A few very general pet peeves when discussing movies

[Grouchy]

It's the subtle assholeishness that pisses me off (seriously, if I ever did something to you, I apologize). Also, the missing spoiler tag was a mistake; didn't think anybody was going to read the review anyways.
It's true, I didn't read the review.

[Duncan]

When people get angry for not tagging minor spoilers in a review.

Assuming this is aimed at me...I was not angry. Regardless, that didn't seem like a minor plot development to me. I saw the trailer many times before other films and it never suggested the movie would go in that direction. I dunno. Spoiler tagging always just seemed like common courtesy to me.

[MacGuffin]

Assuming this is aimed at me...I was not angry. Regardless, that didn't seem like a minor plot development to me. I saw the trailer many times before other films and it never suggested the movie would go in that direction. I dunno. Spoiler tagging always just seemed like common courtesy to me.

Sorry. The review was pretty bad anyways.

[D_Davis]

Raiders of the Subtle Asshole

It has a good ring to it.

[Skitch]

Raiders of the Subtle Asshole

It has a good ring to it.

Proctologists of the Subtle Asshole.

[Sven]

Using the director's (or producer's or actor's or screenwriter's) opinion as a gauge of fact

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/lists/American-Psycho-Unrated.jpg
OMG, did he really do it?

A truly great creation gains its own life, much like a human child eventually is liberated from its parents. A director/producer/actor/screenwriter/etc can try to lead a work or an audience one way or another, but to claim their input as the factual prism through which all critical analysis should flow is to deny yourself the pleasure of autonomous spectatorship. Make up your own damn mind, people.

[D_Davis]

I can agree and disagree, to a certain extent, with this one. As far as the interpretation of a work of art, as to what it all means, then, yes, I agree. As the observers we should make up our own minds. However, when it comes to discussion of the artistic merits of something I tend to give other artists' opinions more weight - especially when it comes to music.

However, this comes with a caveat: more so when dealing with amateur artists. I usually find professional artists need to be too nice and not step on anyone's toes (or burn any business bridges) to give their real opinion on something (especially if it is negative).

If I know that one of my friends is a great musician, painter, filmmaker, or writer I will usually consider his or her opinion on a piece of music, or a painting, film, or book more than if he or she were not an artist.

With music, if I hear someone talking about the production of a certain album, and I know that this person has, in fact, produced albums, then I know that they know what they are talking about. It doesn't mean that I have to agree with them, but a certain amount of experience brings with it a certain degree of extra consideration.

[origami_mustache]

Using the director's (or producer's or actor's or screenwriter's) opinion as a gauge of fact



Yeah, I love this philosophy...I read a book on the critic as artist a few years ago, although I can't remember the name of it now. Oscar Wilde's The Critic as Artist and David Bordwell's 4 interpretive modes of making meanings are great as well.

[Raiders]

I can agree and disagree, to a certain extent, with this one. As far as the interpretation of a work of art, as to what it all means, then, yes, I agree. As the observers we should make up our own minds. However, when it comes to discussion of the artistic merits of something I tend to give other artists' opinions more weight - especially when it comes to music.

However, this comes with a caveat: more so when dealing with amateur artists. I usually find professional artists need to be too nice and not step on anyone's toes (or burn any business bridges) to give their real opinion on something (especially if it is negative).

If I know that one of my friends is a great musician, painter, filmmaker, or writer I will usually consider his or her opinion on a piece of music, or a painting, film, or book more than if he or she were not an artist.

With music, if I hear someone talking about the production of a certain album, and I know that this person has, in fact, produced albums, then I know that they know what they are talking about. It doesn't mean that I have to agree with them, but a certain amount of experience brings with it a certain degree of extra consideration.

Well, I kind of agree with this, but I don't think this is exactly what iosos means. I think he is saying that we shouldn't take the director of a film's word regarding meaning and whether or not certain themes are really present (like Darabont saying that Braugher was cast for his "chip on his shoulder" attitude and not his race). That once finished and shown, a film can take on much significance and stuff the director never even intended might show itself (subconsciously or not). Like Romero stating that he wasn't really looking for a social statement regarding his casting in Night of the Living Dead, though in hindsight he supports such readings. A lot of great art can be made by accident.

[Sven]

I agree with what you say, D, and it would be disastrous for us to be deaf to those with great insights into works. Thanks to Raiders for clarifying my words.

[D_Davis]

I understand - I was just kind of taking it off on a slightly different tangent.

[Ezee E]

I don't like it when people say, "If it were directed by some no-namer, you wouldn't like it."

Or how it was obvious that so and so was going to like a movie before he or she even saw it.

[Qrazy]

Using the director's (or producer's or actor's or screenwriter's) opinion as a gauge of fact

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/iosos/lists/American-Psycho-Unrated.jpg
OMG, did he really do it?

A truly great creation gains its own life, much like a human child eventually is liberated from its parents. A director/producer/actor/screenwriter/etc can try to lead a work or an audience one way or another, but to claim their input as the factual prism through which all critical analysis should flow is to deny yourself the pleasure of autonomous spectatorship. Make up your own damn mind, people.

I think the exception being when the individual is giving a terribly ill conceived and arbitrary reading of a film, the thoughts of the creative team can aid a critique of the initial perspective or a defense of another.