What makes a "Good" film, in your opinion?

It's not 100% (thanks Freddy Got Fingered) but, otherwise, pretty much yeah.



Seriously, what did you expect me to say?

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Now I'm curious if there are a lot of movies like that for you, or does the number go lower as years pass (cause it does for me, sadly) and what are some of those that left such a lovely impression on you...

__________________
HEI guys.

Considering the number of films made since the very beginning I guess there aren't many that I would rate as "great" (i.e. very good and memorable in a special way).
But then again, I probably haven't watched as many as you have. For example, I don't watch Chinese or Japanese films.
Well, I guess it makes sense that the best of 20th century cinema outnumbers the best of 21st century cinema.

One thing I often notice in modern films is that it looks very calculated and made with great effort, while the "oldies" are usually more surprisingly, seemingly effortlessly or even accidentally good which makes it much more like a spontaneous, personal discovery (if that makes any sense).
Last night I watched The Killing Of A Sacred Deer which is a very interesting movie, but I was constantly aware of the idea that it looks exactly the way they wanted it to look - everything is perfectly framed, every word seems carefully chosen.
This gives the film something of an authoritative voice that keeps me at arm's length, as it were.
Of course I'm not saying that the great filmmakers of the 20th century didn't know what they were doing, but lots of it was made in an experimental phase which means that they couldn't really predict how their work would be perceived.

Bro talking about life-changing movies and then says he doesn't watch Japanese films.

I think it's the other way around. Old films used to be thought over from scene one to scene last. New stuff just isn't like that for the most part, and if it is, it sure doesn't seem like it. The 'effortlessness' is precisely the domain of new (1980s and beyond) cinema.

__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.

Good soundtrack, funny humor, interesting plot that's easy to understand (take that, WHEELS ON MEALS).

If you wanna insult someone else's taste, you may not want to speak in tiktok NPC lingo. Just sayin'.

OK boomer

What makes a good film relates to what I'd say movies in general are good at, which is letting you experience the world through someone else's eyes. The two factors then are 1) does it give you a worthwhile experience and 2) is it good at communicating it? A movie that has a good sentiment at heart still needs to be competent at letting you in on it, and a movie that has a bad sentiment at heart can never be good, no matter what.


The experience or point of view it provides you with is judged by what it spends the most time on. To quote the blogger The Red Quest - "what you really want is what you do every day." Likewise, the movie's real themes are what it does with its runtime. I say that in reference to those movies that have that scene where they spell out the themes for you, because it happens every now and then that they're lying.

I guess I deserved that, but I refuse to be apologetic about it.
While I'm aware of the influence and importance of Asian cinema It just isn't something that I can enjoy. The problem is that I don't understand the language, or, to be more precisely, the intonation thereof. And also the body language, come to think of it.
I can't distinguish between good and bad Japanese performances because it looks and sounds the same to me, especially the classics. It's possible that the modern versions are a little more doable.

This is certainly not an opinion that I enjoy defending - and I'm never afraid to eat my words. It just hasn't happened yet.

Then we have been watching completely different films.
Modern films often look less energetic to me, I never get the feeling that an actor would say something ad lib because everything they say or do has to go for the full effect - nothing less, nothing more. And it's only the real good ones that can pull it off.

How do you know if you reportedly don't watch it at all?

What if you just need a little bit of getting used to, a little bit of work to discover and fall in love with a new treasure trove of art?

Taste can be developed.

That's a painful generalization, one after another. First 'Asian cinema', then a '(single) language' whose intonation you cannot understand. All of this shows a lot of ignorance, stemming from a lack of exposure to multiple filmmaking traditions and industries. Hong Kong cinema nowadays is very different from that from the 1980s, which is, in turn, different from that from the 1950s. And that's just Hong Kong! Then, you have Taiwan, Mainland China, South Korea, North Korea, Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and many other Asian countries. Hell, India has multiple filmmaking traditions going all at once, often competing with each other. How many Malayalam films have you seen to claim that you don't understand the intonation of the Malayalam language? What did you do to try and understand it? What about Cantonese or Mandarin?

Why would you even need to be able to distinguish a good performance from a bad one, to begin with? But supposing it is important, why is it that you cannot make that distinction? I think the reason lies in the lack of exposure. All you need to 'get' those films is just watch a lot of them. You don't need any sort of formal training, be it film studies or linguistics. The beauty of film lies in the fact it doesn't require the viewer to have any expertise in this form of art. Having the expertise can enrich the viewing, but it's not a necessity.

I don't understand how this is meant to contradict what he said about the language barrier and intonation. That's a real problem. If you're just saying it exists for cinema in other parts of the world...well, yeah, probably (though less so for a lot of the romance languages, obviously). But he didn't say it was exclusively a problem with Asian cinema.

I think a problem with a lot of these arguments, if you can call them arguments, is that they work backwards from the premise that this should be the single most important thing in our lives. And from that premise, sure, it's easy to poke holes in behavior or dedication or whatever.

The information about the influence of Asian cinema pops up every now and then, and I really have no reason to doubt it.
Absolutely true. And if I ever discover some great ones ("great" to my standards) then I'm going to want more of it. I'm a very greedy person.
But there are already so many fims to discover that don't have the inherently problematic set-up as described in my previous post.
The temptation simply isn't very big at the moment. If or when that situation changes you'll be the first one to know

It's easy to see it's the problem with Asian cinema for him given how he said himself.

Wait, it isn't? :O

Oh, so simply a lazy and unadventurous movie buff versus a passionate cinephile. Gotcha.

He didn't say it was exclusive to Asian cinema.

Up to you. But seriously, you can't work backwards from your premise of it being tantamount to criticize other people who do not share that premise.

I was thinking an obsessive zealot versus a normal person trying to appreciate art pragmatically in the midst of a life rich in other ways, but to each their own.

The main thing is to argue honestly and/or from a shared premise. Otherwise the argument always just boils down to "why aren't you more like ME?"

Not that I do not understand the idea that Asian cinema -as a problematic whole- has barriers in style, intonation and whatever that may seem difficult. However, the conclusion that these barriers become such a strong burden to watching these films to me is the opposite of a passionate attitude towards the medium. We are used to explore beyond our norm, it is necessary to even develop a sense of cinephilia when the immediate output is often so limited; like we watch films from the 30s or the 40s, stuff that is long out of fashion, in black and white, silent, in various formats. The question is, why should the idea that there is a "barrier" stop us from trying and watching them, and attempting the constant trial and error that is exploring and loving film as a whole? I don't mean falling in love with Japanese or Chinese or Indian movies as a whole field for exploration, but the whole idea of not even wanting to try because you are afraid you won't "get" it or that it's too culturally or stylistically distant for you? Come on! You watch equally and sometimes even far more challenging stuff regularly, if you are into movies beyond your locally released blockbuster hit.

Every time someone says "you should do more X," whatever X is, I wanna ask: what should they do less of to make room for it?

Your time and attention and willpower are finite. Everybody is picking and choosing what to focus on, what to ignore, what to dabble in, 100% of their lives. You're watching Asian cinema instead of German cinema. You're watching cinema instead of reading novels, or appreciating paintings. What would you say to someone who said the same things to you about literally anything else, asking you why you didn't prioritize it?

The answer is always "because I did something else." So if there's an argument to be made, and it's meant to actually be an argument and not just an opportunity to project something about a favored topic (which is what I think is usually the case), it should be something about how this thing is worth prioritizing over some other thing, yeah? That'd be arguing from a shared premise.

Kudos to you for having the balls to tell the truth, I admire your convictions. It's easy on the internet to be a poser and pretend one is much more than they really are...your post was refreshing.

We all relate to the world and of course films differently. So when you say you can't relate to Asian cinema because 'you don't understand the language or the intonation...and the body language,' it makes sense as those unknown inflections would impart your enjoyment and understanding of the film. Indeed you're right that there's a barrier there...but as modern Korean and Chinese films are closer to American made films, you might find those an easier inroad than watching 1950s Japanese cinema. Personally, I like Japan's classic cinema, and while customs and body language can make the meaning of the moment somewhat muddled for me I still understand enough to find the films fascinating and rewarding. But ultimately it's our life and each of us should experience cinema however they want to.

He literally did:

If you mean he might also find, say, African cinema hard to get due to the things listed above, it might be true, but I don't understand what your overarching point is, then. He himself started talking about Asian cinema and his reasons for not enjoying it. Saying he might also have such difficulties with other kinds of cinema is beside the point. All my points stand. You can develop your tastes, you can expose yourself to more films of a given kind to get them and therefore develop your taste, and whatever my last point was.

I can. I can use any premises I want. But that's beside the point again, as it doesn't have to be the most important thing in our lives to still be important. And it should be important to cinephiles. This is a movie forum, after all, so you'd expect it to ALSO have cinephiles, not ONLY people with a fleeting interest in movies. So, it's not perfectly out of line to expect somebody to be a cinephile and if not, then to at least point them in the right direction of becoming one. I understand I might not be very pedagogical about it, but tough love is sometimes the right love, and I was pretty easy on the guy, anyway, trying to point him to the reason why he reportedly doesn't get these films (but now it seems to me like he doesn't even watch them at all!).

Yes, I am a zealot, and I have a hard time imagining a true cinephile who isn't at least a little bit of a zealot. I respect those who watch fewer films and thus carefully pick only great ones, but I believe they're still zealots, just in other ways, i.e. in how they champion those great films they love and spite the bad ones (and sometimes the people who love the bad ones, too, while they're at it). Even if they're kind and understanding, exposing yourself to so much good does things to you, it elevates your standards, so to speak, creating a barrier with people who watch weaker films, and with the people for whom cinema is just one of many ways.

There's definitely a form of obsession and zealousness in a passion. That's the very point of a passion. It's not a mere hobby - it's your life. It consumes you, it becomes a part of your life, it's all you think about, all you talk about. It can be less severe... you might also have a meaningful life, and other hobbies, but they're just hobbies... because you can only have one true passion, one thing that makes you forget all else, that makes your heart race and your mind crave.

There'll always be a discrepancy and misunderstanding between those with a passion and those with just a keen interest in something, so the only way for one side is to try to make others find the passion, and for the other side to try and show the passionate that there are other things in life - the very thing you're trying to do now. The thing is, the passionate understand this, and they willingly give up other things for their passion. They don't have to, but they choose to. There's that quote from a Yamada film (not sure which one atm) that life is just choosing what we will regret. Will I regret dedicating my life to cinema? I don't think so, but even if, I'm glad I'm able to dedicate it to just that, to my passion. I could've done much worse, like becoming a hip-hop music lover. I listened to over 260 hip-hop albums, you know. Enough for me to be sure I hate the genre. Now, how many 'Asian' films has LeBoyWondeur watched?

I imagine it might be cool to share a premise because then it's easier to convince your interlocutor to your position. I'm more of a believer in just giving them some clues, and leaving it up to them to discover their filmwatching is far from perfect, and there's room for improvement and branching out.

It's always hilarious to me that I say such obvious things and they're always seen as controversial here. Maybe it's not the things I say, but the way I say them. I don't mince my words, but why should I?

Anything else, even watching fewer films you usually watch and instead watching more of the "challenging" ones. This isn't a serious question for anybody who's serious about cinema, anyway. Maybe if you put something really special, like somebody you love or a new member of your family, then this can take precedence, but pretty much nothing else would or should for a cinephile. And besides, I think this is a false dilemma. As mentioned, you can watch fewer US films and watch Asian films instead, or just fit in an additional Asian film once a month every month. That's puny 12 Asian films in a year, but it's better than nothing. It all boils down to the aphorism: Where there's a will, there's a way.

Novels and cinema are two different art forms. A better analogy would be somebody reading just American literature and somebody asking why aren't you reading Asian literature, which would be a pretty good question, indeed!

Didn't I do just that here?

I believe in deep-diving right away, right to the hardest, most challenging, and difficult stuff. The more challenging, the more rewarding in the end, and the more illuminating, pressing one to delve deeper. But maybe somebody prefers to take little steps and start slower. This is OK, too, if the outcome is somebody broadening their horizons.

I've read that three times now and I don't know what part you think does this. He's describing his challenges with Asian cinema: I see zero phrasing there that suggests it applies only to Asian cinema.

...and people can dismiss the entire argument because they do not share the premise. The word "can" is not literal: it includes the implication "...while remaining reasonable and/or persuasive." You CAN respond to a logical objection by listing your favorite foods, too, but it wouldn't enrich the interaction and shouldn't change anyone's mind.

If you want to talk about this made-up term, I'm sure you can bump one of our previous conversations about it. But suffice to say, this just compounds the problem. Because now we're not only saying some axiomatic preference is better, we're also throwing around an idiosyncratic term on top to describe it. This is just creating more barriers to communication.

It does, you've just decided to define cinephiles nearly out of existence with carefully crafted purity tests. Reminds me of that old George Carlin joke: "ever notice how any driver slower than you is an idiot, and any driver faster than you is a maniac?"

I'd say you're actually anti-pedagogical about it, which is to say you approach the issue the way I would if I were specifically trying to raise people's hackles into not agreeing with me. And when someone does that there are only two possibilities: either they don't understand how to communicate, or they don't care whether or not they do.

There's a famous quote (I know, I know, I'm just full o' those) that I think about a lot in these exchanges:

"A zealot is someone who won't change his mind and can't change the subject."

It's that second part that's the problem. A lot of people won't change their mind, and in many circumstances that's actually a virtue. But being unable to talk about anything else, and correspondingly, being unable or unwilling to imagine yourself in another's position (a prerequisite for arguing from a shared premise), is what makes someone a zealot.

You obviously think this is a good thing. I'm less sure. And besides, even being passionate in that way is, itself, not necessarily the best appreciate things. Appreciation of art transcends the type of art. Good writing helps me appreciate sculpture which helps me appreciate film which...et cetera. It's all interconnected and potentially enriching.

How much can someone appreciate a film about love if they've never been in love? Or a film about grief if they've never lost someone? They will get something out of it, but it won't be the same thing they'd get if they had. There are countless things in life that enrich you in ways that contribute to your appreciation of art later. It is not true that you get the most enrichment from consuming it for the highest number of minutes.

Yes, very good quote, very succinct and illustrative of the problem.

Maybe. But I get suspicious when the thing someone thinks is most persuasive happens to be the easier thing. The thing that requires no empathy, or allows them to talk themselves up the most, or just generally requires the least of them.

That's definitely a factor, yes.

Because it should be abundantly clear by now that the un-minced words sow pointless discord and hamstring the (ostensible?) goal of helping other people experience and appreciate the things you love.

I don't think that's better, because I'm not trying to use an analogy. I'm reframing the entire question, because my whole point is that there is no logical dividing line between one and the other. If you ask why you don't watch more Asian cinema relative to other cinema, there's no reason not to also ask why you don't read more books instead of watching so many films.

This is exactly the kind of kinder, more nuanced sentiment that probably would've helped the first reply land better, if it had been included.

Holy upheaval, Bathomme!

And I only mentioned it in passing in reference to...I don't even remember what it was!
And what makes you think that my taste in cinema hasn't changed or expanded at all?
It's not like I'm only watching a fixed list of favourite blockbusters over and over again.

My "problem" with Asian cinema (again, it was only mentioned as an example, not to make a big statement or anything) is indeed based on experience - not much, but enough to make me realise why it doesn't work for me.
I explained it and thought that would be the end of it. Ha!
I completely understand that those who are passionate about the subject feel that I'm missing out on something. And maybe I do and maybe I will give it another try some time, but never-ever on commando.
I'm not easily offended and all that raving and ranting doesn't impress me at all.

To be fair, I registered rather spontaneously without considering what or if something was required of me.
Maybe I figured that having a good taste for good films would go a long way (!) and I don't consider myself a LeBoyFraudeur.