Difference between Recognition of Technical Excellence and Enjoyment?

This post was prompted by "The Killer," which I saw and did not like, even though I acknowledge it was technically well made. It is not necessary to have seen it to participate in this discussion. I find this happens to me a lot, that I can see and appreciate that the level of skill achieved in producing a film is at a high level. I can find individual components well done, but this sometimes does not translate into me enjoying the film, like the whole is much less to me than the sum of the parts. I'm wondering, what does everyone else think? If you recognize high quality, does that translate into you enjoying it because you appreciate how well done it was, or that the director achieved his personal vision, or do you instead find yourself sometimes not liking the film anyway, and what causes that disconnect for you?

I feel like this some times also, I can see and appreciate the attention to detail, craft on display but despite that I feel a movie should not feel like a chore or punishment to sit and watch for a few hours. Thank goodness for speed increase settings.

The Conformist (1970) immediately springs to mind. I enjoyed it on a technical level, and even found myself re-watching some scenes, marveling at the creative filmmaking I was witnessing. Other than that, it bored me to tears and annoyed me in equal measure.

__________________

Are you familiar with this essay?

I don't think it's important to love a film you suspect is technically brilliant but simply doesn't speak to you. Just worry about liking what you like.


But, it never hurts to revisit things you didn't respond to the first time. Especially if you think that maybe something interesting is there.

There's some magic in movies that exists at the intersection between what the story is and how the story is being told.

I think it's just fine to love a movie because of the technical ability on display, to love a movie despite the (lack of) technical ability on display, or to be totally put off of a movie despite the technical ability on display.

For example, I'm watching The Wizard of Gore right now. The acting is stilted. The music is intrusive. The direction is . . . something. But I would watch it 1000 times before ever putting on Barry Lyndon again, a film that I acknowledge is technically strong (aside from O'Neal's dog of a performance).

I feel that Wizard of Gore and Barry Lyndon are equally good.

He's a bad actor, and it's a bad performance, but he's also perfect in it.

I think it's much easier to like a movie because of a good story, even to where if the technical stuff is bad, one can still really like the film.

I've watched hundreds of movies where the cinematography is splendid, and even the production design is first rate, but the movie itself was Limburger.

Look, I know what you mean. But it's just too long watching an emotionless f-boy gallop around the countryside.

In general, the greater the artistry, the greater the enjoyment. (Note that I'm using the word 'artistry' instead of the phrase 'technical excellence'.) But the director's personal vision is important, too. If I hate a film but understand I am supposed to hate it because it's a satire that mocks this kind of movie while at the same time containing a lot of meta-commentary on things, I might end up loving the film even so.

An unforgivable thing to do. I have zero respect for anybody who watches films at double speed.

I never get bored watching films, so I don't have to resort to Kiarostami's trick of saying the movie put him to sleep but then he couldn't forget it for a long time. But you can, I guess. If The Conformist immediately springs to your mind, then at the very least it's not forgettable, which is a good thing in and of itself. Add to that technical brilliance and all you're left with is your "it bored me to tears". The question remains is the problem with the film or you?

I find the opposite to be true. Even if the message is abhorrent, I can still appreciate the artistry behind the film. However, even a great story is severely undermined if the style is not up to par with the content.

Depends on the kind of film. In some cases, the story is of no importance. In others, everything else feels less important. But while I think the story can be abridged or even gotten rid of entirely, you can't do the same for the form. Without the form, the film would not exist. Style IS substance.

Hmm, I find myself getting lazy, meaning that I'd rather watch a good film than rewatch a masterpiece. This is because I know how much the masterpiece would shatter me, and I want to take these incredible experiences in small doses. But The Wizard of Gore is Herschell Gordon Lewis' weakest film and Barry Lyndon is Kubrick's best (along with 2001), so I don't trust anybody who'd take the mediocre slasher over one of the best American films of the 70s. I mean, there are some principles you just don't break.

__________________
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.

1.5x not double.

The problem is most certainly always with me, but you knew that already. Fair point, anyway. I guess I would adjust my statement to be that the subject matter and narrative bored me to tears. The technical aspects did not.

Either we like a film or not. That's all there is to it. Personally, if a film maker is technically skilled, but doesn't speak to me, then it failed.

The two are definitely not the same for me. For instance, I could clearly see the technical excellence in both Breathless and El Topo, but I did not enjoy either film (the first for having a story I personally found uninteresting, the latter for the extreme animal cruelty).

I agree, 2x is rookie territory. If you're not watching at 3x, you ain't watching efficiently.

There's a simple answer to this question: there is no problem. There's this weird thing called taste that makes some film-viewer pairings incompatible.

__________________

If the point of watching movies was to put films with the highest critical consensus in front of your face with no regard to your enjoyment or enrichment, sure.

That's not my objective as a viewer. I've given Barry Lyndon two fair shakes, and found it a hollow experience both times.

Are you saying you put more trust in people who follow the crowd instead of their own genuine reactions to art?

Technical excellence is something that ChapGPT could be trained to recognize. Technical excellence reflects norms, we can train an AI to recognize norms. Liking is something, however, that a machine cannot (yet?) do. We can have an objective conversation about technical excellence. We cannot have an objective conversation about whether you should have "liked" a movie.

I honestly think that Minio thinks like this, as long as the crowd is small and hipster enough.