MST3K: Anti-cinema?

You know what the problem with that answer is? It's used as a way to discount and diminish any actual discussion that dare goes beyond bland conversation like 'yeah, I liked that movie' 'hey, me too'. It tries to legitimize having nothing to say as the intelligent and logical response.


Having deeper thoughts or feelings about a movie, and trying to articulate why it matters, or figure out what it might be saying, or how it teaches us to look at things from a different perspective,and then debating over our differences, has value regardless if we can never find an absolute truth of what is good or what is bad. It transcends ****ing thumbs ups and thumbs downs.

Actual discussions? I rarely see anything like that on the internet. It's usually one person trying to outdo the other, or one person trying to show off more than the next guy. *Not talking about you or anyone here specifically....But the lack of honest discussion on the internet makes me think mostly it's all a waste of time. I'm serious, it's disappointing to me that most discussions at their heart are posturing maneuvers, like some virtual gladiatorial games where words replace the gladius sword. It's a pity too, if people could just bury their egos, listen to others and forget 'winning', the internet would be a better place. Funnier too.

I don’t tho k that applies with Crumbs. He’s very much interested in discussing why a film works

That's why I said,

It's absolutely false that having different preferences or likes or dislikes is the same as "having nothing to say".

For what it's worth, I don't think what you're talking about applies much to this forum. I'd say it's more an issue with unmoderated sites. With me, I don't bother with YouTube discussions nowadays and mainly stick to sites like this.

I did mean this forum too. But I'm not saying people are nasty or anything like that. It's just that many serious conversations have an adversarial quality about them, much like a college debating team. I guess if both parties dig that then more power to them, but I'm repelled by that myself.

Now you're someone who can talk & discuss without getting willful or competitive. I remember if we disagreed you were always cordial about it. Hope I was too.

I didn't say that.

Isn't it pretty much what you said? Simply pointing out different people have different perspectives is, according to you, simply a way to "legitimize having nothing to say as the intelligent and logical response."

I don't think understanding that there's a multitude of possible responses to a work of art is doing anything more than establishing one of the basic tenets of artistic appreciation.

No, that isn't what I said.

Well, could you clarify your statement, please? Because if that's what it sounded like to me, maybe others will read that the same way?

I'm going to take the statement that I replied to earlier and try to examine it a little bit closer, this time:

Simply pointing out the inherently subjective way in which we react to art does not, imho, "discount and diminish any actual discussion." It can, however, be the basis from which to start a discussion.

The fact that human beings react subjectively to the arts does not, in any way, "legitimize having nothing to say as the intelligent and logical response". One can acknowledge the subjectivity of different reactions as the foundation from where you can then attempt to figure out what you are trying to say, and thus formulate precisely "an intelligent and logical response".

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting a discussion that involves "deeper thoughts or feelings about a movie" can't be worthwhile. I don't think anyone seriously is attempting to get to the "absolute truth of what is good or what is bad".

What does abort a good discussion before it even begins is someone proudly declaring themself the king or queen of all the cinephiles in the universe and the only real possessor of the absolute truth, or even the only person in the planet who can designate others as "real cinephiles".

I'm talking about how interjections of 'its all subjective', when it comes to discussions about art, are conversation killers. And often, I believe, deliberately so.


For example, if two people are having a passionate debate about a film, where party A is saying a movie is great and giving reasons, and party B is saying it's trash and giving their reasons, then suddenly party C arrives to interrupt with the claim that 'hey, don't you guys know everything is subjective', what is party C intending with this?


Does he actually think pretty much everyone on earth doesn't already know this? That this is some unfound nugget of wisdom he possesses?


Or is the implication, because everything is subjective and therefore tall opinions are essentially equally correct, that the debate these two are having is ultimately pointless and they shouldn't bother?


I believe whether intentionally or not, this is what party C is ultimately doing.

I think there are times when a brief reminder about the subjectivity of arts appreciation is perhaps a little bit helpful to try to keep things in perspective - though perhaps this isn't always the way to go.

A big part of what I admired about Siskel & Ebert back when they had their show was their ability to engage in discussions that could sometimes get pretty intense, but at the end of the day you knew that they still appreciated each other and really enjoyed just having a chance to voice their opinions - whether they were in agreement, partial agreement, or complete disagreement.

Unfortunately not everyone gets to know each other well before getting into some pretty intense discussions on the Internet these days, and I think that's probably detrimental to the quality of the conversations that can be had, again, on the Internet.

It would definitely be easier if these discussions were taking place IRL, because at the end of the day you could just go and have a beer together and have a few laughs after you've had your "passionate" movie discussion.

There are all sorts of ways to suggest people 'cool it', other than 'hey, it's all subjective'.



Ya, maybe sometimes it is as innocent as that. But don't under estimate the hostility that an awful lot of people, particularly on the internet, have towards those who try to have nuanced, impassioned or deep conversations about art. There are a lot of people who don't think art is worth the time, either because they simply don't care about art in the first place and sometimes believe it to be some kind of threat to them. Or, simply, flat out resent those who actually have something to say, probably because they don't. And, yes, those people absolutely exist. There is an increasing strain of anti-intellectualism and, frankly, anti-thought that is becoming harder and harder to ignore.

I wish I could articulate film as well as Crumbs. Or others here. It’s hard for me to do so. I hate overthinking a film and working out what worked and what didn’t beyond the typical discussions such as direction, acting, cinematography, story development, and such. I’m not adverse to figuring out why a scene was interesting or what meaning they have, and even a movie, but anything too deep becomes difficult for me to delve into, especially when it comes to metaphors, analogies or anything esoteric.
That isn’t to suggest I’m above enjoying such things. Tarkovsky and Bergman for example have deep, meaningful films that I’m not always going to completely underatand. I’m just not good at discussing them well enough, although I’d like to be.

Afraid I was spoiling your fun of long debates ah? Relax dude, I'm no liar, I entered some info in Chat GPT based on FilmBuffs post, just for fun, no agenda intended. Besides it's all subjective

Considering that I don't go into movies, especially the ones I pay for, without doing some background checking and don't pay for tickets for movies I probably won't like, none of them exactly transcend any pedestrian puddles. I've seen enough movies in my life that new plots, characters or situations are rare. Oceanic depths of innovation are rare in my estimation, especially in a corporate, studio environment. I'm not invulnerable to anything new, but it is rare.

Suggestions for what I need to get my enlightenment back on track would be welcome.

I think interesting conversations can be had at various kinds of levels, and it shouldn't be limited to self-promoted "cinephiles" or film professors or whatever to have genuinely interesting and insightful discussions.

Also, these days there's a wealth of information out there that can make almost everyone much more savvy about films! I remember how in the earliest days of the Criterion collection, I listened to the first movie commentaries that were becoming available, and how much I learned from those. (the ones for The Graduate and Citizen Kane were particularly insightful - comedy is a very underappreciated art!)

I certainly would hope nobody is held back from participating in the discussions because they do not feel they are verbose enough!

A little bit too much True Believer for me. It's fun, art, entertainment and business, some combination of the four. Some nights it goes well with pizza and beer.