Match Cut Directors Consensus -- Bryan Singer

[Stay Puft]

Hello, new member -


The Usual Suspects - 8.5
Apt Pupil - 8.4
Superman Returns - 8.3
X-Men United - 8.0
X-Men - 7.2

When posting ratings for an old consensus thread, as is this one (results are posted in post #241), use the main consensus thread so that all late coming and additional ratings are in one convenient place for the consensus organizers to reference for future updates. The main thread is stickied, and can be found here:
http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=1598

Also refer to the rules outlined in the main thread:
1) List films in chronological order, according to imdb.
2) Rate films with full points or half points only.

Welcome to the board!

[BuffaloWilder]

Hello, new member -



When posting ratings for an old consensus thread, as is this one (results are posted in post #241), use the main consensus thread so that all late coming and additional ratings are in one convenient place for the consensus organizers to reference for future updates. The main thread is stickied, and can be found here:
http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=1598

Also refer to the rules outlined in the main thread:
1) List films in chronological order, according to imdb.
2) Rate films with full points or half points only.

Welcome to the board!

Ah, much obliged.

[Bosco B Thug]

Sorry, the moment/heat-of-it is probably long gone now, buuuut...

Before I begin, as an offhand statement, I very much like of how our argument is over the issue of teasing out how best to approach appreciating film at its most thematically rich and complex. At least any frustration we've had with each other here is based around trying to convince the other how deep film can be.


But how is this a split? a divorce? You say you are emphasizing the complexity by illustrating how easy it can be split. Which means you are saying that they can be split, but they should become united. This reduces it to a pretty uncomplicated, albeit awkward, picture of the form/content relationship. Well, for one, even though I propose the possibility, I don't think it happens very often, if at all - that a film's thematic content completely creates a film's richness and complexity, without having the virtues of well-executed, thoughtful cinematic formalism. My making such a claim had been just to come to terms with your opinion that Superman Returns is a film worth thematic analysis, yet it somehow doesn't need to have any sort of formal delicacy or complexity (which, I see you are trying to convince me, does not entail "idiosyncrasy"). Is this not also sort of you saying there is a split between form and content?

Okay - you claim it has the formal virtue of a "conventionalism" - a sort of warm, accessible touch that is directly reflecting its themes, themes embedded in its nature as a superhero movie meant to exude a sensibility and sentiment of populist hope and optimism. You say this conventional approach is more valuable to film than Wes Anderson's personal idiosyncrasy. But what is this conventionalism in Singer's directing that makes his film so special from all the other films that do not have formal distinction, this conventionalism for which you reprimand me so strongly for dismissing so readily?


It is made more problematic by the seemingly circular claim that when the two are split, thematic content is revealed to be empty and lacking in meaning. Which begs the question, is the empty content and lack of meaning due to the split in the form and content, or is it rather that the form is thematically empty and lacking in meaningful content? I would argue it should be more of the latter case. The form gives rise to content. I agree with that last sentence. I don't feel I've ever disagreed with it. You say I in fact believe "the former" - the split, which I will gladly give you since I had indeed said, "Superman Returns has good thematic content but non-existent form" - but somehow that means I don't get the perspective-giving "latter case" that "form" is the encompassing attribute to film that determines the meaningfulness of film's content? I'm sorry, but I feel as if that's what I've been arguing all along. You forget we got into all of this in the first place because I value very little SR's analytical worth. The symbiosis is intact for me - SR's lack of form = lack of meaningful content.

I used Wes Anderson to epitomize an idea of explicit artifice as automatic use of cinema theoretics. You say SR has the artistry of its "conventionality" (which I so readily negatively connote), I say Anderson is inherently struggling with theoretics in the stylistic artifice of his films "fashionable distinctiveness" (which you so readily negatively connote). Neither of our connoting is in the right, I suppose. (Sorry for grabbing the sanctimonious stick so readily there. :P)


But I don't feel this issue can be determined on some general basis. A good form amounts to good content. We're on the same page, I assure you.

So: am I in fact underestimating SR's formalist gestures of "conventionalism" that bolster the thematics you see? Then what I want to know is still, what does this conventional style of his entail?


The reason I keep Anderson and Singer alive in the discussion is because I think they are relevant to our stances. I realize you think we merely disagree as to the worth and value of their films, and our disagreement here seems to be causing some conceptual confusion on my behalf, but I have stated several times that our general appreciation of the respective works is not the issue. I can grant that Anderson's film might be better than it is, but my argument is not that Anderson's film is hollow - which you like - and thus, you like superficial form. No - my argument is that a film that uses idiosyncratic style to evoke content is not inherently more meaningful than a formally conventional film that evokes content. Maybe we do just disagree on this. I hate to say that "Yes, inherently a film with more formal idiosyncrasy is more valuable as a film." but I think it is what I believe. I do not think films that do not call for nuanced analysis of form are rich and textured enough to have much impact artistically.

But I think I've verging on making this point: perhaps I am using "idiosyncrasy" and "conventionalism" too loosely. Perhaps it's not my point at all. It's not the issue at all. Perhaps what I want is not idiosyncrasy as opposed to conventionalism. What it is I want I think I'll get to later.


You suggest that conventional form can be evocative of good content, but not Singer's (an example of a conventional form with possibly good content, but that is not evoked formally.) The emphasis here on Singer's film then is not against your overall opinion of the film, but that it represents an example of a film that you consider thematically sound but formally weak. Again, if I suggested that I valued SR as "thematically sound" but "formally weak," but I feel its the symbiosis that creates "good content," then why shouldn't my overall opinion of the film be the emphasis? Considering it is negative and would only bolster the idea that I don't find its thematics sound at all, since the lack of formalism diminishes its analytical worth as a work of art? If I concluded it was "formally weak," then I wished to make it clear (and probably should have made it clearer) that the film's encompassing "content" is not good.

Thus my questioning why your grouping SR as "conventional" implies a sort of worth that precludes formal--- I want to say "formal idiosyncrasy" but I know that's the contention you have with my views, so I won't :). So if idiosyncrasy does in fact have little to do with SR's form/content strengths (which we both agree are not "masterpiece" quality), then what I think I need to say is "formal complexity." I'll give you "formal conventionality = indistinctness," but surely you do not also mean "conventionalism = not rich for formal analysis"? Any concessions I made to SR, saying it has "good content," was under the idea that it in fact has content evoked formally that I happened to miss, that allows for rich analysis of how it uses the mechanics and mechanisms of the film art form.


You claim that my use of the terms "idiosyncrasy" and "conventionalism" are rigid, but it occurs to me that your use of these terms are stretched so thin and broad that they should become nearly meaningless. I'd be very inclined to believe I am in fact guilty of doing this. I am an abuser of the conceptual, many I know would accuse me of being.


It seems you want to say, more than anything, idiosyncrasy is another way of saying "good film" and that conventionalism that gives rise to quality is no longer conventional. Yeah, sounds about right to me...

The fact that I may be way off base here is terrifying. Heh. But I've made my point. Perhaps I am off base in using "idiosyncrasy" and only mean "complexity." Would you be so opposed to my views when altered as such?


Aside from the obvious circularity, it puts a limit on our language and ability to describe cinema. Is no good film conventional? Going back to semantics and my problem with your labels, I still don't know what you mean by "conventional." If you are giving the word meaning by talking about it as something a film does or does not fall under, but then it has no definition outside of "Does not call attention to any explicit, idiosyncratic directorial style" and "Employs techniques widely used and hard to distinguish from other 'conventional' films," I see that as equally spread meaningless.

[Bosco B Thug]

Perhaps you find that the terms as used in the discussion are not descriptive enough, What you assume is true.


but I find them to be fairly self-evident. Idiosyncrasy lends itself to clear, noticeable distinction, uniqueness, and individuality. Conventionality exhibits characteristics of the popular, shared, common, general, or indistinct. "Indistinct." I do not see how that can be a good thing. I do not see how Bicycle Thieves can be called "indistincit." If Bicycle Thieves has such formal grace and mastery over form by playing with ideas of narrative structure, sculpting of time, etc., then I do not see the discursive productivity in calling it formally "indistinct." "Shared," yes, that a great way to describe its thematic power.

I'm not budging from my above stance decrying "indistinct" as a way to describe good films, but accepting the condition that 'Bicycle Thief' is conventional and indistinct in the popular style that was the neorealist films, then my clarification stands that it is not that ("indistinctness"), then, that I am necessarily rallying against in SR. I guess I was wrong if I insisted that what I'm rallying against in SR is "indistinctness."

Instead, its the film's non-existence as a piece of art, working solely on the level of escapist manipulations of story and plot, lacking in layers for formalist/structuralist analysis (which is all probably another discussion altogether). Umberto D. may be "indistinct," but its incredibly formalist. It performs complex, analytical gestures that suggest a knowing theoretical utilization and play with the formal entity that is the filmic canvas.

Going back to arguing against so-called "indistinction," If you think I'm giving popcorn entertainment and social message films free from an "arthouse" approach the slight... I am, probably. But Hitchcock and Capra do so well in those categories, respectively. Is it not partly the fact that their directorial touch or formal aptitude is as distinguishable as it can be, when their popcorn thrillers or social dramas become so memorable and meaningful?

And I'm not saying formal idiosyncrasy = good content. There's lots of films that are formally audacious without the thoughts behind it to back them up.


Your regard for autuerism insists against pure conventionalism. I am willing to grant this. It is not my stance that there exists no originality whatsoever in a given work of art. But it is my argument that a work of art can be distinctive and unique without being great, and that a work of art can be largely conventional or only mildly original and still be great. Sure.

A work of art can definitely be distinctive and unique without being great, as I mentioned directly above. Formal idiosyncrasy does not equal good content. And "mild originality" can definitely be great. But I think I clarified my stance above in my setting the conventionalism I see in SR against the conventionalism I see in a neorealist film. What do you think?


On the other hand, in a very broad sense, I grant that all great films should be relevant, deep, and interesting, and that these things tend to be elements of originality. This is why I tend to prefer original, mostly "idiosyncratic" films, as it were. It is also why I am not saying Singer is a genius and Superman Returns is a masterpiece. It is limited in its success precisely due to these things lacking. I should also impress that relevancy and context often decide the meaning and value of something, and in some measures, this always could be looked at as an aspect of the "original" inasmuch as our contexts and times are always changing, but this is splitting hairs. Alright, I understand this.


I am not vilifying it, unless I am vilifying conventionality too, which I do not think I am. I have no problem with "idiosyncrasy" in particular. This is my entire point, in many ways. I do have a problem with using idiosyncrasy as a blanketed overarching term for describing quality, however; as if quality and idiosyncrasy are married. Okay, I may concede to your qualms with this... though I still feel as if I am not in the wrong for doing this. As we've argued before, I find very little not idiosyncratic in many of the films you call conventional. I may be stretching terms thin, but then I think we are both guilty of that. If I am in fact stretching "conventional" thin as in "conventional = boring/not meaningful," you are too in that you can classify a film "conventional" when there are probably so many different types of "conventional."


This basically boils down to intentionality - the rather slippery-slope of determining meaning. I am not sure if Quentin Tarantino consciously intended the less, overtly self-reflexive ethical, redemptive, and postmodern dimensions of Pulp Fiction in any conceptual academic sense. He might have just wrote a scene and said to himself, "Wow that sounds cool. This feels perfect." This does not diminish the value of these elements. Singer might not have said, "This is a post-Nietzschean secular society" when he worked on the film, but these elements are certainly at play. Alfonso Cuarón might not have said, "this tracking-shot recalls the Bazinian ideas of natural realism, notwithstanding cinematic specificity, intertwined with the underlying assumptions of Tarkovsky's Sculpting in Time and the dystopian temporal-space in Stalker" when he directed Children of Men. He might have just said, "No. Let's do it like this. It feels right." Béla Tarr is a master of the tracking shot and his cinema draws comparison to Tarkovsky, and claims he never watched a Tarkovsky film prior to Damnation, but that does not mean we cannot observe Tarkovskian theory in his films.

An artist can engage theory without being consciously academic and theoretical themselves. I agree with all this also. I do not think what I wrote implies otherwise. I do not require a dominant and highly controlling director with meticulous intent and theoretical explanations behind everything. I am all for what you are suggesting: the "It feels right." For sure that's definitely still a director being deliberate; "actively, intelligently, and subtly moulding his films" through a latent know-how, a latent perceptivity of the art form he works with.

The point to make here is in your example for Singer: "This is a post-Neitzchean secular society." That does not convey formalism in his film, a perceptiveness of the 2-hour art form he works with. It only conveys a perceptivity of story. The theoretical thoughts you've given to Cuaron for Children of Men and the self-reflexive motive of Tarantino - those reflect the formalism and approach to form in their film. The case of Singer's conventional formalism, symbiotically supporting the elevation of his piece to "good content" and not deserving my easy dismissal, has not been made.


I do not think conventionalism and formal rigor are at odds. Me neither. I hope I have explained that right in my "conventionalism of SR" vs. "conventionalism of Bicycle Thief" argument, and that you have no problems with that angle.


I was trying to inquire upon what you meant by formal rigor. (I actually believe I was the one that brought up the use of the term "rigor" in this case, so the obscured use I do not think can be attributed to me.) The contention, however, I would have against your point about "rigor" if you were implying it from the beginning - which is to assume it confines to your central argument - is that I do not find that an idiosyncratic, self-reflexive technique is necessarily more meaningful than conventional technique. Fair enough. "Rigor" as in what makes Bicycle Thieves rigorous as opposed to what does not make SR rigorous, but instead "popcorn entertainment."

There. If anything I said strikes you as me being rather thick-headed or incomprehensible, for the record I have a blaring headache right now. Good, thanks!

A reply to your Reply Post #2 tomorrow.

[Watashi]

Damn, X2 is amazing on a rewatch. I would definitely bump up my score to a 9 if I could go back.

[Ezee E]

Damn, X2 is amazing on a rewatch. I would definitely bump up my score to a 9 if I could go back.
just tell me old score and new score on the main thread.

[origami_mustache]

The Usual Suspects - 7

[trotchky]

I haven't been reading this whole discussion, but I'd just like to point out that the presence of themes has roughly nothing to do with a work's quality. A McDonald's commercial has themes. Themes don't mean shit. Execution is everything.

[Izzy Black]

I appreciate the response. Swamped with finals. I will respond to you soon Bosco!

[Bosco B Thug]

I appreciate the response. Swamped with finals. I will respond to you soon Bosco!
Haha, thanks. And likewise. Although I'm not sure when I'll get to the rest of your last response, I just re-read my last post and I'm kind of horrified. I still have a belief in my argument, though, so respond away. :)

[Izzy Black]

Hrmmm... you are faster than me. :)

Surely you can see, by now, that is not the case. I happened to be free when I caught your last post which was around the same time that you posted it, I assume. Finals delayed me getting to your most recent response. It seems the discussion has about run its course at this point, so I will try to be a bit more brief and see if we can round out some conclusions, even if only clarifying our stances and acknowledging difference.


I will reply in-depth soon, so I'm just going to make some quick clarifications here:

My Ken Burns comment was syntactically confusing, but I did in fact mean to enforce that idea that Ken Burns is most emphatically working with film form. "A film so theoretically characterized with pure discourse without idiosyncrasy, such as a Ken Burns documentary, is not doing nothing with film form." A double negative stuck in there.

OK.


Okay, I see what you're saying. By "theme/form," you mean "the all-important form creates theme." That's great. But my symbiosis was between "theme/form" and "theme/content." If we mute a film, we'd be looking at "Oh, is the cinematic panache there?" It would be harder, unless we're watching Dreyer's 'Passion,' to see how the form supports dramatic and subtextual emphasis and enunciation. The symbiosis doesn't exist.

Not sure what you mean here. The point that I am making here is that you said a film with bad form can have good content (possibly Singer's film). I am trying to figure out how you think this is possible. If we count character development, writing, and dialogue elements of form, then you would be making my argument rather than yours. That is, good content must denote good form.


I guess I'll get into this with more appropriate lengthiness when addressing your whole reply, and I'm probably just going to annoy you by saying it again (and I'm fearing I'm reading this snippet outside of some context that will clarify it), but... if a film is formally interesting for me, then its probably using visual conventionality with striking non-conventionality... or whatever makes visually conventional films like, say, I dunno, Bicycle Thieves so good yet "conventional." I guess it's the fact that Bicycle Theives is on the contrary loaded with visual panache. Thus my confusion... Is visual conventionality some idea of cinema at its most stoic and subdued? Or is it this populist, invisible, escapist glossiness of Superman Returns?

I can see this, but it seems to me what you are saying is that it is meaningful, but I am not sure this necessarily should mean formal originality. In some cases, a film is just important. Bicycle Thieves, formally, was not doing anything particularly new at the time, but it has been cannonized with a group of films that were composed almost identically to it based on philosophical principles we have now called valuable. Old Hollywood followed a particular formula as well, but it is up for debate whether or not this formula should be considered valuable or not. It really seems to me we are having a discussion of value based on merit more than idiosyncrasy or anything terribly original.

As for my use of "conventional," I have tried to explain above I am remarking largely on the formulaic and customary methods.


As you defend visual conventionality, you speak of it here as if it is something that a film is still formally interesting, not because, but in spite of. If you're just projecting my way of thinking, then you've got me all wrong because conventionality can be the best. Some Godard films piss me the hell off.

I am somewhat getting at that, but what I am really trying to say is that what makes a film meaningful does not follow some rigid code of formal expectation or model. We have certain general rules that are more often not the case, such as visual originality tends to be favored to the conventional, at least among cinephiles, but that is not always the case. What matters is whether a given film is meaningful or not and for what reason. It need not necessarily be an issue of originality. Films that follow the dictum of Greek tragedy and catharsis - executed well - will still likely be valuable to a lot of people, simply because this approach to drama is still meaningful. It is conventional, but it can still be important.


Is a film with good content always good form? No, I don't think so... I enjoy films without admiring them as works of art. But never do I put my critical cap on and have the capability of saying: "This story is sad and moving. It didn't strike me in any way cinematically, but it's a 9 on the basis of the story." Now you're going to say I'm splitting thematics-via-form and thematics-via-content, but if a story so well told is utilizing theoretics of form well enough, there are other levels of evaluation, such as is it utilizing form in complex ways? Subtle ways? Intellectually dense ways? Ways that are more than just the easiest way to manipulate an audience to the emotion you want? Superman Returns can have the meticulous formal .

Hmmm... I think you go into better detail below. I will wait and address it there.

[Izzy Black]

Sorry, the moment/heat-of-it is probably long gone now, buuuut...

Before I begin, as an offhand statement, I very much like of how our argument is over the issue of teasing out how best to approach appreciating film at its most thematically rich and complex. At least any frustration we've had with each other here is based around trying to convince the other how deep film can be.

Hm. To be honest, I am not necessarily arguing from this perspective. It is not my argument that approaching cinema in the ways I have argued is to its most thematically rich and complex, although I am arguing for pluralistic approaches to appreciating cinema, as meaning manifests in various ways. Perhaps this is what you are saying, but it must be stressed that I am not arguing that Superman Returns is incredibly deep, even if I find it interesting and deeper than what most might initially take it. (And, of course, I am not saying you have suggested otherwise.)


Well, for one, even though I propose the possibility, I don't think it happens very often, if at all - that a film's thematic content completely creates a film's richness and complexity, without having the virtues of well-executed, thoughtful cinematic formalism. My making such a claim had been just to come to terms with your opinion that Superman Returns is a film worth thematic analysis, yet it somehow doesn't need to have any sort of formal delicacy or complexity (which, I see you are trying to convince me, does not entail "idiosyncrasy"). Is this not also sort of you saying there is a split between form and content?

I do not believe so, no. I am saying Superman Returns is formally sound insofar as it gives rise to its meaningful content. I do not believe theme/content can be split from form. You claimed there were some cases where this is the case. This is where I disagree.


Okay - you claim it has the formal virtue of a "conventionalism" - a sort of warm, accessible touch that is directly reflecting its themes, themes embedded in its nature as a superhero movie meant to exude a sensibility and sentiment of populist hope and optimism. You say this conventional approach is more valuable to film than Wes Anderson's personal idiosyncrasy. But what is this conventionalism in Singer's directing that makes his film so special from all the other films that do not have formal distinction, this conventionalism for which you reprimand me so strongly for dismissing so readily?

I never said this conventionalism is so special and above all other forms of conventional cinema. I love cinema of all kinds. Again, I am calling for pluralism, not rigid discrimination. I am also making a contextual argument: I simply find that Singer's use of form and content in this case meaningful and interesting, at least, more so than Anderson's stuff, but that is not to say he is a genius and Superman Returns is a masterpiece. It says it's a worthwhile film. (I no longer use ratings, but think of me saying it is a 7/10 or something; 10 being the highest achievement in artistic expression, or something along those lines.)


I agree with that last sentence. I don't feel I've ever disagreed with it. You say I in fact believe "the former" - the split, which I will gladly give you since I had indeed said, "Superman Returns has good thematic content but non-existent form" - but somehow that means I don't get the perspective-giving "latter case" that "form" is the encompassing attribute to film that determines the meaningfulness of film's content? I'm sorry, but I feel as if that's what I've been arguing all along. You forget we got into all of this in the first place because I value very little SR's analytical worth. The symbiosis is intact for me - SR's lack of form = lack of meaningful content.

I can see what you are trying to argue, and your belief that form/content are symbiotic, but what I am more taking issue with is the claim that a film can have good theme without form. This illustrates the split most plainly. In other words, you are saying, "Good form gives rise to good content, but not necessarily," at least, as I see it.


I used Wes Anderson to epitomize an idea of explicit artifice as automatic use of cinema theoretics. You say SR has the artistry of its "conventionality" (which I so readily negatively connote), I say Anderson is inherently struggling with theoretics in the stylistic artifice of his films "fashionable distinctiveness" (which you so readily negatively connote). Neither of our connoting is in the right, I suppose. (Sorry for grabbing the sanctimonious stick so readily there. :P)

Heh - no problem. I am not entirely sure what you are getting at here, though. Perhaps you can clarify some more.


We're on the same page, I assure you.

So: am I in fact underestimating SR's formalist gestures of "conventionalism" that bolster the thematics you see? Then what I want to know is still, what does this conventional style of his entail?

I felt I have explained rather emphatically throughout the thread the significance and merits of the film. I have already granted our disagreement as to its quality. Again, my argument here is not particularly on SR, but I was using it as an example. I do not take issue with your indifference to SR, but rather your rigid theoretical approach to form.


Maybe we do just disagree on this. I hate to say that "Yes, inherently a film with more formal idiosyncrasy is more valuable as a film." but I think it is what I believe. I do not think films that do not call for nuanced analysis of form are rich and textured enough to have much impact artistically.

I have already said as much in terms of tendencies. I tend to agree with you. I think this is generally the case, but I do not think it is always the case.


But I think I've verging on making this point: perhaps I am using "idiosyncrasy" and "conventionalism" too loosely. Perhaps it's not my point at all. It's not the issue at all. Perhaps what I want is not idiosyncrasy as opposed to conventionalism. What it is I want I think I'll get to later.

Fair enough.


Again, if I suggested that I valued SR as "thematically sound" but "formally weak," but I feel its the symbiosis that creates "good content," then why shouldn't my overall opinion of the film be the emphasis? Considering it is negative and would only bolster the idea that I don't find its thematics sound at all, since the lack of formalism diminishes its analytical worth as a work of art? If I concluded it was "formally weak," then I wished to make it clear (and probably should have made it clearer) that the film's encompassing "content" is not good.

This would certainly resolve much of our disagreement here. If what you are saying is not as you suggested before that a film can be thematically sound but formally weak, but that bad form lends itself to bad content, then we are in the same ballpark. We still might disagree on the merits of conventional cinema, but at least we have resolved the dichotomous split argument, inasmuch as this is your stance.


Thus my questioning why your grouping SR as "conventional" implies a sort of worth that precludes formal--- I want to say "formal idiosyncrasy" but I know that's the contention you have with my views, so I won't :). So if idiosyncrasy does in fact have little to do with SR's form/content strengths (which we both agree are not "masterpiece" quality), then what I think I need to say is "formal complexity." I'll give you "formal conventionality = indistinctness," but surely you do not also mean "conventionalism = not rich for formal analysis"? Any concessions I made to SR, saying it has "good content," was under the idea that it in fact has content evoked formally that I happened to miss, that allows for rich analysis of how it uses the mechanics and mechanisms of the film art form.

Fair enough. I can accept that principally you are implying (if you are implying it) that good cinema will always be formally complex insofar as deep themes elicited through good form is complex. At the same rate, I would go a step further and say my argument is even more liberal than this; that cinema can be formally and thematically simple, and not even particularly deep, but still valuable, interesting, and meaningful. But, I can grant that, generally, and most of the time, that good cinema might be said to be characterized by complex form. (I would say this is about as close to common ground as we might get at this point.)


I'd be very inclined to believe I am in fact guilty of doing this. I am an abuser of the conceptual, many I know would accuse me of being.

Ah.


Yeah, sounds about right to me...

The fact that I may be way off base here is terrifying. Heh. But I've made my point. Perhaps I am off base in using "idiosyncrasy" and only mean "complexity." Would you be so opposed to my views when altered as such?

Less so. :cool: I explained above. I gather your position better, I think, and I think we have resolved some confusions and problems that have muddied up our stances, and it seems you have fleshed out your argument and addressed my concerns with it rather successfully in this last response - so no worries about being off base. At best, we agree in the main, and at worst, we disagree but understand each other's position. Sounds good from where I am sitting.


Going back to semantics and my problem with your labels, I still don't know what you mean by "conventional." If you are giving the word meaning by talking about it as something a film does or does not fall under, but then it has no definition outside of "Does not call attention to any explicit, idiosyncratic directorial style" and "Employs techniques widely used and hard to distinguish from other 'conventional' films," I see that as equally spread meaningless.

I really cannot be more descriptive than this:


How does this not make sense? This to me suggests a tendency toward dogma. Lack of distinction is precisely what conventionalism means. It means the general, popular, accustomed, traditional, normal, orthodox, expected, customary or standard. There is nothing particularly ambiguous about it, or radical in my claim of it. The issue is that you refuse the notion that good cinema can be conventional.

Not to mention that I am not using these terms in a rather normal and popular manner. I am not etching out an esoteric theory of cinema here. It means using techniques, means, and a style that is largely conventional. Idiosyncrasy and originality are not the film's central merits. The question is whether or not these films can be valuable. In a rigid reading of your argument, you are saying only if the film shows some example of idiosyncrasy or formal rigor in the artistic expression; in the more recent reading of your argument, whether your held belief or not, you are saying a film can be conventional but if it's good, then it is also complex, since what is valuable is (perhaps inherently?) complex.

[Izzy Black]

What you assume is true.

I am just not sure how I can be any more descriptive. But, I can grant, that the issue is that you are searching for such a nuanced, particular description of a concept, or even a feeling, that, perhaps, is arguably ineffable to a large extent, that really gets at the essence of what constitutes good cinema; and as such, any attempts to really describe it would be considerably limited. Or perhaps, you are not saying this. In which case, I am not sure I can be any more descriptive.


"Indistinct." I do not see how that can be a good thing. I do not see how Bicycle Thieves can be called "indistincit." If Bicycle Thieves has such formal grace and mastery over form by playing with ideas of narrative structure, sculpting of time, etc., then I do not see the discursive productivity in calling it formally "indistinct." "Shared," yes, that a great way to describe its thematic power.

Well, as I explained, I never said any film is completely without originality. It's distinctiveness, though, is not necessarily what makes it valuable. The movement and genre of Italian neorealism is distinct by virtue of its philosophical underpinnings, but if we wanted to say, we could say that every genre is distinct in some way - that is what makes them a genre/movement. This is not particularly useful though. At least, not in terms of the present argument. Superman Returns and Wes Anderson's film might both fit into distinctive categories or genres, but what makes them distinct within their own genre? Should they be distinct? What makes one film better than the other? (Or insert 'X' and 'Y' in for two genre films.)


I'm not budging from my above stance decrying "indistinct" as a way to describe good films, but accepting the condition that 'Bicycle Thief' is conventional and indistinct in the popular style that was the neorealist films, then my clarification stands that it is not that ("indistinctness"), then, that I am necessarily rallying against in SR. I guess I was wrong if I insisted that what I'm rallying against in SR is "indistinctness."

Sounds reasonable. Much of our disagreement lies in semantic distinctions.


Instead, its the film's non-existence as a piece of art, working solely on the level of escapist manipulations of story and plot, lacking in layers for formalist/structuralist analysis (which is all probably another discussion altogether). Umberto D. may be "indistinct," but its incredibly formalist. It performs complex, analytical gestures that suggest a knowing theoretical utilization and play with the formal entity that is the filmic canvas.

Umberto D is at times formalist, but in truth, the greatness and the beauty of the film is the tragic story put to the screen. I am not denying its formalism, but I am not sure I consider it terribly complex, either. I think it relies on many old conventions to convey its point. Superman Returns is fairly layered, and at least, layered enough to be worth appreciating. The question, however, is what do you mean by layered? It seems you are making a tautological argument that everything good will ipso facto be layered or complex. I am not so sure how much this does film justice. I like the idea of a film that is great in its simplicity, its plainness, and lack of layers - its ability to touch us in its frankness, simplicity, and accessibility. I consider a film like L'Avventura deeply layered and complex, but if we are applying these terms to all films that constitute "good cinema," then I feel as though we are greatly limiting the flexibility of our language and description. Why does defining meaning have to be so rigid? Why can we not allow ourselves more breathing room for ways and modes of expression?


Going back to arguing against so-called "indistinction," If you think I'm giving popcorn entertainment and social message films free from an "arthouse" approach the slight... I am, probably. But Hitchcock and Capra do so well in those categories, respectively. Is it not partly the fact that their directorial touch or formal aptitude is as distinguishable as it can be, when their popcorn thrillers or social dramas become so memorable and meaningful?

In Hitchcock's case, maybe, but not necessarily in the case of, say, Cassablanca. This is a film that is much a credit to its many authors as it is to its iconic performances. It belongs solely to no single artist - as even the actors had input in its thematic construction. The greatness of the film is the resonance of the story and the manner in which the film communicates this story. It's not its daring originality, I do not think, that grabs us, but its masterful execution of traditional standards of meaning that have always been compelling - wry humor, biting dialogue, epic romance, beautiful photography, iconic characters, and dramatic conflict.


And I'm not saying formal idiosyncrasy = good content. There's lots of films that are formally audacious without the thoughts behind it to back them up.

So we are back to the split? What would a film with good content and bad form be like?


Sure.

A work of art can definitely be distinctive and unique without being great, as I mentioned directly above. Formal idiosyncrasy does not equal good content. And "mild originality" can definitely be great. But I think I clarified my stance above in my setting the conventionalism I see in SR against the conventionalism I see in a neorealist film. What do you think?

I see. Addressed above, I imagine.


Okay, I may concede to your qualms with this... though I still feel as if I am not in the wrong for doing this. As we've argued before, I find very little not idiosyncratic in many of the films you call conventional. I may be stretching terms thin, but then I think we are both guilty of that. If I am in fact stretching "conventional" thin as in "conventional = boring/not meaningful," you are too in that you can classify a film "conventional" when there are probably so many different types of "conventional."

We might be stretching our terms thin, but I have tried to delimit grounds for meaning above. I also believe I have insisted on what I mean by conventional throughout the thread. We can grant some degree of originality everywhere, but that is not exactly what makes the film great. This is why I am not accepting that "originality" or "conventionality" are sufficient in articulating what makes a film good or not. Pulp Fiction, for example, is quite original in many ways, but that is not necessarily what makes the film good. It can be a combination of its originality and its great traditional themes, or it could just be the relevant of those themes alone. It is also the case that when we acknowledge that every film is to some degree distinct by virtue of the fact that it is a new creation, that we do not consider this point in our assessment of quality. It is not the self-evident fact of its singular distinction as a crafted piece of film making that lends itself to its quality and meaning. It is something else going on, which may have something to do with the originality beyond this obvious element (great director/autuerism, unique style, etc) or some other element such as how it resonates. It should be acknowledged, then, in terms of quality, what we mean by conventional and unoriginality often bespeaks theme/style/approach rather than its mere existence.


I agree with all this also. I do not think what I wrote implies otherwise. I do not require a dominant and highly controlling director with meticulous intent and theoretical explanations behind everything. I am all for what you are suggesting: the "It feels right." For sure that's definitely still a director being deliberate; "actively, intelligently, and subtly moulding his films" through a latent know-how, a latent perceptivity of the art form he works with.

Somewhat. You can call it latent know-how, but there are films out there that I think are the mere a product of accident than any directorial ingenuity. The reason I think Predator is a good film has little to nothing to do with the director. In fact, the director is merely competent in a strictly mechanical sense. He is no great artist, but I think Predator is a significant film all the same. Bondarchuk's War & Peace is a similar example. A respectable director, but the greatness of the film had nothing to do with his intentions.


The point to make here is in your example for Singer: "This is a post-Neitzchean secular society." That does not convey formalism in his film, a perceptiveness of the 2-hour art form he works with. It only conveys a perceptivity of story. The theoretical thoughts you've given to Cuaron for Children of Men and the self-reflexive motive of Tarantino - those reflect the formalism and approach to form in their film. The case of Singer's conventional formalism, symbiotically supporting the elevation of his piece to "good content" and not deserving my easy dismissal, has not been made.

It does convey his use of form. I have explained this above. You dismissed my appeals to his big-budget style, even though this style is in a dialectic with the themes of the film, the Superman franchise at whole, the use of the original Williams' theme, and so forth. Yes, the self-reflexive motive of Tarantino is formal, but that is not the only thing valuable in the film. It is actually one of its weaker elements. I could do without it. The redemption and postmodern stuff is much more interesting, and a lot of it has to do with the narrative, story, dialogue, and theme, not so much his use of the camera. Again, you want to split good content and form, and I am still not sure how we can maintain argumentative consistency in doing so.


Me neither. I hope I have explained that right in my "conventionalism of SR" vs. "conventionalism of Bicycle Thief" argument, and that you have no problems with that angle.

Right. Hopefully addressed above.


Fair enough. "Rigor" as in what makes Bicycle Thieves rigorous as opposed to what does not make SR rigorous, but instead "popcorn entertainment."

Except you are being awfully dismissive of "popcorn entertainment," and I am not even entirely sure what you mean by this, and obviously, I think SR has some things going on that matter. Whether or not one might call this "rigorous" or not to me is irrelevant, and I honestly do not think it says much about good cinema.

[Bosco B Thug]

Heeeeeey there. Replies soon.

[Izzy Black]

Heeeeeey there. Replies soon.

Sounds good. It seems my attempt at brevity failed. Apologies and such, of course, but I think I left plenty of room for middle ground.

[Bosco B Thug]

Surely you can see, by now, that is not the case. I happened to be free when I caught your last post which was around the same time that you posted it, I assume. Finals delayed me getting to your most recent response. It seems the discussion has about run its course at this point, so I will try to be a bit more brief and see if we can round out some conclusions, even if only clarifying our stances and acknowledging difference. I concur; will try to do the same.

Sorry: be aware my responses may at this stage be growing more lazy and underdeveloped.


Not sure what you mean here. The point that I am making here is that you said a film with bad form can have good content (possibly Singer's film). I am trying to figure out how you think this is possible. Perhaps I have said a film may have bad form and good content... but I never said this equals a good film. ;) I believe a convergence of opinions is realized regarding this point somewhere in your first reply. You mention us being in "the same ballpark."

These were parts of your first reply post I was particularly receptive to:


I can see this, but it seems to me what you are saying is that it is meaningful, but I am not sure this necessarily should mean formal originality.

I am somewhat getting at that, but what I am really trying to say is that what makes a film meaningful does not follow some rigid code of formal expectation or model. We have certain general rules that are more often not the case, such as visual originality tends to be favored to the conventional, at least among cinephiles, but that is not always the case. What matters is whether a given film is meaningful or not and for what reason. It need not necessarily be an issue of originality. Films that follow the dictum of Greek tragedy and catharsis - executed well - will still likely be valuable to a lot of people, simply because this approach to drama is still meaningful. It is conventional, but it can still be important. That second quote is particularly persuasive. "Meaningfulness" as something we shouldn't have to pin down with rigid theoretical expectations is a valuable point to make.

I feel I have more a sense of what you're saying from reading your latest posts. My expectations for "theoretical form" in great cinema is rather rigid, and I'm beginning to think, as you suggest, it is more abstract and diaphanous than I would like to think. It's a too "nuanced, particular... concept" or "even a feeling," as you later regard it. I will try to describe it later. I still believe great films will largely fall into this degree of theoretical engagement.


Hm. To be honest, I am not necessarily arguing from this perspective. It is not my argument that approaching cinema in the ways I have argued is to its most thematically rich and complex, although I am arguing for pluralistic approaches to appreciating cinema, as meaning manifests in various ways. This is really interesting, too. Because I think my perception of "meaningful" is very much narrowed to how valuable a film is to the sphere of critics and fellow artists intent to analyze and be influenced by a film as a self-enclosed piece of art.

A film's resonance and effectiveness in popular spheres definitely has been less important to me.

If this is what you're trying to get at.


I do not believe so, no. I am saying Superman Returns is formally sound insofar as it gives rise to its meaningful content. I do not believe theme/content can be split from form. You claimed there were some cases where this is the case. This is where I disagree. I am pushing a split, yes. A split between a film's formal aspects (directing, cinematography, mise en scene, etc.) as what ultimately gives rise to the effectiveness of a film's content (story/screenplay). The symbiosis occurs resultantly, in the incidence of a produced "great film," where the two elements work, and work together, to create meaning.


Again, I am calling for pluralism, not rigid discrimination. I am also making a contextual argument: I simply find that Singer's use of form and content in this case meaningful and interesting, at least, more so than Anderson's stuff Here's where I'll try to explain that "theoretical concept" with which I'm holding films to: there's an awareness films ought to have that they are essentially self-enclosed pieces of art - an incomplete story meant to communicate certain things within a plus/minus 2-hr runtime. Anderson I feel does this through his careful design, exemplified by the extreme artifice of his works (the virtues of which are up for debate). Take any commercial hack and one senses they just follow the story and manipulate on the narrative's terms, without really a vision of the overall structure and rhetoric of his work, or a care to complicate the conventions of cinema. Not that this is Singer, but I have been placing him on that side of the spectrum vis-a-vis Anderson. My placing Anderson above Singer so automatically due to this perspective, and whether my attachment to this rigid terms of evaluation can reconcile that maybe Superman Returns is more meaningful than an Anderson film, is what has us at such a disagreement.


Umberto D is at times formalist, but in truth, the greatness and the beauty of the film is the tragic story put to the screen. I am not denying its formalism, but I am not sure I consider it terribly complex, either. I think it relies on many old conventions to convey its point. Superman Returns is fairly layered, and at least, layered enough to be worth appreciating. The question, however, is what do you mean by layered? It seems you are making a tautological argument that everything good will ipso facto be layered or complex. I am not so sure how much this does film justice. I like the idea of a film that is great in its simplicity, its plainness, and lack of layers - its ability to touch us in its frankness, simplicity, and accessibility. I guess you're right in that it's not "complexity" I necessarily am looking for either. But complexity can manifest itself in many ways, which is one problem with the arguments I've been making - I cite "complex" as if it must refer to formalism, but complexity in Umberto D.'s is more found in its social considerations than in its technical approach to filmmaking.

Although Umberto D. - at times formalist as you say - does exhibit evidence of its awareness of its existence as an artistic composition, as I described above. It complicates traditional cinematic conventions in its methodic pacing to inhabit the dire, glacial lives of its characters. Its formalism deprives the viewer of the escapism of traditional films.


In Hitchcock's case, maybe, but not necessarily in the case of, say, Cassablanca. This is a film that is much a credit to its many authors as it is to its iconic performances. It belongs solely to no single artist - as even the actors had input in its thematic construction. The greatness of the film is the resonance of the story and the manner in which the film communicates this story. It's not its daring originality, I do not think, that grabs us, but its masterful execution of traditional standards of meaning that have always been compelling - wry humor, biting dialogue, epic romance, beautiful photography, iconic characters, and dramatic conflict. Yes, Casablanca is a good example of what makes my expectations for film so vague and biased towards the art house film. Am I that big of a fan of Casablanca, though? :P I'd need to re-watch it, I do remember being thoroughly taken by it.


We might be stretching our terms thin, but I have tried to delimit grounds for meaning above. I also believe I have insisted on what I mean by conventional throughout the thread. We can grant some degree of originality everywhere, but that is not exactly what makes the film great. This is why I am not accepting that "originality" or "conventionality" are sufficient in articulating what makes a film good or not. Pulp Fiction, for example, is quite original in many ways, but that is not necessarily what makes the film good. It can be a combination of its originality and its great traditional themes, or it could just be the relevant of those themes alone. It is also the case that when we acknowledge that every film is to some degree distinct by virtue of the fact that it is a new creation, that we do not consider this point in our assessment of quality. It is not the self-evident fact of its singular distinction as a crafted piece of film making that lends itself to its quality and meaning. It is something else going on, which may have something to do with the originality beyond this obvious element (great director/autuerism, unique style, etc) or some other element such as how it resonates. It should be acknowledged, then, in terms of quality, what we mean by conventional and unoriginality often bespeaks theme/style/approach rather than its mere existence. I feel as if I just fundamentally disagree with a lot of this here, although I can see your point that perhaps it is in Pulp Fiction's traditionalism that it most strongly wants to resonate and that the film should have all the right to do so (although this may be one reason I am not too big on PF, as I remember it).

On a fundamental level, though, I find some sense of subversion one of the more important things in a film being great, whether formally or in the content. To devolve into semantics, it's what makes me react so strongly against using "conventional" as a positive descriptor.


Somewhat. You can call it latent know-how, but there are films out there that I think are the mere a product of accident than any directorial ingenuity. The reason I think Predator is a good film has little to nothing to do with the director. In fact, the director is merely competent in a strictly mechanical sense. He is no great artist, but I think Predator is a significant film all the same. Yeah, not really any of this, for me.

I think your last post is full of things we just don't see eye-to-eye on. :pritch: