putting Walter Hill on the same step as David Lynch

[Pas]

Same party last weekend as Doppelganger thread...

talk film with this pretty knowledgeable guy. We start with the good old Tarantino discussion, then move on to Lynch. So far we're on the same page. Then I start speaking my love for the work of Walter Hill and John Milius, with emphasis on their glorious collaboration on Extreme Prejudice.

The guy looks at me blank faced. He says : ''Your favorite movies are Mulholland Drive and Extreme Prejudice ? That's pretty pretentious.''

To this I reply : ''Au contraire ! I don't pretend to love movies I find boring
-No but you put what people consider stupid on the same step as what people consider hard to grasp movies just to prove your point that you get stuff.
-No no I just like the movies !''

For real he was exactly right. He saw right through my ploy. That's what I do. I picked Walter Hill just because he has a consistent filmography and chose him to be my ''Validator''. It's like saying your favorite music is Mozart, the Beatles and Sean Paul. It does make you look fucking honest

Do you guys play these stupid mind games ?

[SoNowThen]

Good gawd, the weird stuff people will come up with.

We had this Walter Hill conversation sorta already... but I can't say anything about him cos I haven't seen anything of his yet but I really enjoy Milius (although I guess that is slightly predictable given my character). I just watched his version of Dillinger last week and loved every overblown minute of it.

As I was saying to GT awhile back, I still say Godard and Tarkovsky are my favorite filmmakers but damn I fucking love Ronin, too.

But I think maybe in my case it has to do with what I was watching at the time; as in, I'll always love Ghostbuster (I still enjoy watching it and do so about once a year) but maybe I wouldn't get the chance to love a modern day type Ghostbusters cos I just don't give a shit anymore and can't be bothered to waste my time trudging around the usual commercial dreck to find the one decent flick. Back in the day when I was watching 12+ movies a week I could have a buffet but I have to be more selective with my time now.

But it's obvious in your case that you do love both... so what's the dude's problem? Does he have some sort of vendetta against you that he needs to fuel with pretend subconscious speculation that somehow incriminates you as an intellectual imposter (which is probably what he hates most about himself)?

[RegularKarate]

People get trapped in that a lot. 

Yes, when someone says "what are your three favorite movies?", you're probably going to pick three things that while you DO like them, they each fill a different role in defining your tastes.

It's assholish to call this out though because anyone who asks that question is setting you up to be judged by them based on what you pick.

[Pas]

this guy is like my nemesis when it comes to film... when we were younger we used to be ''the guys'' in school who knew about movies and people would come : ''HEY have you seen x movie ? Is it good'' so that explains maybe his asshole-ish behavior

SoNow : Do you ever feel conflicted between your admiration/obessive love for Godard and your appreciation of John Milius ? I mean, if they're not opposites ...

[SoNowThen]

Lemme think of a real decent reply... it's hard in this case cos I am more of a flirt with Milius. I'd say the diametric opposite of Godard would be Kubrick maybe. But I think my biggest conflict would be between any of the big guns in the canon vs my love of stupid comedies, even shit with Will Ferrell in it, just cos I think that the only job of a comedy is to make me laugh. If it does that then it is good, if it does it a lot then great, if it is still making me laugh days after I watch the movie then genius. Pretty much same level of genius as a Bergman movie that forces me to confront the worst about myself and shifts my soul.

And I'm a little conflicted about that, I suppose...


Anyway, since Hill has been making films longer than Lynch, and Lynch is pretty much a contemporary filmmaker, it is much too much to use him as some kind of "art film standard" that this douche is trying to do. Pas, invite him to Uniprex and I will smash him in the knee with my racket.

[Gold Trumpet]

I understand the films I respect the most will never be my favorites, meaning I will never watch them back to back or every week or whatever. I consider the best films to be the most meaningful in my life because I spend more time writing and thinking about them, but I'm not bullshitting myself about them being my favorite. It's the wrong word for them.

When I get asked the question about what my favorites are, I always mention The Wild Bunch as my more respectable choice because it's easy for me to watch as well. I feel more honest picking that film. Then Diner and Bull Durman are just my personal favorites otherwise. I can watch either over and over again on a personal level.

But I find when you try to show an eclectic taste and mix the high brow with the low brow you will more likely get slammed for the low brow choice no matter what. Tonight I mentioned to a girl at a get together of my appreciation for John Stockwell. I said he made Into the Blue and Crazy/Beautiful. She immediately called me an idiot and I said she shouldn't compare his films to art masterpieces. I said he's a paperback filmmaker and he makes excellent films for the stories he has. She didn't care and still reinforced they were just awful. Knowing nothing I could say would change her mind, I just moved on.

The lesson I learned is that when you start defending movies that aren't respectable, you're risking a lot. I can never convince people why certain lesser films are actually really good, but I can mention any film they dislike but know is considered good and they'll at least shake their head to what I have to say.

[Pas]

GT, did you not feel an impulse of ''I know better than you'' enzyme surging in your brain after that discussion. God I love it when it happens. Actually what you are speaking about is what I'm going for. The guy in my original discussion did not slam me for putting Hill on the same step as ''legit arthouse filmmakers''.

But 9 times out of ten what you experienced is what I experience too. Even more so in music taste. I don't know why I love that people who fancy themselves as intellectuals slam my tastes. When I get the line ''you shouldn't compare his films to art masterpiece'' or something like that I usually go for :

''Oh you're probably right ! I really don't know much about art history and who's respected or not,  I just know what I like.'' with some kind of fake-embarassed face. It's a gross lie. And the person probably still thinks I'm an idiot but in my heart I know I humiliated him/her.

I get in arguments a lot.

[SoNowThen]

Conflicted about that one.

Cos what you are doing is not putting them on the same level, you are saying you get equal enjoyment out of them. That is what makes the other person a douche in this instance, because they are not listening to you but rather carrying on a conversation in their own head whereby you are an idiot and they are there to set you straight, no matter what you are actually saying. HOWEVER... as much as I enjoy, say (for the sake of the current discussion) a Milius or Levinson film, I would never ever ever compare them to Bresson or Tarkovsky and try to claim they were all high art cos I can get wonderfulness out of all of them. I mean, that would be bullshit, and I would be worse than a snob/elite phony, I would be a hipster fuck trying to mix high and low brow in a desperate attempt at being cool. Or something like that.

I mean, I think it's a little different when someone who is a Radiohead fan gets all bitter (or thinks me discredited) when I tell them I also love Oasis, or vice versa, but that's pretty much the same pile. It's modern rock music, essentially. As "experimental" or "artistically minded" as Radiohead can be they will never approach Arvo Part level of music as art. They've chosen their venue, and so, whatever. This sucks as an analogy, I realize as I write it, cos I can lift Bob Dylan out of the level of Popular Entertainer and into Godlike Oracle of All That Is Wonderous In Life... hmm...

But maybe you get my point. I think parameters are set in a given discussion and should be, to a certain extent, respected. If both parties hold themselves as being generally knowledgable in cinema, and decide that they are talking about cinematically important/influential filmmakers who furthered the art form, and then a dude suggested Bergman and David Fincher, someone should call him on his shit. The discussion was not "who are your favorites". If someone genuinely doesn't know any better cos he hasn't seen much yet (as we all went through at some time or another) then you are in the fantastic position of giving him/her some suggestions that will most likely lead to wonderful discoveries down the road. Unfortunately, these kinds of discussion all too often turn into a kind of unconventional one-upmanship, with people trying to find that filmmaker the other hasn't seen yet. If you are trying to inject William Klein or Jerzy Skolimowski into the above conversation then you also tripped off the asshole alert.

I dunno. I guess if you find someone who can genuinely go down all those various roads within that conversation. not because he wants to look smarter or cooler than you but because he's actually excited to talk about it, possibly learn something new, and even teach something, then you know you've got a friend. And fuck everyone else. They always assume they have us pinned/figured out. My new pet peeve is when people come over, take a look at my dvd shelf (eye level is Fellini, Godard, Bergman, Bunuel, Renoir) and go "wow, you're trying to have a very esoteric collection, eh?". Motherfuck... that's the CANON; it couldn't get more predictable than that... if you know anything about cinema. But because their timeline doesn't stretch pre-1988 it somehow becomes an underhanded slight (and a crook-eye look that begs an explanation for my bizarre habit), to the effect that I have become a fool for trying so devilishly hard to be different simply for difference's sake.

Or to sum up: if you have invested any time or energy to acquire specific knowledge in any one area it is useless and/or harmful to both parties to try and discuss this with any layman (even and moreso if that layman thinks he is an expert).

[Gold Trumpet]

GT, did you not feel an impulse of ''I know better than you'' enzyme surging in your brain after that discussion. God I love it when it happens. Actually what you are speaking about is what I'm going for. The guy in my original discussion did not slam me for putting Hill on the same step as ''legit arthouse filmmakers''.

But 9 times out of ten what you experienced is what I experience too. Even more so in music taste. I don't know why I love that people who fancy themselves as intellectuals slam my tastes. When I get the line ''you shouldn't compare his films to art masterpiece'' or something like that I usually go for :

''Oh you're probably right ! I really don't know much about art history and who's respected or not,  I just know what I like.'' with some kind of fake-embarassed face. It's a gross lie. And the person probably still thinks I'm an idiot but in my heart I know I humiliated him/her.

I get in arguments a lot.

I actually do pretty well when put into the situation. When that girl called me an idiot I just laughed and moved on. Had no real instinct to do anything about it. She's dating a good friend of mine so I couldn't do much but I never feel the need to lord my supposed intelligence over someone. This girl is into film, but she likes it for very different reasons than I do. I just would find it silly to go on about film when we have two different realms of interest for it.

But I also have to admit that I don't know anyone in my area who sees film the way I do. I know people who tell me they want to be a film critic every chance they get and carry the marker of their future career with a prestige that is suppose to convince people they are better than them, but they still only quote Roger Ebert when talking about influences and considering 300 groundbreaking for whatever reason. Even with them I let them talk and boast. It's funny, but I don't like arguing. The worst person for the critic mantra in my area is a huge Tarantino fan. When I started to gush a little about his influences he just looked at me with a stupid look so I felt bad and shut up.

My need to gush extensively about film is sadly just thrust on all of you people. I see forums as the best place for me to discuss film. But I also live in the sticks and am 7 hours away from any large city. If I didn't love sports and have an asshole sense of humor, I would be an alien to people here.


What I like about film (and some of you may doubt this, but I really believe it) is that you can like film for more reasons than any other art form. Film is like the pizza of entertainment. Everyone seems to like it because so many kinds of films exist, from Hollywood to art films and documentaries. Music rivals film for level of personal enjoyment among all the people, but Vladamir Nabokov did say music never did anything for him at all and that he couldn't understand the appeal. I still have yet to hear of someone who doesn't like movies. I know some commentators who fault film for being so enjoyable because bad entertainment can come off as quality because the production value for everything in Hollywood is always so high.

[Fernando]

I understand the films I respect the most will never be my favorites, meaning I will never watch them back to back or every week or whatever. I consider the best films to be the most meaningful in my life because I spend more time writing and thinking about them, but I'm not bullshitting myself about them being my favorite. It's the wrong word for them.

I'm with you on that one, except I don't write shit. Like with L'Avventura, I remember it was your fave (or maybe it still is) and I would assume it would look like a snobbish pick even if you really think it's your fave, I've seen it only once and I absolutely loved it, in fact I included it in the last deka, but it's not a film I would want to watch repeatedly.

I actually don't like when someone asks me that question, because my fave still is EWS and what I always say is there isn't the best film ever made, I try to mention my current fave films and they tend to be new films so there is a greater chance they have seen it like Zodiac, The New World, TWBB.

Fortunately there are many many great films; also always say that if someone comes and tells you The Godfather is the best, even if that is a very common/safe pick, you cant argue against that because it's an amazing film, I remember you don't care much for it but I hope you get my point.

I just remembered the typical question ppl sometimes asks, this guy asked me what cd would I take to an isolated island if I was to be stranded there and I answered that I wouldn't take anything as I'm sure I would hate it after awhile, it would be the same with a movie, I can love EWS a lot but I would get sick of it if I watched very often, in fact I haven't seen it in years.

When I get asked the question about what my favorites are, I always mention The Wild Bunch as my more respectable choice because it's easy for me to watch as well.

You have no idea how bad I want to see that one, but I can't find it for rent, I've only seen for rent Straw Dogs and the Getaway (haven't rent them yet).

But I find when you try to show an eclectic taste and mix the high brow with the low brow you will more likely get slammed for the low brow choice no matter what.

I kind of hate that word, what and how is it defined and eclectic taste anyway?

[Pas]

take a look at my dvd shelf (eye level is Fellini, Godard, Bergman, Bunuel, Renoir) and go "wow, you're trying to have a very esoteric collection, eh?". Motherfuck... that's the CANON; it couldn't get more predictable than that... if you know anything about cinema. But because their timeline doesn't stretch pre-1988 it somehow becomes an underhanded slight (and a crook-eye look that begs an explanation for my bizarre habit), to the effect that I have become a fool for trying so devilishly hard to be different simply for difference's sake.

Hahaha very true I never saw it that way. These filmmakers will get you the funny look while it is natural to have some Dickens or Shakespeare or whatever in your bookshelf. Paradoxal

[SoNowThen]

Exactly. Every english-speaking home that claims to enjoy literature should have those two guys. And how could anyone accuse a collector of being esoteric when he only possesses what presumably everyone had to read in high school?

Interesting aside, in the former Soviet Union, when visiting various members of my wife's family, one ALWAYS found a nicely bound full collection of Tolstoy, Pushkin, and Dostoevsky... and curiously, Stendhal. And when pressed, none of them could account for the lone frenchman. This happened in more than three houses, with a mix of Lithuanian, Ukrainian, and Russian people.

[Gold Trumpet]

I understand the films I respect the most will never be my favorites, meaning I will never watch them back to back or every week or whatever. I consider the best films to be the most meaningful in my life because I spend more time writing and thinking about them, but I'm not bullshitting myself about them being my favorite. It's the wrong word for them.

I'm with you on that one, except I don't write shit. Like with L'Avventura, I remember it was your fave (or maybe it still is) and I would assume it would look like a snobbish pick even if you really think it's your fave, I've seen it only once and I absolutely loved it, in fact I included it in the last deka, but it's not a film I would want to watch repeatedly.

L'Avventura does still hold that esteem for me, but yea, I don't watch it all the time. Like most people, I'll revisit a classic once a year or so. I think that is a good period of time because watching it all the time wears on you because it is difficult viewing. Doing it once a year makes it feels like a holiday. As soon as the time comes around to watch it again you feel like you have forgotten enough where the new viewing will yeild something new and wonderful to discover.

I just remembered the typical question ppl sometimes asks, this guy asked me what cd would I take to an isolated island if I was to be stranded there and I answered that I wouldn't take anything as I'm sure I would hate it after awhile, it would be the same with a movie, I can love EWS a lot but I would get sick of it if I watched very often, in fact I haven't seen it in years.

If someone asks you what book you would take on a desert island with you, always say the telephone book. The list of names and places in the book will give you loads of potential for crafting stories around them. That's the clever, asshole answer.

You have no idea how bad I want to see that one, but I can't find it for rent, I've only seen for rent Straw Dogs and the Getaway (haven't rent them yet).

I really love The Getaway for what it is. The film has a lot of themes similar to the ones in The Wild Bunch, but is masked in a more out and out action film. But I would tell you to watch The Wild Bunch first and then see how exemplary filmmaking and storytelling is transitioned into a vehicle project like The Getaway. My friends and I like the Wild Bunch for so many personal reasons that we watch the Getaway and still get a big kick out of it.

But I find when you try to show an eclectic taste and mix the high brow with the low brow you will more likely get slammed for the low brow choice no matter what.

I kind of hate that word, what and how is it defined and eclectic taste anyway?

I think eclectic represents our need to have respectable taste in front of other people. People feel the need to have certain elements of good taste in their arsenal, but respectable is the dirty word in film. It subverts people from liking films for the right reasons.

[SoNowThen]

Very few of the great films are respectable.

Maybe that's why the medium isn't placed on the same level as the other fine arts.

[Gold Trumpet]

Very few of the great films are respectable.

Maybe that's why the medium isn't placed on the same level as the other fine arts.

Hear hear!!

I know I'm veering off subject, but I believe the major reason why film is still considered a second tier art form is how tied to money and genre structure film is. I don't have to explain money, but genre structure is more telling. Modern film in the sound era developed out of the studio system and every studio had their designated genres. They specialized in them and made hundreds each year, but the Academy Awards began in 1928 and began by rewarding the best Hollywood had to offer. It is coincidence that incorporated mainly genre films that were originally made to make money.

The Academy Awards have nominated and awarded some great films over the years, but they have never rewarded a film that was made truly for the purpose of making art for someone. Someone can say Platoon is a purely personal film, but it has little in common with the aesthetics of underground films. The structures and styles from underground cinema are more similar to European Art Cinema and that is rare in major motion picture cinema today in America. I do keep up a little bit with underground cinema today and it looks like the trend is to make the aesthetics part of the art scene with paintings and what not.

There are two reasons why art cinema is better fostered in Europe. One, all the major countries have a subsidized system within their government that gives money to filmmakers to make films. Few such programs exist in the United States and more exist on a city by city level, but governments in Europe see it as their obligation to finance works by filmmakers who are dealing with an uphill battle in financing their projects. Second, Europe has a richer history with art. We boast about film because it is the most successful cinema financially around the world. Europe praises classical works of numerous arts, but all works that don't come with the type of success tag that a blockbuster film does. They realize the aesethics of the work is their cultural value.

Orson Welles once said that anyone who talks about film and doesn't include money is a jack ass. Even Stanley Kubrick believed Barry Lyndon was destined to make as much money as Clockwork Orange. The dominance of money forces films to exist for entertainment purposes, but society has also bumped up pure genre films to great heights that they have no place to occupy. The French Connection is an interesting thriller, but it is still just a thriller. It has none of the humanistic questions that made Peckinpah a master of the genre where he (at his best) could transcend it. I know The Godfather is classic in all regards, but it is a romance novel story that is distinguished by lush cinematography. If the film didn't have the cinematography it would make the story look as empty as it really is.

Genre, it seems to me, is the enemy of film art. It has a purpose in entertainment, but it loses hope when dealing with aesthetics and ideas. It keeps stories tied to its old heritages. As someone once said, the greatest test for film as an art is to not be afraid of its future. The 1930s were a golden age for Hollywood just because of how much money Hollywood made. The term has nothing to do with quality films. We need to forget those roots and spring up better ones to make better films. Aristotle was wrong. Character is more important than plot.