annoying people that don't watch movies

SoNowThen · April 21, 2003, 03:58:07 PM

I had a thought, but this is kind of muddy, since people can usually agree on the idea of "entertainment", but are totally divergent on the word "art". But here goes:

When somebody says something is entertaining, they usually mean that it passed the time in an agreeable manner (eg. a gawd-awful show like Hot Or Not can be entertaining for a couple minutes, if a really cute chick is showing her hot little body on the screen), but it wasn't something that they'd remember or care about after the passing moment. So I think we can all agree that things can be entertaining without being "art".

However, if you describe something as art, it usually means that not only were you entertained by it, but you hold it in higher esteem than most other things that entertained you. So it becomes something special and important to you, and thus exists as both art (that great intangible something) and entertainment. I guess my point is that if one can be included in the other, then they are not comparable because art is of a higher classification. Of course, it all becomes subjective, and probably depends on higher knowledge.

For example: I know nothing about painting, but I get a kick out of the Dogs Playing Poker pictures. Now, someone who had a deep education in painting might get really upset, saying that I shouldn't waste time looking at Dogs Playing Poker, but should instead try and see everything Picasso did. I probably won't have the time (or care) to do this, and so the Painting Guy could get really upset at me for willingly staying ignorant. This seems to me how regular people view film: they won't see any Fellini movies, but regularily catch Vin Diesel movies, and if they saw a Fellini anyway, they'd hate it because it's so different than what they're used to. But the thing about this example is that I would probably respect someone's opinion who knew a lot about painting, and take his word that Picasso is more important than Dogs Playing Poker. Yet the common filmgoer seems to still insist that Vin Diesel movies are better than Fellini. So I guess we're right back where we started.

...is this the longest post ever, or what?

Sleuth · April 21, 2003, 04:41:14 PM

You are very smart and I appreciate you for typing that out

cowboykurtis · April 21, 2003, 05:27:07 PM

i agree that art is subjective. your example of the dog playing poker vs. picasso is a perfect example. now what if someone whos uneducated in art criticism thinks the dog painting is a work of art -- obviously an "art" critic will say that person doesn't know anything, picasso is brilliant. now, being that art is subjective; is one's opinion more valid than anothers? any art expert or film expert is a self proclaimed expert -- just because one's opinion is regarded highly within the public( eg roger ebert) doesn't neccessarily mean it's right or wrong. if one thinks that vin diesel's xxx is art, and a film critic says hes an idiot, does it make his subjectve opinion any less valid? its pretty much circular logic. i think the real dilema comes down to: does something thats entertaining indirectly make it a peice of art and vice versa. -- beauty is in the eye of the beholder. thats why i dont like self proclaimed "film experts" getting their feathers ruffled about "common people" not liking films that they consider to be "art". its seems to be a very ignorant view point. becuase whether one likes it or not -- audience members that they label "common people" are the one's who are going to see your film. their opinion does matter at the end of the day -- because they're buying the tickets to see YOUR movie. i think its essential to make films that are engaging to a wide audience -- who the fuck wants to make films that will only be loved by pretentious film "experts" -- i sure as hell know that i dont. this isn't an attak on anyone, just my subjective opinion.

Cecil · April 21, 2003, 07:03:10 PM

Quote from: cowboykurtiswho the fuck wants to make films that will only be loved by pretentious film "experts"

i do. cause im a pretentious film expert, and i believe that the others like me (who have the same taste in film that i do) arent getting enough good modern movies. this is the same as a guy who likes horror films and will make films only for horror fans because he is not satisfied with modern horror films. horror is not appreciated by all (but is still a rather bankable genre)

you guys are right to say that "art" is subjective of course. but in my opinion, art is something that gives a certain aesthetic satisfaction to the viewer or listener (if its music) that is not 'necessarily' pleasurable. you like the dogs playing poker because it makes you laugh. you enjoy it. it "entertains" you. a picasso will make you "think." (or bore the hell out of you if you arent "into" that kind of "art"). i believe that this is the difference between "art" and "entertainment." art can also be entertainment but not always. and something entertaining will not always be "artistic" or at least not as much as something "artsy."

i think that another difference is that the"artist" has more of a statement or message to deliver through his art. (or not, and that in itself is the statement), whereas an "entertainer's" goal is to just make people laugh or escape in another world for a certain length of time.

of course both are "needed" in "society." i hope i didnt come off as dissing "entertainment."

ProgWRX · April 21, 2003, 09:31:06 PM

i have to say that i agree with cecil
couldnt have expressed it better

MrBurgerKing · April 21, 2003, 10:20:31 PM

Quote from: SoNowThenI had a thought, but this is kind of muddy, since people can usually agree on the idea of "entertainment", but are totally divergent on the word "art". But here goes:

When somebody says something is entertaining, they usually mean that it passed the time in an agreeable manner (eg. a gawd-awful show like Hot Or Not can be entertaining for a couple minutes, if a really cute chick is showing her hot little body on the screen), but it wasn't something that they'd remember or care about after the passing moment. So I think we can all agree that things can be entertaining without being "art".

However, if you describe something as art, it usually means that not only were you entertained by it, but you hold it in higher esteem than most other things that entertained you. So it becomes something special and important to you, and thus exists as both art (that great intangible something) and entertainment. I guess my point is that if one can be included in the other, then they are not comparable because art is of a higher classification. Of course, it all becomes subjective, and probably depends on higher knowledge.

For example: I know nothing about painting, but I get a kick out of the Dogs Playing Poker pictures. Now, someone who had a deep education in painting might get really upset, saying that I shouldn't waste time looking at Dogs Playing Poker, but should instead try and see everything Picasso did. I probably won't have the time (or care) to do this, and so the Painting Guy could get really upset at me for willingly staying ignorant. This seems to me how regular people view film: they won't see any Fellini movies, but regularily catch Vin Diesel movies, and if they saw a Fellini anyway, they'd hate it because it's so different than what they're used to. But the thing about this example is that I would probably respect someone's opinion who knew a lot about painting, and take his word that Picasso is more important than Dogs Playing Poker. Yet the common filmgoer seems to still insist that Vin Diesel movies are better than Fellini. So I guess we're right back where we started.

...is this the longest post ever, or what?

Good point. I said something similar, only my analogy involved fast food, while your analogy involved painting. Your analysis got more positive responses because generally painting is viewed more as an art than fast food. I say F that, fast food is an artform to the chefs who work there. Damn me, why couldn't I think of the Dogs Playing Poker?

cowboykurtis · April 21, 2003, 11:27:16 PM

cecil,
you said you're interested in making films for "pretentious film experts", who aren't getting "good modern films." you also compared this to someone making horror films to imporve the genre. let me get this straight -- you're saying that someone making horror films to improve the genre, is the same as you making films that are intended to please "pretentious film experts" -- since when was "pretentious film expert" a genre?

Cecil · April 22, 2003, 09:29:34 AM

its not a genre, i was just compairing genre films to "films that will only be loved by pretentious film experts." hell, you can even consider it a genre as well

magnolia
running time: 188 minutes
genre: drama, over-indulgence

cowboykurtis · April 22, 2003, 09:52:53 AM

Quote from: cecil b. dementedits not a genre, i was just compairing genre films to "films that will only be loved by pretentious film experts." hell, you can even consider it a genre as well

magnolia
running time: 188 minutes
genre: drama, over-indulgence

i realize that -- i was just playing devil's advocate -- i still disgaree with your logic. furthermore -- id like you to name ONE film that fits into your "films ONLY loved by snobs" genre. if you think magnolia does, you're wrong -- i know plenty of people that aren't film experts, who love that film. it was written about very universal issues that reached far and wide -- id like to think that magnolia's intention wasn't solely for the sake of pleasing self proclaimed "film experts" -- any film written with this intention would be 120 pages of self masturbation without a spark of inventive truth.

Cecil · April 22, 2003, 10:09:59 AM

that was very.... sneaky of you.

i understand what youre saying, but im surprised at your magnolia comment (who are those people you speak of? where have they been when the film wasnt doing too good at the b.o.?)... though im only saying its over-indulgent and maybe a little pretentious (if that), but it is also a drama and therefore can certainly appeal to other people. i think strictly experimental or abstract films are more the type to be liked only by a certain clique of film snobs. and besides, if we continue to use the horror genre example, not every horror fan will like every horror film, and im sure that certain horror-haters will be dragged to see certain horror films and will end up liking them.

i agree about the masturbation part, but why no spark of inventive truth?

SoNowThen · April 22, 2003, 10:18:23 AM

Cecil's right. I mean, Godard's early career seems dedicated to film snobs, with tons of in-jokes and references that only film-crazy people would like. Lots of great films have that little wink-wink-nudge-nudge to us film nuts. Regular audiences aren't going to pick the stuff out, but we love it. I find PDL to be like that.... I have yet to hear any non-film buff say they liked it. But we all get a kick out of it. As budgets climb higher, and studio films have sterner expectations, you see this counter-culture film genre jump up; those goofy films that only cinephiles love. I'd be happy to make those kind of movies my whole career. In fact, I try to put lots of homages and references in all the stuff I write -- it's just plain fun.

Film only loved by snobs: Alphaville. I certainly love it.

cowboykurtis · April 22, 2003, 11:03:15 AM

Quote from: cecil b. dementedthat was very.... sneaky of you.

i understand what youre saying, but im surprised at your magnolia comment (who are those people you speak of? where have they been when the film wasnt doing too good at the b.o.?)... though im only saying its over-indulgent and maybe a little pretentious (if that), but it is also a drama and therefore can certainly appeal to other people. i think strictly experimental or abstract films are more the type to be liked only by a certain clique of film snobs. and besides, if we continue to use the horror genre example, not every horror fan will like every horror film, and im sure that certain horror-haters will be dragged to see certain horror films and will end up liking them.

i agree about the masturbation part, but why no spark of inventive truth?

im speaking from the way i work -- the way i like to write is: i just tell the story id like to tell, i dont want to prove THIS POINT, or please THIS DEMOGRAPHIC of film goers -- i just hope that, if tell the story that i love with enthusiasm and energy, others will feel the same way about it. to answer you question about "where were the people when magnolia was in teh box office": i feel the issue there was: the film wasnt advertised very agressively by the studio -- i dont think people had the expousre to it wehn it was in the theater -- they werent searching it out, as some of us did. it seems a couple years later the word of mouth has gotten very large -- and many people have rented -- i know at least 20 people who arent "film experts" that love it -- my parents being 2 of them. i just think its important to tell the story you want to tell and not worry about whos going to like it. however i do think it would be very rewarding if your film became embraced by "film lovers". i just feel that "film snobs" usually dont have an opinion of thier own -- they are self concious to the point that they regergitate opinions and statements from other "film snobs" in an attempt to upkeep that elitist frame of mind. i love people who love movies for their strengths and weaknesses -- thats my philosophy about the topic.

Gold Trumpet · April 22, 2003, 11:05:41 AM

Actually, to discredit the point that only film snobs like Punch-Drunk Love, I have a friend who went with me to see Punch-Drunk Love because Adam Sandler was her favorite actor and The Wedding Singer her favorite movie. She absolutely loved Punch-Drunk Love and it wasn't blind love, she payed attention to every part of the movie, laughed at the right moments and was able to intelligently give an opinion to her thoughts on the film afterwords. The word "arthouse" did not even enter her mind as limiting the movie to something she may not like, but she entered the viewing open minded and still liked it.

Actually, I consider myself an extreme of film snobbish/cockiness or whatever they call it these days, though I take with heart that Budgie doesn't believe I am a film snob, but thing is, I really didn't like Alphaville that much at all.

~rougerum

MacGuffin · April 22, 2003, 11:25:06 AM

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetActually, to discredit the point that only film snobs like Punch-Drunk Love, I have a friend who went with me to see Punch-Drunk Love because Adam Sandler was her favorite actor and The Wedding Singer her favorite movie. She absolutely loved Punch-Drunk Love and it wasn't blind love, she payed attention to every part of the movie, laughed at the right moments and was able to intelligently give an opinion to her thoughts on the film afterwords. The word "arthouse" did not even enter her mind as limiting the movie to something she may not like, but she entered the viewing open minded and still liked it.

You make her sound like a test case: Patient responded with a considerable amount of chuckles when presented with a laughter inducing scene and was able to talk with intelligence afterwards.

I don't understand. I loved "Wedding Singer", so does that not make me a film snob?

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetActually, I consider myself an extreme of film snobbish/cockiness or whatever they call it these days, though I take with heart that Budgie doesn't believe I am a film snob, but thing is, I really didn't like Alphaville that much at all.

So I guess this proves I'm not a 'film snob' since I only like a few French New Wave films.

SoNowThen · April 22, 2003, 11:48:55 AM

Fair enough. I didn't word things very well. I suppose it's impossible to try and classify anyone into ONE specific group. What I wanted to stress is that I like when I pick out an in-joke that's only for a film snob. Kinda like when I watch South Park and I'm the only one laughing 'cause nobody else has seen the movie they happen to be making fun of.