Cinematic Popularity

[Qrazy]

How much are your tastes influenced by your perception of a film's general reception by different social groups? First by the general public, then by average filmgoer's, then by the canon (whether it be New York Times, To see before you die, Ebert or other), then the art-house crowd, then the people on the forum you chat with, etc.

Before I begin I'd just like to make clear that I'm not trying to delve into the subjective/objective debate per se, I recognize that debate has been very over-wrought. I want to discuss a tangential element of that issue...

I think (although this is just speculation) that we'd all like to believe our taste is primarily autonomous, and that when we see a film we gauge it based on our own cultivated beliefs, aesthetic, and opinions concerning cinema and art. But how true is this, or rather how unique and independent are our individual tastes, how much are these tastes a going with the flow and a reaction to that flow?

I believe many of us have seen a somewhat formally competent film that perhaps for an ideological or individual reason (we find it condescending, cloying, dislike the portrayal of a protagonist, are already familiar with the themes and therefore don't think they're explored as well as they could be), we somewhat dislike, but then when we contrast this with the views of others, that slight dislike turns into completely despisement. Or perhaps we happen upon a film that almost no one else has seen and we begin to feel it's the greatest thing since sliced bread both because it's good but also because we feel our rare gem is worth more than any other gems in our jewel box simply because it's rare, even if it has a flaw in it. The thing of it is, often our group for comparison... say disliking a film which Match-cut loves or vice verse... isn't a reliable cross section of how the film is viewed by and large... even by a large group of film afficianados on other sites or offline. That also brings up the issue of how many films one has to see to get a good sense of the relative value of different films. If you've only seen ten films, you have a very small standard of comparison. I think many of us have pretty much disavowed the top 10's we made 8-10 years ago, perhaps even rejecting the films we used to like entirely.

Perhaps it's not possible to compose value judgments outside of our perception of the social conception (I say our perception because it's how we perceive the group receives the film that often mediates our response, not always the groups actual feelings towards the film)... would it be better to watch films without any sense of their canonical status or whether or not they're a favorite of someone we respect, etc? Would our response and value judgment of the film be any more genuine or objective?

Of course I recognize that everything I've just said is a top-down analysis of the dilemma of taste. It could very well be the case, that we all form our own opinions about individual works and then when perceiving these opinions through their synthesized groupings (i.e. canon, etc), the contrast at that point between an individual's tastes and the group's, is what sparks the notion that the individual's taste is a response (both as partial affirmation and rejection depending upon taste) to the groups rather than the group taste being a response (in the sense of synthesis) to the individual. In all probability these things probably go both ways and one's individual taste is both informed and in turn reshapes the collective taste... but to what extent? Does it depend on the individual? Are certain people more reactionary to what they perceive is the collective response to a film and are others more conservative in their disavowal of the collective response?

I once read a quote somewhere that stated (paraphrasing)... 'It is highly likely that all culture is based on a series of collective value judgments'. How conservative/reactionary are you when it comes to your response to films in relation to the response at large? Or do you believe you mostly decide your stance on a film first and then compare it to the collective later? How do you decide which collective you compare it to, is the extent of your love/hate largely dependent on who (either individual or group) you're explaining your response to?

Forgive me for the length and poor grammar, I just kind of stream of consciousnessed all that onto the page, but I think it's an interesting discussion.

[Sven]

I hate everything that people like.

[monolith94]

Somewhat. Although, I think that history shows I've not been afraid to buck a trend (liking Dish Dogs, hating It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, etc.).

[Melville]

I think my response to a film is definitely influenced in both ways you describe. First, critical concensus influences the movies that I choose to watch (particularly in the case of older films, where I have less of an idea what to seek out). Although a film's reputation has little direct influence on my reaction to that film (e.g. I'm not a big fan of Antonioni or Kurosawa), the framework in which I view the film is indirectly influenced by my knowledge of the canon: when I watch a movie, I often think of it in terms of how it responds to (or prefigures) ideas and styles from other films--and since my knowledge of cinematic history is largely determined by the canonical films that I watch, I tend to think of each movie in terms of the ideas and styles of canonical movies.

Second, if I disagree with the critical concensus, I do occasionally exaggerate my initial response. But that typically only has the effect of transforming moderate dislike into outright disdain.

[balmakboor]

I hate everything that people like.

You know, that actually isn't all that far from me and my non-conformist ways. If everyone seems to love it, I tend to approach it with suspicion. If everyone seems to hate it, I tend to want to be its champion.

[number8]

I can say in confidence that my time on the internet has helped me shape my personal taste.

It's the same way with my personality. I've spent much of junior high and high school hanging out and making friends with the extremes--the socialites, the jocks, the awkward nerds, the student body, the baaaaaaad boys... Bouncing between these cliques on a weekly basis got me to understand different attitudes and outlooks. After a while, I just consolidated all these attitudes into something I'm comfortable with, something that I can say is me and mine alone.

Same way with my taste in film. Because of Rotten Tomatoes, Axis, Match Cut, etc, I've talked movies with people with so many different tastes, got so many recommendations, and I've tried being "one of those" a little at a time. When I say now that my taste is unique, it's not because I think it's exclusive or anything, but because it was a process I went through and it's something I'm comfortable with calling my own.

[baby doll]

My feeling is that disagreements about any specific film will point to some deeper difference in terms of how people look at the movies. For example, I was irritated by Juno's cutesiness and how calculated its effects were (the film might as well have a laugh track), which are precisely what other people like about it.

[Sven]

My feeling is that disagreements about any specific film will point to some deeper difference in terms of how people look at the movies. For example, I was irritated by Juno's cutesiness and how calculated its effects were (the film might as well have a laugh track), which are precisely what other people like about it.

Similarly, you don't seem to mind the calculated affectations of Hotel Chevalier.

[baby doll]

Similarly, you don't seem to mind the calculated affectations of Hotel Chevalier.Frankly, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Just to reiterate what I dislike about Juno: watching it I felt as though I were looking at the longest episode of Will and Grace ever made. Even when it's not being "funny" (I laughed about once), the only thing missing from the scene where she says "I don't know what kind of girl I am" is a sassy black woman (maybe a Mo'nique or a Wanda Sykes) who snaps her fingers and says "You go, girlfriend."

[Sven]

Frankly, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

You just mentioned Juno in terms of calculation, whereas in another thread, you mentioned liking Chevalier, which, if anything, is a terribly calculated work. One's calculations are humorous, the other's is subtextual. I was just speaking in terms of that feeling of calculation. Qrazy said it best: "There is a lot of subtext, but I found it to be in a very 'Oooh look at all this subtext' kind of way ..."

[baby doll]

You just mentioned Juno in terms of calculation, whereas in another thread, you mentioned liking Chevalier, which, if anything, is a terribly calculated work. One's calculations are humorous, the other's is subtextual. I was just speaking in terms of that feeling of calculation. Qrazy said it best: "There is a lot of subtext, but I found it to be in a very 'Oooh look at all this subtext' kind of way ..."I'm not sure how subtext can be showy. When Max Fischer asks her how she found him, and she replies "It wasn't hard," obviously she's belittling his attempts to hide from her, but I don't know how Anderson is showing off his subtlety (and isn't showing off the opposite of subtlety?).

[Sven]

I'm not sure how subtext can be showy. When Max Fischer asks her how she found him, and she replies "It wasn't hard," obviously she's belittling his attempts to hide from her, but I don't know how Anderson is showing off his subtlety (and isn't showing off the opposite of subtlety?).

You're conflating "subtlety" with "subtext".

[Spinal]

I'm not sure how subtext can be showy.

If you think about how people parody soap operas, they do so through "showy subtext". It's a very common idea.

[baby doll]

You're conflating "subtlety" with "subtext".Isn't it kind of the same thing? At least it is in the movies, where nobody ever says exactly what they mean (except in bad movies).

[Spinal]

Example:

Soap Opera Actress: Are you married?
Soap Opera Actor: No, I've never found a [meaningful pause] woman who was able to satisfy me ...

Subtext: He is gay.
Verdict: Not subtle.

[Sven]

Isn't it kind of the same thing?

Nope. See Spinal's post above.

[baby doll]

Example:

Soap Opera Actress: Are you married?
Soap Opera Actor: No, I've never found a [meaningful pause] woman who was able to satisfy me ...

Subtext: He is gay.
Verdict: Not subtle.I don't know if that's the same as subtext, actually, because the subtext (as I understand the term) of that line is that he's giving an evasive answer. That it signals to viewer that he's in fact gay is an irony that exists above the dialogue rather than beneathe it.

[Sven]

I don't know if that's the same as subtext, actually, because the subtext (as I understand the term) of that line is that he's giving an evasive answer.

No. That's the text. The subtext is what purpose he has to offer an evasive answer. That subtext is his homosexuality.


That it signals to viewer that he's in fact gay is an irony that exists above the dialogue rather than beneathe it.

You know this doesn't make sense, right?

[Bosco B Thug]

Dialogue subtext isn't as cool as visual or tonal subtext anyway (although they are often collusive).

I'd actually say Hotel Chevalier ultimately feels calculated not because of the dialogue but the "blockiness" of the acting and directing, which I'd say has to do with its "off-hand short film" origins.

[baby doll]

No. That's the text. The subtext is what purpose he has to offer an evasive answer. That subtext is his homosexuality.

You know this doesn't make sense, right?Well, if the character's motivation going into the scene is to hide that he's gay, I don't think that's a very strong motive to begin with. Furthermore, there's nothing even remotely like this line in Anderson's film.

[baby doll]

Dialogue subtext isn't as cool as visual or tonal subtext anyway (although they are often collusive).

I'd actually say Hotel Chevalier ultimately feels calculated not because of the dialogue but the "blockiness" of the acting and directing, which I'd say has to do with its "off-hand short film" origins.Given the tedious semantic discussion regarding the meaning of subtext (which I thought to be a fairly straightforward dramatic concept), I'm hesitant to ask what "blockiness" means.

[Spinal]

Well, if the character's motivation going into the scene is to hide that he's gay, I don't think that's a very strong motive to begin with. Furthermore, there's nothing even remotely like this line in Anderson's film.

Subtext: Doesn't like to be wrong.
Verdict: Not subtle.

[baby doll]

Subtext: Doesn't like to be wrong.
Verdict: Not subtle.Cheeky! Anyway, I've yet to see anyone explain to me how the dialogue in Hotel Chevalier is like a soap opera.

[Sven]

(which I thought to be a fairly straightforward dramatic concept)

Well then it's a good thing we had the tedious conversation, because you didn't know what it meant... now you do.


...I don't think that's a very strong motive to begin with.

:confused: You don't know much about dramatic concepts, do you?

Regarding Anderson's film, there's nothing as obvious as a closeted character, but practically every line of dialogue between Portman and Jason is doused with unspoken reflections of past exchanges in their relationship. And it's all pretty obvious, though I'm not one to read "obvious" as synonymous with "bad". It just happens that I found the film overly affected and ultimately, with its lame slow motion at the end, a bit pretentious.

[baby doll]

Well then it's a good thing we had the tedious conversation, because you didn't know what it meant... now you do.It's tedious because we're not getting anywhere, and I'm certainly not learning anything (except that I don't like the people on this forum; I guess that's something).


You don't know much about dramatic concepts, do you?I know that a character should want something. In this case, he's just hiding something.


Regarding Anderson's film, there's nothing as obvious as a closeted character, but practically every line of dialogue between Portman and Jason is doused with unspoken reflections of past exchanges in their relationship. And it's all pretty obvious, though I'm not one to read "obvious" as synonymous with "bad". It just happens that I found the film overly affected and ultimately, with its lame slow motion at the end, a bit pretentious.I must be as stupid as you guys seem to think I am because I always thought it was an indication of strong writing that every line is doused with unspoken reflections of past exchanges in their relationship (without ever spelling out that backstory for the audience).

And speaking of words people use without examining their meaning, the P word rears its ugly head once again.

[Spinal]

The problem for me is that the actors do not seem to be inhabiting characters with their own wants and needs and history, so much as they are meticuously trying to communicate the subtext that was whispered in their ear by the director directly before the shot. I don't really know how Anderson directs, but the obsessiveness with which he crafts his shots seems in this case to carry over to his young actors. They feel overdirected to me.

[Spinal]

Oh, and I certainly don't think you're stupid. Just obstinate. :)

[Sven]

It's tedious because we're not getting anywhere, and I'm certainly not learning anything (except that I don't like the people on this forum; I guess that's something).

I don't mean to be hated on. I apologize if I've been rude. But trying to wrap my mind around your perplexing responses can sometimes be a bit taxing and uses up my reserve of good will.


I know that a character should want something. In this case, he's just hiding something.

How about "wanting to hide his homosexuality"?


I must be as stupid as you guys seem to think I am because I always thought it was an indication of strong writing that every line is doused with unspoken reflections of past exchanges in their relationship (without ever spelling out that backstory for the audience).

There are so many different schools and facets of "good" writing that it's useless to hold up one element as an exemplar like this. Basically, all I require is that I'm interested. When picking apart my lack of interest in Hotel Chevalier, I notice that it was its overt affectation of SUBTEXT that irked me.


And speaking of words people use without examining their meaning, the P word rears its ugly head once again.

"Pretentious" is an overused and frequently misapplied word, I agree, but, like all words, it does have meaning, and in the instance where I used it, I believe it's apt.

[Melville]

The problem for me is that the actors do not seem to be inhabiting characters with their own wants and needs and history, so much as they are meticuously trying to communicate the subtext that was whispered in their ear by the director directly before the shot. I don't really know how Anderson directs, but the obsessiveness with which he crafts his shots seems in this case to carry over to his young actors. They feel overdirected to me.
I thought the characters were obsessively crafting their performances—putting on acts loaded with obvious subtext for one another—rather than the actors doing so. At least that's what I think the scene was going for.

[baby doll]

How about "wanting to hide his homosexuality"?I can't see somebody walking into a room with the intention of hiding his homosexuality. Even in scenes where characters are hiding something (take any of the numberous airport security scenes in Atom Egoyan's films), there's always a goal they're working towards (i.e., getting through customs).


There are so many different schools and facets of "good" writing that it's useless to hold up one element as an exemplar like this. Basically, all I require is that I'm interested. When picking apart my lack of interest in Hotel Chevalier, I notice that it was its overt affectation of SUBTEXT that irked me.Having just seen it again, I just can't see how it's affected. (If I could direct a short film that good, I'd be very happy.) As in The Darjeeling Limited, Anderson's dialogue can be very declaritive (think of when Adrian Brody says "I didn't save mine"), but I like that because the actors don't strain for effect. If anything, his approach is the opposite of the overt affectation of subtext, given the lack of inflection with which Schwartzman and Portman deliver lines like...

NP: How long are you going to stay?
JS: How long are you staying?


"Pretentious" is an overused and frequently misapplied word, I agree, but, like all words, it does have meaning, and in the instance where I used it, I believe it's apt.Maybe I'm just dense but I never know what people mean when they say a movie is pretentious. How is Hotel Chevalier "expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature"?

[Qrazy]

I must be as stupid as you guys seem to think I am because I always thought it was an indication of strong writing that every line is doused with unspoken reflections of past exchanges in their relationship (without ever spelling out that backstory for the audience).

And speaking of words people use without examining their meaning, the P word rears its ugly head once again.

I think you're quite smart actually, but personally my problem with the short is perhaps that the whole droll, dry humor thing Anderson has going on with his style really felt at odds with the pain often associated with what was being communicated in the short... and I really feel he needs to drop the slow-mo stuff which just feels affected and completely forced at this point. It worked in Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, I guess in Tenenbaums but now it's enough already. It was the one stylistic flourish I really couldn't stand in Darjeeling which always took me out of the work and not in a reflective, Brechtian manner but in a... look at this cool shot, dramatic pacing destroyed manner.

[Russ]

I can't see somebody walking into a room with the intention of hiding his homosexuality.
I just came into this exchange midstream, so I'll benefit you the assumption that this statement has a context in which it makes sense.

As a random stand-alone observation, it's complete rubbish.

[Sven]

I can't see somebody walking into a room with the intention of hiding his homosexuality. Even in scenes where characters are hiding something (take any of the numberous airport security scenes in Atom Egoyan's films), there's always a goal they're working towards (i.e., getting through customs).

What if the character is being acted upon? Who says that this characters entire objective lies in his staying in the closet? It was just a small example to show how subtext can be overt. Say that the character just wants to have a drink, is approached at the bar by a lady who asks him the question.

Plus, what Russ said.


If anything, his approach is the opposite of the overt affectation of subtext, given the lack of inflection with which Schwartzman and Portman deliver lines like...

NP: How long are you going to stay?
JS: How long are you staying?

That lack of inflection has become Anderson's emphasis.


Maybe I'm just dense but I never know what people mean when they say a movie is pretentious. How is Hotel Chevalier "expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature"?

Slow motion, dude.

[Rowland]

I'm beginning to seriously dislike Anderson's use of slow motion.

Anyway, back to the original thread topic... I think it's common sense that how we respond to any given movie directly corresponds with the baggage we bring to it, whether we wish to admit this to ourselves or not. But then, I'm a rather firm believer in deterministic philosophies.

[Sycophant]

I love this place.

[baby doll]

What if the character is being acted upon? Who says that this characters entire objective lies in his staying in the closet? It was just a small example to show how subtext can be overt. Say that the character just wants to have a drink, is approached at the bar by a lady who asks him the question.Well, I have a better example, because in Douglas Sirk's Written on the Wind, Rock Hudson's asked "Isn't it about time you married?" and gives the answer: "I have enough trouble just finding oil." The subtext is that the person asking him wants Hudson to marry his daughter, and Hudson gives an evasive answer because he thinks of Dorothy Malone like a sister but doesn't want to offend the old man who's like a father to him.


That lack of inflection has become Anderson's emphasis.Exactly, that's what I'm saying. In the example of the Brody line, one the surface it's this very straightforward thing to say (and in fact we can see that he didn't save his) and Brody doesn't force the line, and yet we still understand that he feels guilty about this, like it was his fault.


Slow motion, dude.Maybe I'm just an Anderson apologist, but I like the slow motion. It's a good way to emphasize something.

[Fezzik]

Sorry to "re-rail" the thread, but to answer the original question, I find that my taste in movies tend to be VERY autonomous and I don't trend toward any particular type of film. My movie going friends think I'm very hard to peg.

If a movie comes out, I ask myself if its something I'd want to see with friends, or by myself. If its a movie I'd rather see by myself, its because I think I'm going to get more out of it than just 2 hours of entertainment in the theater.

Usually, if I hear someone talking about a film, and I feel them to be obnoxious or "oh so wittily sarcastic" as I like to put it, I usually take their opinion with a grain of salt because often, people like that usually say they like a film to seem smarter than everyone else (I've met quite a few) but when pressed on it, most of them can't give a coherent plain english explanation (sure, they give an explanation, but its so riddled with unnecessary flowery words I just roll my eyes...you know the saying, if you can't dazzle them with the facts, baffle em with bullshit).

I also seem to be in the minority in that I don't hold other people in disdain just because they like a kind of movie I don't. Hey, to each their own. If someone wants to see "Meet the Spartans" then let them. I don't have to, but if it makes them enjoy life a bit more, cool.

[Sven]

Exactly, that's what I'm saying. In the example of the Brody line, one the surface it's this very straightforward thing to say (and in fact we can see that he didn't save his) and Brody doesn't force the line, and yet we still understand that he feels guilty about this, like it was his fault.

I don't see the comparison. We understand that he feels guilty because he looks sad and he's carrying a dead child in his arms and he says the words "I" and "mine", not because of any lack of inflection.


Maybe I'm just an Anderson apologist, but I like the slow motion. It's a good way to emphasize something.

I love it in Darjeeling, but what exactly did it emphasize in Chevalier?

[D_Davis]

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270913946_efa38ec3d8.jpg

[Qrazy]

I also seem to be in the minority in that I don't hold other people in disdain just because they like a kind of movie I don't. Hey, to each their own. If someone wants to see "Meet the Spartans" then let them. I don't have to, but if it makes them enjoy life a bit more, cool.

No, I'm sorry but that's not acceptable. I'm all for variety of taste, but anyone who searches out Meet the Spartans ought to be shot, and I'm not being tongue in cheek here.

[Mysterious Dude]

I think I have pretty good taste in movies, but sometimes, I like to sit back and watch Family Guy or Scary Movie 4. Is that so wrong?

[Qrazy]

I love it in Darjeeling, but what exactly did it emphasize in Chevalier?

Why? Do we really need a slo-mo tossing flowers on dead Indian boy's funeral entourage shot? Aside from breaking dramatic flow I actually found it kind of disgusting. A boy dies and yet these people (the three leads) and not just the protag's, but the film itself by the manner in which it's focused on them, is still obsessively tonally/aesthetically narcissistic. How is this boy's death effecting me (question the protags), have I been spiritually enlightened yet? Ooh this boy's death who I don't really care about makes me think of my dead father. Let's do some drugs. I see these things played for humor and the 'coolness' (of a funeral shot) rather than used to delve into said narcissism (ala Antonioni) and puncture anything real. Other times and moments the film gets the family dynamic correct and that disconnect feels genuine but here formal self-consciousness completely buries any thematic heft.

Shot in question:

*insert smoke machine here*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxYJxu_DH24

[origami_mustache]

... and I really feel he needs to drop the slow-mo stuff which just feels affected and completely forced at this point. It worked in Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, I guess in Tenenbaums but now it's enough already. It was the one stylistic flourish I really couldn't stand in Darjeeling which always took me out of the work and not in a reflective, Brechtian manner but in a... look at this cool shot, dramatic pacing destroyed manner.

I agree with this, but on the other hand I'm not sure if he can escape it. This is what people have come to expect from his films. The ramping camera shot played to a pop song has become his signature that everyone awaits like Hitchcock's cameo.

[number8]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/48/Derailedmovieposter.jpg/405px-Derailedmovieposter.jpg

[Qrazy]

I agree with this, but on the other hand I'm not sure if he can escape it. This is what people have come to expect from his films. The ramping camera shot played to a pop song has become his signature that everyone awaits like Hitchcock's cameo.

Yeah, it has been a signature motif, but once you're forcing it into your films rather than letting it either exist naturally or not exist at all, then there's a problem and likely it's time to just let it go and start to mature as a filmmaker. It reminds me of George Roy Hill's commentary track for Butch Cassidy where he describes a complex shot he had envisioned for the Mexican death/robbery scene. He finally abandoned it for a simple slo-mo take (kind of ironic) because the complex idea he had in mind was harming the larger product.

[Bosco B Thug]

Given the tedious semantic discussion regarding the meaning of subtext (which I thought to be a fairly straightforward dramatic concept), I'm hesitant to ask what "blockiness" means. Haha, I'm afraid to answer. I don't think Anderson really put too much effort in the short. He blocks each shot and the performances carefully but he's just going through the motions, and the "rhythm" of the film is kinda static and somnabulistic. He sticks in a pan or the slo-mo here and there for some dynamism, and he puts in some trademark idiosyncratic touches like his use of "straight-on top-down shots" (Schwartzman unwrapping chocolate) but I agree it's too calculated without being inventive or vibrant. But the film isn't supposed to be a stand-alone thing, anyway.

[Fezzik]

No, I'm sorry but that's not acceptable. I'm all for variety of taste, but anyone who searches out Meet the Spartans ought to be shot, and I'm not being tongue in cheek here.

Congratulations. You just helped me decide to stop coming here. This is the kind of holier than thou B.S. I cannot stand and it happens here much too often.

I'll just go back in my hole, enjoy the movies I enjoy, let others enjoy the movies THEY enjoy and live and let live.

I'm sorry I'm not judgemental enough to fit in here.

[Sven]

Congratulations. You just helped me decide to stop coming here. This is the kind of holier than thou B.S. I cannot stand and it happens here much too often.

Don't leave! Does it really happen that often?

Trust me, if we all felt like leaving every time Qrazy said something to us that was insensitive, inflammatory, judgmental, or otherwise inconsiderate, nobody would post here anymore. I can't speak for anyone else, but I've learned to try and ignore it.

[Spinal]

This is the kind of holier than thou B.S. I cannot stand and it happens here much too often.


I kind of agree actually. I think the best thing to do is just be secure in your own taste and enjoy the fact that someone else finds your difference of opinion so unsettling.

[Qrazy]

Wow, you people are something else, just because I say I'm not being tongue in cheek does not mean I'm not actually being tongue in cheek, that's part of the tongue in cheeks.

No sane person thinks people should be shot for their taste in movies, Jesus Christ.

[Qrazy]

Don't leave! Does it really happen that often?

Trust me, if we all felt like leaving every time Qrazy said something to us that was insensitive, inflammatory, judgmental, or otherwise inconsiderate, nobody would post here anymore. I can't speak for anyone else, but I've learned to try and ignore it.

Take a look in the mirror chum.

[Qrazy]

And enjoy the fact that someone else finds your difference of opinion so unsettling.

Sounds like you're not particularly secure in that case.

[Spinal]

Sounds like you're not particularly secure in that case.

If I wasn't secure, could I do this?

:pritch:

[Qrazy]

If I wasn't secure, could I do this?

:pritch:

Touche.

*dons bow in hair*

[Spinal]

Anyway, I was just trying to be a peacemaker.

Are there dismissals of other people's opinions around here that are too harsh? Probably.

Could Fezzik stand to have a little thicker skin? Probably.

That's all I was sayin'.

[Melville]

I've always thought that people on here are generally very civil. Dismissals of others' opinions usually seem to be in jest, and I've never noticed people's skins being particularly thin. Maybe I ought to take a closer look.

[Qrazy]

*rerails thread*

[Philosophe_rouge]

I don't think my personal taste is influenced all that much by the general public, average filmgoer or even any sort of canon. The canon, however, does have a much stronger influence on what I watch then the previous too, as I'm much more likely to watch a film included on the TSPDT list then a film popular among my classmates or the box office. The group with the most effect are the people I post with here, on RT, and a few other sites I frequent. However, considering how multi-board I am, I can't say my tastes are assimilated even in terms of critisism to a certain group in particular.

I will conceed tha I do on ocassion over/underate films because of outside influence. It's not always intentional but I find myself boosting a film up a point because I know it's well liked in a certain crowd, or that I should like it better. It's usually unconscious honestly, and over time I tend to re-evaluate the films with a far more genuine perspective.

I'm also very guilty of holding rare/generally disliked films in higher regard if I do enjoy them. I am attracted to the feeling that it's "my film" in a certain sense. Again, in the longer run these films do end up falling into their "place".

Conversationally, I will exagerrate my own response to films to either instigate reactions or to avoid confrontations. Some people are just fun to kinda prod, while others I'd rather avoid any discussions either because it can only go around in circles or I'm doomed to be pwned. Also depends on mood to a certain extent.

Overall though, I think my taste is rather independent, I mostly turn to peers to clarify my own ideas through discussion and recommendations. I'm probably most influenced by what those around me watch, and I tend to look for films people around have mentioned, or rated very highly.

[Fezzik]

Wow, you people are something else, just because I say I'm not being tongue in cheek does not mean I'm not actually being tongue in cheek, that's part of the tongue in cheeks.

No sane person thinks people should be shot for their taste in movies, Jesus Christ.

I decided I was overreacting and felt like an idiot for saying I was leaving, but I still maintain that saying something, saying its not in cheek and then complaining because we took you at your word is pretty silly...I don't know you except for this forum, Qrazy, how do I know you ARE sane?

No offense intended, of course, but I think you get what I'm saying.

As for my skin needing to thicken up, yeah, probably, but that's not really the issue in this case. It's not my taste in movies that's being called into question here, it's my lack of appreciation for the over the top 'verdicts' that some people here preach about those whose tastes DO differ from their own.

Big difference, I think.

[Derek]

but I still maintain that saying something, saying its not in cheek and then complaining because we took you at your word is pretty silly...I don't know you except for this forum, Qrazy, how do I know you ARE sane?

I agree. It's silly not to assume Qrazy is a homicidal maniac, killing people as they exit the theater after seeing Meet the Spartans.

[origami_mustache]

This thread is becoming more over dramatic than reality television...let's vote someone off.

[Grouchy]

This thread is becoming more over dramatic than reality television...let's vote someone off.
I say either close it or make it jump three more levels of shark and become a classic.

It's funny, after skipping through the first post, I thought it was gonna be boring.

[Boner M]

Yeah, I was gonna offer my sincere opinion on the thread topic but feel it would just look comparatively meek and boring.

Carry on with the histrionics, folks.

[origami_mustache]

(paints, exercises, and throws pie)

[Boner M]

But anyway, I was thinking recently that canon films are the ones I tend to willfully think less about when I'm off in my own private film-based reveries, and that has something to do with the shaping of my taste. For instance, I cite Taxi Driver as one of my favorite films, and yet when I rewatched it recently for my top 50 thread it was like watching it for the first time, since everything I've liked about it was everything that I'm 'supposed to' like. Though I'd never admit to being contrarian, the unconscious desire to think autonomously means that even intensely personal reactions to canonical/popular films might fade away in the memory if I find out they're shared by others, whereas the same reaction to a non-canonical/unpopular film will stick with me. It's part of the reason that I keep on forgetting how much I've loved certain films in the past when I see them on repeat viewings (Kubrick, esp.), while certain lesser-known films might not hold up on repeats when I realise that maybe my initial reaction was perhaps an unconsciously exaggerated attempt to 'fill up the gap' of appreciation for that particular film.

[Duncan]

It's part of the reason that I keep on forgetting how much I've loved certain films in the past when I see them on repeat viewings (Kubrick, esp.)... I too have to remind myself from time to time just how good Kubrick was. He's probably the only director I loved when I first got into film that I still love today. Maybe David Lean, but mostly just for Lawrence of Arabia.

And anyone who disagrees with me deserves to be mutilated, etc.

[Boner M]

And anyone who disagrees with me deserves to be mutilated, etc.
:lol:

[Qrazy]

I say either close it or make it jump three more levels of shark and become a classic.

It's funny, after skipping through the first post, I thought it was gonna be boring.

*Here's a thread topic which doesn't interest me, I think I'll read it... except not really.*

[trotchky]

I can't see somebody walking into a room with the intention of hiding his homosexuality. Even in scenes where characters are hiding something (take any of the numberous airport security scenes in Atom Egoyan's films), there's always a goal they're working towards (i.e., getting through customs).

Are you just being pedantic, or can you honestly not think of a situation where someone might want to hide their homosexuality?

[Qrazy]

Are you just being pedantic, or can you honestly not think of a situation where someone might want to hide their homosexuality?

Just being stubborn I think.

[Izzy Black]

Personal opinions are interdependent on public opinion. The way we use terms, form thoughts, make judgments, and gather ideas is formed within our contextual relation with others. This, of course, is not the same as populism, as we have different communities all throughout that influence our thought. The way we linguistically interact or borrow from these communities may vary from individual to individual, but there is generally the same influence in many regards - i.e. shared language and agreements. For example, it would be coherent to say that, "X movie is bad because it failed to do this (Y)" but, it would not be coherent to say, "X movie is m0vifs2ind because it did not feed me" - which suggests we have a general playing field with certain rules and restrictions to what we can say or will say about film.

As for W. Anderson, his new short is terrible, and as a director in general, he just is not very good.

[KK2.0]

I'll watch whatever films i want, when i can. =)



Us film lovers, who seek obscure titles and come to internet forums like this to discuss stuff like Anderson's overuse of slow motion, are definitely on the minority, even among most film fans. like the ones that infest IMDB and RT (yes, i'm an arrogant bastard). The reason why i followed you people here since the old days of RT (i'm a stalker too) is exactly this sophisticated taste, that always rewards me with recommendations that are out of the ordinary. that doesn't mean i watch this kind of films only, though.

Which reminded me of a little story: My roomate and a neighbour decided to watch some dvds, and despite me having a decent collection, they decided to pick up and rewatch one of their own: 'White Chics'. At first, i felt an urge to run away screaming but, instead of being the film snob, i grabbed a popcorn and tryed to enjoy the time i was spending with them. It was curious, they actually thought the horrendous make-up work was good, and laughed at lame jokes... At this moment i thought i could make some money writing films because the general standards are so low, but thinking harder, these aren't dumb people, they only did not have the same background as me, a nerd who watched films compulsively as a teenager. So, should i feel superior or special?

Of course! let's make some easy money match-cut! \0/

[SirNewt]

I'm probably too mailable. Often critical considerations will sway me more after seeing a film than before. Seriously, reading old Bosly Crowther reviews slams my average Netflix rating down to Hades. Perhaps I'm too young still.

On the other hand, the films I really tend to love, are the ones I find myself thinking about long after seeing. I remember hating Tarkovsky's, 'Andrei Rublev' when I first saw it. For months, though, I kept thinking about it. Now, it is one of my favorite films period. I tend to need time to clarify how I feel about a film. There are exceptions where I see a film I immediately love and in some cases never that never changes, for example: 'Ugetsu' and Asquith's version of 'The Importance of Being Earnest'.