Gladiator 2 late next year. We'll have to do without Commodus and Maximus, I guess.