So you don’t like classic movies …
What in the hell is wrong with you? Ahem, no, sorry, not the best way to begin. Allow me to rephrase: why don’t you like classic movies? And what do you mean by ‘classic’? Anything made before 1960? Anything in black and white (thus ruling out both The Artist and Raging Bull. What is the matter with you, imaginary person?) Anything they show at 8:00 on TCM? Anything made before 1980? 1990? Last year? I will not buy the ‘they’re boring’ excuse. Tree of Life was made last year, friend. Just sayin’.
It’s one thing to say you’re not a big fan of horror films, or melodramas, or even comedies in general; that I can understand. But to entirely dismiss whole decades of cinema, cinema that influenced and continues to influence ALL of the great filmmakers, actors, writers, etc. of today (that includes Tarantino, whatever else he wants to say), is just … silly. But I’m beginning to understand it, in theory, a little better.
The problem with approaches to classical cinema seems to me the same problem with approaches to classical literature. We’ve conditioned ourselves to believe that anything labeled a classic is boring. It’s something that we have to read, something we have to see. And I’m thinking about the classics that everyone repeats ad infinitum: Citizen Kane, Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, Lawrence of Arabia, Ben Hur, etc, etc. All of which are excellent films, no doubt (except for Gone with the Wind: it’s racist as hell). But they have been overpromoted. It is next to impossible to watch Citizen Kane with an untutored eye now; it has become so ingrained in the popular culture that you probably have seen Citizen Kane without having seen Citizen Kane. And whenever something is overpromoted, or oversold, people react to it.
This happened to me with Harry Potter. I hate the Harry Potter franchise. I tried reading the first book and wondered why intelligent adults wanted to sit through this. And the movies were alternately boring and hysterical; all but the last one, that was pretty cool when Harry almost bought it. But half of my hatred for Harry Potter is the simple fact that EVERYONE told me I had to read the books, see the movies, watch the TV specials, buy the merchandise. It was way too much, I couldn’t stand it. I think I would feel less vitriol against JK Rowling if Harry Potter had been slightly less of a phenomenon. I might even have given it more of a chance.
The same I think can be said for much of classical cinema. Among the people that I know who evince a dislike of any movie in black and white, many of them have seen only a few. As soon as something comes on that they’re supposed to have a vested interest in, they turn off. They don’t want to give it a chance. It’s like me and Harry Potter. It’s the notion of classic movies that bothers them, not the movies. Classic films have been put into the ‘elite’ category, for some reason. These pictures that were initially meant to be popular entertainment have become, through their age and their influence, something that only the educated can understand. Which, as someone who went to NYU and studied this stuff ad infinitum, is quite simply bullshit. Movies are for everybody; no one has a monopoly on ‘em.
If we perhaps take out our vested interests in hating (or not hating) classic movies — all of the shoulds and ought-tos that everyone keeps throwing at us — and actually pay attention to what the films themselves are saying, there’s a good chance we’ll be pleasantly surprised. Take The Big Sleep for instance: a private eye investigates pornographic photos of the younger daughter of a wealthy tycoon, and gets wrapped up in multiple murders while falling for the sexy but dangerous elder daughter. There’s no way that that cannot be fun!
We all have our tastes. I average at least a movie a day, but I know people who are lucky if they get to see one or two a month. So I fully understand if you want those one or two movies to be something you really want to see. The entertainment factor is important, of course, but in all honesty just because a film was made 70 years ago does not mean that it’s out of date. In much the same way that it is ridiculous to assume that everything made in the classical era was brilliant, it’s ridiculous to dismiss them all too. You don’t have to have an intimate understanding of the studio system or Howard Hawks as an auteur to laugh at His Girl Friday or Bringing Up Baby. Some Like It Hot might be a seminal examination of gender distinctions in cinema … but it also has men in dresses and Marilyn Monroe’s breasts. Ben Hur can be fairly dull, but it has a kickass chariot race. Spartacus is … SPARTACUS!
So, basically, give it a chance. If you have resisted classical cinema to this point, just try it. Learn the plot of a movie and judge whether or not you want to see it based upon that … not whether it was made in 1919 or 2010. In a weird twist of fate, you might actually realize that you like Buster Keaton or the films of John Ford. There is a reason certain films are considered classics, and it’s not just because they’re old. It’s because of their continued ability to entertain.
Andrew (8)
Wayne (8)
Josh (6)
John (5)
Lauren (5)
Steve (5)
Dave Enkosky (4)
Jessica (4)
Justin (4)
Dan Heaton (3)
This is such a fantastic article. You had me at “except for Gone with the Wind: it’s racist as hell”.
I’ll confess that I was slow to classic films. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, thanks primarily to Frank Capra’s “Mr. Deeds Goes to Town” (I watched it last week). For a long time, the most exposure I’d had to classic films were Capra films. And I assumed that ALL films from that era were hokey, corny, cheesy, choose your pejorative. But then I saw Sunset Boulevard. And some John Huston films. Then I did more Billy Wilder, Citizen Kane, eventually Preston Sturges, Fritz Lang… and frankly, I could not have been more incorrect in the assumption that all classic films possessed the same goofy moralism of the Production Code era.
Ouch. This one hurt me. Harry Potter almost single-handedly made me who I am today… a topic for another discussion. (And of all the classic films you mentioned, Gone with the Wind was my favorite.)
To me, I think it always comes down to style, wit, and/or suspense. Most classics that I enjoy have at least one of those things. 12 Angry Men is one of my favorite movies–it’s written well and has great suspense. Anything with Paul Newman or Robert Redford has a lot of wit. A Clockwork Orange is very stylish. Just some examples.
I have nothing against Black and White (doesn’t bother me at all). Most melodrama pains me, but for some reason I loved it in Gone with the Wind. If you go too far back, basically any of the acting styles aggravate me. There are the odd exceptions, but not many. I have nothing against the idea of classics–in fact, I spent all last year and am working again this year on watching all the big names (and a few others). I watched 100 last year and am aiming for 50 this year.
But leave my HP alone
.
Had a feeling that Harry Potter would cause some pain somewhere. It really is more of a feeling of over- saturation than anything else. I never felt the sense of connection to the franchise that everyone else my age did, it seems, and got turned off because I heard about it all the time. Although I do admit that I found 3/4 of the movies … subpar. But they did have the Aging British Thespians Brigade, which is always fun.
I think you can’t always compare classic cinema to modern day and expect the same. The acting style may be different – but, take Cary Grant, he is so utterly charismatic that I’ll watch him in anything. But he rarely showed many sides to his character. I’m sure there are exceptions.
Having said that, excessive-acting styles continue today. First one which came to mind was SCOTT PILGRIM VS THE WORLD, I mean, that is complete characature. The comedy is in his OTT acting akin to the OTT acting of silent-actors expressing their moods.
Loved this post. By the way, if anyone wants to see that old movies aren’t boring, they need only watch a Hawks or Sturges screwball comedy. So much story and funny is packed into a quick running time.
Also, completely agree about Gone With the Wind. It’s hard for me to stomach that movie.
Dude, I always forget Sturges! He’s grand; love The Lady Eve and Sullivan’s Travels.
“It is next to impossible to watch Citizen Kane with an untutored eye now; it has become so ingrained in the popular culture that you probably have seen Citizen Kane without having seen Citizen Kane.” This killed me, I was laughing and thinking how true that statement is. Another awesome post that I fail to disagree with. Oh, you!
Twitter: ThatbadassJC
March 12, 2012 8:51 pm
I think as i’ve gotten older my interest in classic movies has increased. I can’t say i watch them often, but i did just watch Candyman a few days ago mainly because i know it is regarded as a horror classic. And my dad will sometimes put on a older movie like Blond Venus. So overall i think i get a good mix of films
Twitter: manilovefilms
March 12, 2012 9:35 pm
I could write a thesis on this subject – and probably have over the course of 5+ years of blogging. I am the heathen.
In fact, less in the interest of plugging myself (which would be odd, since I shut the site down in favor of this one) but in the interest of less typing for me, I’d direct you to this: http://blogcabins.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-movies-made-prior-to-1963-dont-ring.html
Of course, you’re correct in many of your assumptions. I rarely, if ever, *want* to watch a classic; instead, it feels like homework. I have dozens on movies either on my DVRs or Netflix queue that I’ve placed there knowing that I should/ought to watch them someday. They sit there and silently judge me every time I scroll past them in favor of watching Predators or Battle: Los Angeles or maybe watching something good like The Departed or Fletch for the umpteenth time. I don’t know that there will ever be a day that I will *want* to watch them, I just know that eventually I will (eventually meaning “sometime in the next four decades).
Nick touched on many of the reasons that I didn’t touch upon in my linked article. You name the film, I’ve got an excuse as to why I either don’t wanna watch it or did watch it and didn’t enjoy it.
The overhyped reason is a chief one, to be sure, but I also feel like, to a certain extent (and obviously not the case for all), having grown up with an exposure to films from prior to your birth (whenever that might be) is a big boon. I, of course, did not have such exposure. I was born in the mid-70s and never saw much from before then until I was at least in my teens.
Nobody has attacked your response. But I will.
My problem is how you claim it is ‘homework’. If you are saying that you have “all these films on your netflix queue” but instead watch BATTLE: LOS ANGELES – what is the point?
To paraphrase THE MATRIX – you’ve walked that road and you know where it leads … you know the majority of what will happen. You could probably tell from the trailer.
To watch an older film sometimes may FEEL like homework, but thats because simply choosing to watch X classic film challenges you. Its not popcorn and passing the time – its not merely background noise to life. It is MORE than that. Using BATTLE:LOS ANGELES – there will ALWAYS be a film like that – but, again, like your favourite films, there is so much more to cinema. More shocking is, because you love cinema so much, you KNOW this, but choose not to dip your toe in the water. Once you get going, you will find that older cinema is incredible – much better than todays hollywood. Say, with Hitchcock, when I watched a bunch of his films, I found that his films are FA-A-A-AA-R better than the majority of current hollywood.
Finally, I didn’t watch classic film when I was younger (maybe you can tell because half the classic columbs start with “i’d never seen this before until…”) and, to further challenge you, I have a friend who was mocked all the time for his lack of patience with films – seriously, if it was slow at all, he couldn’t stand it. Once, we were watching the first X-MEN, he was walking around and couldn’t watch it at all because he felt it was so slow. THE GODFATHER he didn’t see for years because he simply thought the wedding was too long.
I don’t exactly remember the turning point but, sometime last year, he suddenly watched some older films and then started watching SILENT FILMS. And he loves them. This guy was exactly like you but one film proved the point – and once you start watching them, crap-cinema is not just a waste of time – is a mockery of the cinema that preceded it. You’ll think, like I do, that why will you spend XXX amount of money at the cinema when the best movie-experiences are often cheaper and free online, in a shop or in a rental store. A treasure trove awaits you…
Twitter: manilovefilms
March 14, 2012 11:04 am
I like how you chose the word “attack” rather than “respond.” Very telling.
Here’s why it’s homework:
I know that you are well-intentioned. I’m sure that you think you are doing me (and anyone like me) a service with lectures like these. But you’re not. With every speech like this from you or any other mega-fan of “classic” films, you create a further divide between us. I see watching them as homework because one of the goals for watching them is, sadly, not entertainment or to gain perspective, but to shut people up. So that I can say, “Yeah, I watched Sunset Boulevard, and I thought Gloria Swanson was ridiculous.” or “Yeah, I tried to watch A Streetcar named Desire, but the acting was so horrendous I never finished it.”
I’ve watched enough to know that they’re just not my cup of tea, by and large. I’d never be so presumptuous to say that there’s no way I would ever like anything made before X year. That would be idiotic. But I do know that there’s a solid percentage that I won’t. (You’d think that, by now, this diminished expectation effect would work in my favor, but alas, it does not.) That’s also not to say that I’ll never watch or enjoy them again. Aside from wanting to shut people up, I do want to gain more of a well-rounded education and, at the least, check off the classics. And, on occasion, I do enjoy them, and sometimes very much. It’s just not all that often…
Dylan: I guess that the problem I have is that you’re not approaching a movie as simply ‘a movie’, but as a movie that has been loaded down with expectations: expectation that you won’t like it, expectation that it’s boring, expectation that it’s brilliant, etc. I initially watched Marx Brothers films when I was little because they were funny for a seven year old; not because I was supposed like them. And that’s pretty much the way that all movies should be approached, as far as I’m concerned. We need to watch films because they’re enjoyable, not because we HAVE to see them to be complete human beings. But it’s just as ridiculous to dismiss them outright (and I’m not accusing you of doing that, although you seem very resistant) as it would be for me to say that I won’t watch Iron Man because it has CGI.
Although I do kind of judge you not finishing Streetcar. But then I was distracted by Marlon Brando’s abs for most of that movie, and so I may have passed over other things I should have noticed.
Twitter: manilovefilms
March 14, 2012 11:22 am
I’m 100% guilty of that and fully cop to it. But can it be helped? If I could get my memory wiped of such expectations I gladly would, but that’s not possible. And I’m on record as feeling that expectations are one of the chief factors in our enjoyment of media. I’d love to go in cold when I eventually sit down to watch north by Northwest (which I actually want to do – heavens!
– and soon), but there’s nothing to be done.
I’m sure I’d have better results (I’ve discussed this with a few people – including Andy – and this is partly where Simon was going as well) with classics that aren’t quite so classic – by that I mean “great older films that aren’t super well-known, a la Kane, Casablanca, Lawrence of Arabia, et al.” If I took the time to seek out the hidden or forgotten gems. Problem is, I feel a need to watch the not-so-forgotten ones first yada yada yada it’s a catch-22 circle, and on top of that there are plenty more flicks from “my period” that I’ve also missed and feel the desire to watch more.
There’s really no helping me. Like I said, I’m a heathen.
(A) damn straight im attacking. I know your stance on this and I firmly disagree.
(B) I don’t give a flying fudge about who hasn’t seen the films I have. I’m trying to watch all the Disney films – but I’m not gonna preach about how MELODY TIME and FUN AND FANCY FREE are important to watch – they’re not. But, if you write about films, its good to swot up no? Do you think an essay on Tarantino or Scorsese can be written effectively without any idea about the major influences on them? Film is an art form and builds on the past so to effectively discuss the present – and the future, one needs to look at the past. Its just good research. I’m not SMUG about it, I’m not showing off. I rarely watch more than three films a week and thats that – so, i’m well aware of those who dedicate more time to cinema.
(C) You say they’re not your cup of tea – but seriously, you can’t make that claim yet. You said yourself “I do enjoy them, and sometimes very much. It’s just not all that often…”. Look at the state of cinema today – bloody JOHN CARTER, CONTRABAND, SAFE HOUSE, THIS MEANS WAR. I could go on. They sure-as-hell aren’t my cup of tea – and I know this because – generally – coverage is pretty negative. Despite millions-of-pounds of advertising, when push comes to shove, they mean nothing! There are THOUSANDS of films whereby they mean something and, general consensus, argues how good they are. Reviews are positive. Why gamble your precious time and money on films which you only know about because of excessive advertising – rather than watch a film that is praised and influential for considerably less. Not to mention, AS A BONUS (and nothing more), at least you can say “seen that one”.
(D) Also, what about reviewers? If you are sold primarily on advertising and the odd good review, then reviewing may as well stop here and now. The exposure is clearly what decides whether you will watch the film – if it was criticism, then we wouldn’t be having this argument.
A bunch of films recently on the Classic Columb are simply good films and are chosen for people just like you …
Twitter: manilovefilms
March 15, 2012 8:48 am
A) How can you disagree with my stance? This is one of the baffling things – my stance is that I’ve not had good experiences (overall) with classic films. Not that they’re awful, not that you or others shouldn’t watch them, just that *I* don’t particularly enjoy them. How can that be wrong?
B) Agree wholeheartedly. When I start writing essays on such topics and come across as uninformed, you are welcome to call me out on it.
C) So, since there are mediocre or bad films at the cinema, I am a sheep for watching modern films? Logic does not compute.
D) Similarly, I’m not sure where you’re getting the ideas on what sells me on watching a film. You act as though all I watch are box office hits. Do you have any idea what I’m watching, aside from “not classics?”
Just a suggestion: have you tried picking an actor you already like (Cary Grant is a good one because most of his films are readily available on Netflix) and just going through his or her filmography? Same can go for a director. You often come across some really obscure gems and get past the ‘everyone tells me I have to see X’ problem.
Twitter: manilovefilms
March 15, 2012 8:50 am
That is a good idea. I haven’t done it per se, but I’m definitely more likely to watch a film with Paul Newman or someone else that worked into my generation than someone merely from the golden oldies era.
If you like the Coens, give Preston Sturges a shot. I’ve found that having the thread from the past to the present helps.
Also, Billy Wilder’s movies are awfully fresh still today.
Twitter: agracru
March 16, 2012 8:46 am
Just so I’m contributing something to this thread other than ruffled feathers, I’m going to second/third/whatever Lauren’s idea here. This is actually just what I did when I first got started digging through the endless list of classic must-sees.
Twitter: NeverTooEarlyMP
March 13, 2012 12:05 am
When I was a kid, my grandmother always had old musicals playing, which I loved, and my grandfather always had old Westerns playing, which I wasn’t nearly as excited about.
The problem is that I never paid attention to the titles, so with a few exceptions I don’t really know which ones I’ve seen.
I do think that you’re onto something when you say films get labeled as classics or elitist, and I think that many reviewers and bloggers contribute to this. I’ve always thought that if we really wanted people to get more interested, we’d talk less about them as classics and more about their interesting stories, the way we do with modern films.
There may be hope, though. If the recent trend of re-releasing films continues then it won’t be long before we’ve moved beyond Titanic and Star Wars, and start screening some of the old classics in theaters. If the studios would be able to put some advertising behind them, I can imagine that some of them would do well.
DIAL M FOR MURDER in 3D… thats what I want!
Twitter: fandangogroover
March 13, 2012 12:28 pm
I am not your target audience for this post in that I love older films, Some Like it Hot is probably my all time favourite movie,
Having discussed the subject with Dylan on the Milfcast, I don’t think he is the heathen he claims to be. He just like his partner in crime Kai actually like some classic movies when they get around to seeing them, they just aren’t that interested in seeing them. That I think is where the problem lies, we are conditioned by media and advertising to dispose of and disregard the past. New is always better: get rid of your vinyl, CD’s are the new thing, get rid of your CD’s MP3 is the way to go. Actually vinyl records still sound pretty good! Same with mobile phones, as soon as you contract is up trade it in for the new model. Why are you wearing those shoes they are so last year! The problem isn’t with the movies it is our indoctrinated mindset, that is the problem. Then you have all the hype, I saw Citizen Kane when I was about 14 and loved it but went in with no knowledge or expectation other than “this is supposed to be a good film”. If you leave it until you are in your 20’s or 20’s it will be built up so much that no film could live up to the hype.
Having said all that, it works the other way too, we are predisposed to be nostalgic, that is why movies like The Artist catch the imagination and that is why people look out old movies.
Twitter: agracru
March 13, 2012 12:37 pm
Anyone who likes movies enough that they write about them– either as a blog staff member, or just through comments sections on blogs– really has no business calling themselves a cinephile if they don’t watch classic films. Harsh, maybe, but true. Maybe you don’t have to like them, because there’s a difference between liking a movie and appreciating it, but you really need to know the essentials if you want to be a film writer. They’re the building blocks of the medium that have helped lead to the movies you’re watching today. Even if only as a scholarly exercise you owe it to yourself to brush up and watch them.
For anyone else whose interest is just casual– I don’t really care. I don’t lecture or admonish people who haven’t seen F For Fake just as I’d expect to avoid the same treatment for not watching the World Series back when I was, say, ten. People with different interests are going to pursue different things. I don’t expect my coworkers to be able to talk to me about Jean-Pierre Melville’s oeuvre just as I don’t expect to be able to keep up in their conversations about the Super Bowl or the Olympics.
Of course, on that same token, I tend to ignore people who don’t respect classics but try to wield some sort of authority over me in discussions about film, no matter how cursory or entrenched their interest in the medium is. Don’t talk to me about surrealism while poo-pooing 8&1/2 as a “stupid and badly made” film.
PS: Poor Harry Potter. Maybe that’s why I hate Twilight. Then again, maybe it’s because reading Meyer’s writing is like peering into the mind of a close-to-40 woman who’s stuck in a mentally stunted teenage phase. At least Rowling doesn’t use the word “eyes” more than “the” across four total novels.
re: your point on being unable to label yourself a cinephile for not liking older films. Could you argue the other side of that? There are plenty of people who watch nothing but classics and barely any of the new stuff because they saw a few and didn’t like it. Yet they call themselves cinephiles and are, even moreso, left untouched. It’s only when people don’t watch classics that they are not considered true film fans. Yet people who watch ONLY classics seem to be the “best” film fan.
Twitter: agracru
March 13, 2012 1:30 pm
Well, I’d reject that notion outright as well. If you’re a real cinephile you devour film from any era, any genre, any director, with any actors. (Acknowledging that not everyone is up for watching, say, The Human Centipede 2 or movies of that sort. Everyone will have their exceptions.)
So if you just watch the classics and ignore stuff that’s released now…well, great, you like the classics. But there’s a ton of stuff worth watching being made today too. I’m not familiar with the ideology behind foregoing contemporary releases in favor of the essentials, so I can’t really speak to it, but I think that’s just as much of a mistake.
I’m not certain that there’s any prerequisite for being a cinephile except to really, really like movies. But I do agree that you need to have open mind about them. Summarily rejecting a film because of the date it was made, or the genre it’s in, is definitely not … cinephilic? (That sounds like a disease). It’s kind of like being a literature major and saying you don’t read books written before 1960. That’s just ridiculous. You can never have a good grasp on contemporary cinema without having some knowledge of what came before, even if you wind up not liking it.
Oh, Potter is much better written than Twilight. I hate Harry Potter mostly because it’s been overexposed; I hate Twilight because it’s effing awful.
Twitter: fandangogroover
March 14, 2012 11:08 am
I love movies from all era’s and write about them but have never referred to myself as a “cinephile”.
As for who can call themselves a cinephile, I’m not convinced by Andrew’s argument. Someone may have a passionate interest in a genre or era of film for example: silent film, French new wave cinema or horror movies, are they not entitled to call themselves a cinephile because they are not interested in or converse with the blockbusters of Messrs Cameron and Bay.
Twitter: agracru
March 14, 2012 8:39 pm
Lauren– I agree. But if you really, really like movies, then it stands to reason you’re not prejudiced against movies of certain makes, models, or eras. If a person really, really likes movies, then none of that window dressing should get in their way, though you clearly are in the same place on the matter as I am. The literature comparison is apt. Couldn’t have put it better myself.
Andy– I hope I don’t sound combative, but no, they’re not. Look at it this way: I wouldn’t call myself a sports fanatic for liking baseball. I’d just say I like baseball. Similarly, the guy who devours horror movies but avoids most everything else as a rule is a horror aficionado, but I wouldn’t call that person a cinephile because “cinephile”‘s very definition speaks to broader, not specialized, appreciation.
I think Peter Bogdanovich said it best when he said, “There are no such things as old movie. Only movies you’ve seen and movies you haven’t.”
Brilliant post! At least here on MAN I LOVE FILMS they have a weekly post dedicated to it.
What I love the most about watching them now is working out WHY they are classics. There is always a reason and often that, in itself, is fascinating.
Then there are some films which are such huge influences on current cinema its shocking.
Then there are finding those little nuggets of inspiration when told of what inspired what – e.g. SHUTTER ISLAND and THE RED SHOES … and SHOCK CORRIDOR … when you watch the films, you realise how Scorsese is such a brilliant filmmaker.
Great, great post! Which, ironically, I considered writing myself for the site but failed to actually do!
with the deluge of readily available films from silents to new releases, on DVD, TV or the internet, the selections are practically limitless. Anybody can watch whatever they want.
Twitter: NeverTooEarlyMP
March 14, 2012 10:02 pm
I really liked Lauren’s original post because it was an ENCOURAGEMENT toward seeing older films, and tried to focus on the stories that they tell, rather than shaming people into it (what Dylan described as homework).
But since we’ve gone to the extreme of deciding who is or is not a true “cinephile,” I must offer this in jest: A true cinephile sees movies as they were meant to be seen: In a theater, on the big screen. Ergo, with the few exceptions where they replay Casablanca at my local cineplex, a young (or youngish) cinephile like myself will reject the bastardization of the medium that has come with the advent of tv/vcr/dvd/blueray/etc.
Those who watch the classics today aren’t “cinephiles”, they are “Videophiles”–people who misunderstand the history and purity of the art form. Fools who think that plot and camera angles can be evaluated selfishly within their homes, removed from the communal experience that the director intended. It’s nice that you like your old “videos”, but don’t try to call yourself a cinephile and drag the rest of us down with you. Hahaha!
Twitter: agracru
March 15, 2012 6:42 am
See, I read just as much frustration from Lauren on the subject as encouragement, which I think is natural when you’re writing from the perspective of a serious film lover. I want people to watch the classics, too, but at the same time I find it exasperating to deal with cinema buffs who, say, haven’t watch a comedy after 1980. That’s antithetical to the idea of being a “buff” as it pertains to any subject.
Genuine question, overlooking the jape: what’s “extreme” about arguing that someone who ignores the classics (or someone who refuses to watch contemporary releases, as Nick brought up) can’t honestly call him/herself a cinephile? (Which is really just a catch-all phrase for “film lover”.) Going back to the sports analogy, if I’m able to rattle off Red Sox history/facts/stats as easily as my street address, birth date, phone number, and such, does that make me a knowledgeable sports fan, or just someone who really likes the Red Sox? (Go Sox!)
yes! yes, it does! go Sox!
Can’t we all just get along?
BTW, I’m struggling to resist baiting you Sox fans. I have a feeling that baseball season is going make this much uglier. Just ask Joanna. This is difficult for me.
Twitter: agracru
March 15, 2012 9:26 am
No. No, we cannot all get along. So there.
As far as Sox baiting, that’s an insanely easy feat to accomplish, akin to baiting a black bear by leaving your sandwiches at ground level.
pretty sure they won ninety games last year and got a chip on their shoulder heading into this season. I wouldn’t put money against them.
You mean that part where they self-destructed in such a hilarious and spectacular manner?
Twitter: agracru
March 16, 2012 10:12 am
Most of us kinda saw it coming. Crawford did nothing all season but prove himself to be a multi-million dollar waste of space who couldn’t perform any of the roles he was expected to, while our pitching consistently got dogged down by some truly horrible pitching, particularly from Lackey.
there’s an extra playoff spot this year, I can’t wait to find out who DOESN’T get it. Not that it matters to me, you understand. The Sox are focused on the division.
And I’d rather blow a seven game lead in September than a three game lead in October.
I’d just like to point out that, as a Cardinal fan, I’m the only one that has bragging rights here.
And yet, somehow, the Sox still did what they do best: choke. Choke in the most embarrassing way possible. Choke like George Bush on a pretzel. Nothing can ever take that away from me.
And John does have a point. He wins.
Twitter: agracru
March 17, 2012 4:08 pm
Lauren, I think you’re going to have a hard time getting me to go all yardo on you like most Sox fans– because that’s exactly what I was saying last year. Part of being a Sox fan is being really critical of the Sox. They’re like family. You love ‘em but that doesn’t stop you from kvetching at them for spilling the soup in your lap at dinner.
the Cardinals are due for congratulations. after all, they become only the SECOND team to win two World Series in the past ten years.
Put that in your iPad and smoke it.
Baseball suckzzz!!!1
With their stupid touchdowns and World Cups and whatnot.
Twitter: NeverTooEarlyMP
March 15, 2012 2:00 pm
You may be right about the Lauren’s frustration levels, but for me the way that she wrote it was more likely to convince me to see more classic films. If you want someone to explore films that are new to them, then I think that you want to remove as many barriers as possible for them to do that.
I guess by “Extreme” I meant the same thing as when you said that it was “Harsh, maybe, but true” to say someone can’t call themselves a cinephile if they don’t watch the classics. For me, that harshness is more likely to make me reject your definition of cinephile, rather than getting me to see enough classic films so that I could qualify AS a cinephile!
I guess I would rather say that anyone who loves films is a cinephile and then allow for subgroups within that. Some cinephiles fall into the horror sub-group, or the historical sub-group, or the foreign/indie sub-group, or the new releases sub-group, or the completist sub-group. Your definition only seems to recognize one sub-group and rejects the others. I don’t watch sports, so I’m on shakier ground with the analogy, but I do consider your Red Sox guy a sports fan. Why set the bar so high for entrance into the club, when we could let everyone in and then encourage them to branch out and explore new things as they learn more?
I probably don’t qualify as a cinephile under your definition, because I haven’t seen enough of the classics and probably never will. I’m not as opposed to seeing them as Dylan pretends to be, and I do enjoy them when I get around to them. I just have limited time and know that it would take me forever to “catch up.”
And, in all seriousness now, I enjoy movies more when I can see them in a theater. I wouldn’t actually go to the extreme of distinguishing cinephiles from videophiles as serious definitions that I would apply to people, but it does have a real impact on which films I see. So it seems strange to me that I’m actually considered less of a cinephile because I love the cinema experience too much!
Twitter: manilovefilms
March 15, 2012 2:06 pm
“as Dylan pretends to be” – LOL
Aside from that, I agree with you, NTEMP. And just to settle this the easy way, ye olde dictionary lists a cinephile as “A person who is fond of motion pictures.” Sounds like the bar is lower than anyone is placing it, in fact. People who (gasp!) only watch Transformers and other junk like that and are fond of it could well be called cinephiles.
lol, damnit, Dylan. I was gonna pull the definition thing to settle it. Yet again, you beat me to it.
Twitter: NeverTooEarlyMP
March 15, 2012 5:19 pm
Sounds right to me, and I suspect that Red Sox fans really are a lot like Transformers fans. Hahaha!
this Red Sox bashing is about to cross the line…
Twitter: agracru
March 16, 2012 8:37 am
I don’t really know how to continue this conversation without being pejorative and acerbic, but I’ll try.
Look, fuck the dictionary. Dictionary.com has two definitions that don’t match the one provided here word for word, and in fact one of them speaks to far more broad appreciation than narrow appreciation. And turning to Webster’s to resolve an interesting, thought-based dispute feels pretty myopic. Put it this way– do you consider MICHAELBAYFAN#1 to be as knowledgeable a resource on cinema as someone who does take the time to watch the essentials, the Michael Bay films, the contemporaries, and everything in between (acknowledging that everyone has their preferences)?
NTEMP– the key word in the sports fan analogy is “knowledgeable”. That Red Sox fan with the encyclopedic knowledge of his clubhouse’s history knows a ton about his team, but nothing else about baseball as a whole (outside of how the game works). I don’t care about that guy’s opinion in evaluating the direction the whole season might take, because all I’m going to get out of him (or, being fair, her) is stats about Boston. Admittedly, Boston’s great and everyone else can suck it, but that’s not really who I want to turn to when I’m interested in having a well-rounded discussion of the sport. (As a note, I know little and less about baseball, so when it comes to learning about the game I’ll take whoever I can get. Except for some goddamn Yankees fan.)
Which is why I set the bar high for cineastes. I have friends who know horror better than I do, but don’t really have much experience in other equally great and worthy genres. If I want to talk horror, I turn to them. If I want to talk about Melville or Fellini or Rossellini or Truffaut or Wong or Almodovar, and so on, I’m probably not going to look them up. (Though I might encourage them to check those movies out.) I could call them horror cinephiles, but not general cinephiles, and even then I’d probably just call them horror buffs– and really, being a cinephile is just about being an all-around movie buff.
I think we need to get back to what I originally wrote. There are a ton of essentials that I’ve still yet to see, and a ton that I’ve got well under my belt. Yet I call myself a cinephile because I do take the time to watch them, even when my own schedule’s tight enough as it is, and I will continue to do so because that’s how I love movies. If being a cinephile was contingent on having already seen all of the classics/essentials, probably most of us couldn’t really call ourselves cinephiles in good conscience. That’s not the degree of exclusion I’m shooting for.
If you’re wondering why I’m setting the bar high, go back to MICHAELBAYFAN#1. Maybe it makes me a snob, but I don’t want to be equated with that guy considering the effort I put into educating myself on film both through watching movies and through reading about them.
Look… we’re mixing terms here. Looking at root words, “cine” is cinema or movies and “phile” is to love or lover of. So the word is lover of movies. In no way, shape, or form does that translate to “knowledgeable about movies.”
If you want to say that, the term y’all are looking for is aficionado. So while all of you are arguing whether or not you’re all cinephiles because you love Billy Wilder or Michael Bay, you’re making the wrong argument. If you love movies, good or bad, old or new, you’re a cinephile. If you’re obsessed with all things movies and are knowledgeable about them, you’re a movie aficionado. These things are not interchangeable.
OK, we’ve descended to arguing semantics. Cinephile, cineaste, movie-lover, what-have-you. We all dig movies.
You know what? Nick is right here. My 8-year-old daughter is a cinephile because she loves movies. It really doesn’t matter to her if she watches a direct-to-video Scooby Doo movie or Modern Times for the fifth time. She loves them, and that makes her a cinephile. In fact, you admit the same at the end there–”we all dig movies.” Yep. Doesn’t mean we know squat, though.
Know what I dig? Sushi. Know what I know about it? It’s delicious. I’m still a sushiphile because I like it.
Please, please, please, don’t denigrate semantics with pejorative use. Without semantics, communication would be nearly impossible. /linguist
Twitter: agracru
March 16, 2012 10:20 am
Look… we’re mixing terms here.
Right, like I said earlier,
Genuine question, overlooking the jape: what’s “extreme” about arguing that someone who ignores the classics (or someone who refuses to watch contemporary releases, as Nick brought up) can’t honestly call him/herself a cinephile? (Which is really just a catch-all phrase for “film lover”.)
After a point it’s just easier to keep on using the word that’s causing the dispute in the first place. That said, you might be right about the roots of cinephile, but the word does indicate “passionate interest”, though if you really want to dig past its etymology, one might argue that there’s no such thing as a single sort of “cinephilia”, just forms and periods of it, hence my bolded comment above. Again, my point is that if you’re a film lover of any sort, and especially if you write about films, you’re doing yourself a disservice by denying yourself opportunity to watch classics/essentials/staples/masterpieces/etc.
Andrew’s right.
SJ, was just tryin’ to lighten the mood here at the Ponderosa. I honestly don’t think that digging to the roots of the word is going to solve the question of whether we get to be in this club or that. I am, however, very excited that my little article has received so much attention. And apparently so much argument.
Semantics aside, “cinephile” is a loaded term that has historically meant something specific, and distinct from someone who simply loves going to the cineplex every week. It’s attached to a specific cinema culture that grew up in the ’60s and ’70s, from which we get the French New Wave, New Hollywood, and the golden age of film criticism. (I just happened to be reading this article today that better formulated what this conversation has been hazily bringing up in my brain – a fortuitous confluence of GReader consumption – http://www.filmlinc.com/blog/entry/all-that-heaven-allows-what-is-or-was-cinephilia-part-one)
Those cinephiles were voracious, watching anything and everything. That didn’t mean they didn’t have strong opinions or that they liked everything they saw – clearly they didn’t, and they were quite outspoken when they didn’t, even if what they were speaking against was very popular and lauded, even among other cinephiles. Certainly I don’t think that means you have to know everything about everything (that’s obviously impossible, as Andrew stated), but I do think the term suggests a lack of prejudice based on ANYTHING. Steve, your daughter is a cinephile not because she knows everything about what she’s watching or has an academic interest in it, but because she’s equally open to Scooby-Doo and Modern Times. Now, if she loved every Scooby-Doo video and refused to watch Modern Times on the basis that it’s black and white and OLD, I wouldn’t class her as a cinephile, but a Scooby-Doo-phile.
And vice-versa is also true – I hang out in the classic blogosphere a good bit, and while I enjoy it a lot, I also find a good many people who have just the same prejudice towards new movies that some of us have towards old ones, and that’s not cinephilia, either. Cinephilia is not just love of movies, but love of cinema itself, with the requisite openness to different eras, countries, styles, genres, and forms that takes. Not that you’re necessarily going to love each individual instance of cinema. But loving the whole means you can’t discount any part of it out of hand.
Twitter: agracru
March 16, 2012 11:22 am
Also, just leaving this here so that my intentions are 100% crystal:
I really like all of the people in this thread, and if it seems like I’m attacking or disdaining anyone, I apologize. Truly. If I need to dispel that view any further, then look at it this way– if I didn’t put stock in what you all think, I wouldn’t continue posting in this discussion.
Basically, thanks for a spirited back-and-forth on the nature of our shared film love.
No comment.
-Jason
I’m with you all the way, Lauren.
I caught Modern Times last night with a full audience (a lot of them clearly hadn’t seen it before), and it was so joyous, seeing all these people, of all ages, caught up in wonder and glee at Chaplin’s antics and pathos. I’ve always loved the classics; experiences like that remind me why.
When I was a kid, we had a rule in my house regarding dinner. You had to try something five times. If you didn’t like it after the fifth time, you never had to eat it again. Tastes, after all, change over time. What you don’t like one day you discover is something you do like a year later. It’s why I still don’t eat cooked cauliflower.
Anyway, the same thing works for many things. I, for instance, have seen more than five stage musicals. I don’t like them, and so I don’t go to them any more (and yes, I’ve seen “great” ones done by professional casts). I’ve determined that it’s something I dislike, and so I have decided not to spend my time on it any more.
What, really, is so terrible about someone saying the same thing about a style or era of film? They should like it because you do?
I love movies. I watch movies of all genres and from all eras. But if someone comes to me and says they don’t like a particular genre or style or era–and they’ve watched at least a few to form that opinion–who am I to say that they should make themselves watch more? Does that leave a gap in his or her knowledge? Of course it does. Are you without similar gaps?
If we’re suggesting that to be a good cinephile is to be at least aware of everything, how aware are you of Bollywood, Asian horror, film noir, Italian neo-realism, Russian silent montage, and the works of Bruce Conner, Ken Anger, and Jan Svankmajer? If I named someone or something you don’t know, are you a bad cinephile?
Life’s too short.
Twitter: agracru
March 16, 2012 11:00 am
They should like it because you do?
Like I said earlier, there’s a difference between liking something and appreciating/knowing about something. I’ve watched classic movies I don’t like, but as a film writer that’s still valuable no matter how you cut it.
So no, a person with a vested interest in film shouldn’t watch classics because I/others like them. They should watch classics– and Bollywood films, and Asian horror films, and Italian neo-realism, and film noir, and Korean action films, and the works of Conner, Anger, Svankmajer, Seijun, Lean, Loach, Kiarostami, Skjoldbjærg, Dassin, and so on– so that they can close those gaps of knowledge and build a better understanding of craft, technique, history, and aesthetics. If they have that vested interest. If film love is just casual to you, then yeah, as I said before, watch whatever the hell you want.
Not knowing doesn’t make you a bad (insert catch-all phrase for “film lover”). Knowing and not caring, though, that’s a different story.
What Andrew said.
Steve, you don’t claim to be a stage-musical-phile (unless you do, and I don’t know about it). You claim to be a cinephile, and that you definitely are. You cover as wide a range of cinema on your blog as anyone I know, and with openness and fairness.
As far as your list, the only ones I’m not familiar with are Conner and Anger (and I’ve heard of Anger, just not seen anything by him). But I’m certainly not against seeing anything they’ve done, I just haven’t had the opportunity. It’s not a question of a lack of knowledge – everyone has blind spots, no matter how much they’ve seen. it’s the unwillingness to expand your knowledge given the opportunity. I have a gazillion blind spots – so many I have to prioritize, and yes, I prioritize partially based on my personal likes and dislikes, but I’m also going to try to throw in some other stuff, as well, to expand my horizons. And I actually think I am sort of a bad cinephile – there are so many people who manage a much wider and deeper range of films than I do, and I may never reach their level. But it’s something I aspire to.
Twitter: agracru
March 16, 2012 11:20 am
Frankly, the desire to close those gaps, I think, is the surest sign of someone’s love for film, even moreso than having already closed them.
Which takes us back to Dylan’s argument. It’s not that he is against them (in fact, he even said he’s open to seeing quite a few). However, he is, as Jandy said, prioritizing his film watching based on personal likes and dislikes.
So does this make him less of a cinephile, as was stated earlier, or a cinephile like the rest of us, as stated here?
(I don’t mean to speak for Dylan. I’m just using his argument as a podium for a grander question.)
I see where y’all are going. I just don’t agree. And we’re going to go with another food/drink analogy here.
I am a tea drinker. I don’t drink coffee. Mostly, I don’t drink coffee because I think it tastes awful.
Now, if all of the various coffees in the world were laid end to end, I’ve probably sampled .1% of them. I’ve had some of this, some of that, and mostly none at all.
But I don’t feel like I need to keep trying coffee to fill in the “gaps” in my coffee knowledge. I hate the taste, and it doesn’t matter if it’s a Kona blend or a Sumatran roast, it tastes like burnt ass to me. So I don’t drink it, regardless of which of the infinite varieties it is.
Sure, this means that I can’t claim to love coffee or claim to be an expert in coffee. But I’d argue that I can still claim to be a lover of food despite my dislike of coffee, and that I don’t have to seek out a new variety of brewed awfulness just to prove my chops.
It seems like you’re telling me that I have to play coffee Pokemon and try ‘em all if I want to claim that I like food. I’m saying that at some point, I can admit that one part of it doesn’t move me and still claim the rest of that wide world–and that in so doing, my street cred is not affected.
Steve, do you claim to be a foodie? Which is, to the best of my non-foodie knowledge, the equivalent of a cinephile. I love food, but I’m not in any way a foodie.
“Frankly, the desire to close those gaps, I think, is the surest sign of someone’s love for film, even moreso than having already closed them.”
I think that attitude is excellent.
I’m saying it doesn’t matter.
Could someone claim to be a foodie and still absolutely hate X? I say yes. And, does that person continually need to subject him- or herself to a disliked food in order to maintain that status? I say no.
And more to the point, it doesn’t matter if I’m a foodie or not–I’m someone who loves food (as is evidenced by my waistline). I can say that I love food despite the fact that I’ll never eat chitterlings again and that I prefer my contact with coffee, pecans, and white chocolate remain at arm’s length.
A lot of this, really, feels like a bit of a pissing contest, an “I’m a better film geek than you are” competition. Really, we all sit at the same big table–and that’s just it. It’s a really big table and there’s room for all of us.
It comes down to a difference in word choice. I can choose to call someone who watches mainly horror (for instance) a specialist, which has a lovely, positive connotation. Or I can choose to call that person a dilettante, which is quite negative. Or, and this is where I sit, I can choose to skip the whole thing and just call that person a fellow film lover, or, to use the term of the day, a “cinephile.”
I guess what I’m saying is that we don’t need to create artificial hoops for each other to jump through just so we can identify how far we geek out in relation to each other.
Are there holes in my movie repertoire? Of course–and some will still be there when I die. Some of these will be because I ran out of time. Some of them will be because I genuinely don’t care to fill them in. I’m fine, for instance, being relatively illiterate in anime. If that means I can’t put “cinephile” after my name, so be it. I’ll stick with dilettante and wear the badge proudly. It’s not worth my time to go back and back and back to a well that has, for me, been pretty consistently dry just so I can describe myself with a word that has already had its meaning disputed this much.
Twitter: agracru
March 16, 2012 1:03 pm
Nick, I don’t really want to answer that question since you’re asking it using Dylan’s words, but prioritizing likes and dislikes is pretty much just a strategy for getting through all of the movies we want/need to watch. I do that all the time. Am I going to watch a Criterion classic today, or something from the last year of releases? And again, as I’ve pointed out before, everyone has their preferences. So if I have to answer, I’ll say “B)”.
SJ– I’m confused by your premise. If coffee represents film, and varieties of coffee represent, say, film genres/periods/sensibilities, then yeah, I’m saying that you have to be willing to try coffee of all varieties to claim not that you like coffee– most everyone likes movies, but I like baseball and wouldn’t dare call myself a baseball guru– but that you’re a coffee aficionado/lover/enthusiast/whatever. Given how varied coffee/film can be, if you want to have street cred on the topic then you need to try more than just the percolated sludge you get from McDonald’s and the overrated beverages you get from Starbucks. (That’s all I got. I hate coffee too.) I mean, what would you say to a guy who told you he’d only seen Howard the Duck, Manos: The Hands of Fate, and The Room, and decided that watching a movie is like having boiling gravy dumped into your eyes?
You lose me when you bring “food” into things. I can only assume “food” represents “art”, which is the umbrella under which things like “film” are stored. And I don’t think you need to like film to like art, or coffee to like food. Now, if “food” represents “film”, and “coffee” represents a genre like “horror”, then yeah, if you try out a few horror films and they don’t really move you, you’re fine. Again, it’s not about liking every kind of film, it’s about being willing to watch them in the first place and at least understanding their place in over-arching cinematic canon.
Twitter: agracru
March 16, 2012 1:07 pm
Could someone claim to be a foodie and still absolutely hate X? I say yes.
Ask Tom Colicchio. He regularly expresses his distaste for certain foods on Top Chef, and yet he eats them anyway. Largely that’s because he’s a judge and he has to, but he’s also passionate about food and, presumably, willing to push his own boundaries in order to find something new or, God forbid, change his mind.
Food = film; coffee = a type of film.
So I’ll take it out of food and be more direct.
I don’t like anime. I’ve watched a bunch and while there are a couple I’ve liked, most of them that I’ve seen have been awful, dull, unnecessarily violent, a waste of my time, ridiculous, or a combination of the above. And so, I do not seek out anime. I prefer not to watch it. I don’t care that there are (quoting many others) “tons of anime that [I] would rilly rilly like!” because my experience with anime has been more than 90% negative.
So, does the fact that I will essentially avoid anime because it’s anime make me a bad cinephile? Or not a cinephile? And if not, then how is that different from someone who chooses not to watch films of a particular era?
It’s really one way or the other in the view being tossed around here. I’m either not worthy of the title or I’m awfully bad at it for avoiding a particular category of film on its face -OR- what I’m doing is no different than anyone else.
If it’s the second case, then Dylan is no different than I–he just has a different focus.
Ultimately, as with most things, it seems that we’re determining cinephile/not cinephile based on whether or not someone watches/doesn’t watch something that we like. If you’re an anime fan or someone who loves torture porn, well, I’m obviously not as cultured as you are because I hate those genres–and thus I am not a cinephile to you; I lack interest in what you consider important or worth knowing.
I say again, there’s room for all of us at the table, and thus the title is either all-encompassing, or it’s meaningless. It includes us all or it is entirely subjective and subject to whim.
Twitter: agracru
March 16, 2012 1:47 pm
I say again, there’s room for all of us at the table, and thus the title is either all-encompassing, or it’s meaningless. It includes us all or it is entirely subjective and subject to whim.
I think just the opposite. The more you homogenize the “title”– which, as I’ve stated once before and several times since in this thread, is just a catch-all phrase for “movie lover”, so I’m really unsure why it keeps on being beaten into the ground– the less value it has, categorically. If everyone could be a police officer, what meaning what that distinction have? (Distinction being a far better word than “title” for the purposes of this discussion.)
Jandy has it right. Genre != period. Again, the question isn’t over liking. It’s over willingness to watch. I think it’s sad that you’ve seen bad anime and written off anime as a whole. Full disclosure– I hate anime too, but I love Akira, Wonderful Days, Millennium Actress, and much of the output of Studio Ghibli. I would never allow my general disdain for a genre prevent me from watching its truest gems.
Twitter: NeverTooEarlyMP
March 17, 2012 2:05 am
“Frankly, the desire to close those gaps, I think, is the surest sign of someone’s love for film, even moreso than having already closed them.”
Ah, now THIS I like, since I still get to fit into the definition. I actually wish that I could see a lot more films than I actually get to see.
I actually understand the knowledge argument too, and wouldn’t dream of calling myself an expert in any of the special genres or eras that I don’t really know about (and probably wouldn’t do it for the ones I do know about either!)
Mostly, Andrew is saying exactly what I’d say, only better than I would, so I’m not going to specifically respond to everything.
But I do think that equating a period of time with a genre is not really a good comparison. There are things distinctive to anime that you can narrow down and easily say “I don’t like these things” and therefore, you’re probably fairly right in saying you won’t like other anime films you see. That said, there are usually exceptions – most people I know who hate anime will make an exception for Grave of the Fireflies, which is very dissimilar to anime in general.
But when talking about periods of time, I guess you could narrow it down to acting styles, or black and white, or silent, but that’s about it. And if you say you don’t like old films because they’re black and white, I better not catch you liking The Artist or Good Night and Good Luck or Pi, etc. Silent, I do understand – that’s not a genre, but I understand it being treated as one. Acting styles, I can definitely see being a barrier, but even that has exceptions (a lot of people who hate 1930s acting styles will really respond to Brando, for example). The generalization “I don’t like old films” is too much for me – it’s much too broad and fails to account for the ginormous range of film genres, styles, and forms that existed from 1895 to, say, 1980, in dozens of different countries. When you talk a specific genre like anime, you’re generalizing a much smaller, more closely related, and thus more able-to-be-generalized set of films.
Taking off from your personal anime example – I didn’t really like the first several Japanese films I saw in general (anime or not). And I’m talking stuff like The Seven Samurai, Rashomon, Princess Mononoke, things that EVERYONE likes. I could easily assume from those experiences that I just don’t like Japanese films and stop bothering with them. But if I had, I wouldn’t have seen Sansho the Bailiff, Good Morning, Hausu, 13 Assassins, Tokyo Drifter, The Naked Island and more that I absolutely love. I’m not saying this would happen for you and anime. But for me, I’m glad I stuck around and saw those films.
Ultimately, I’m of the opinion that declaring one person to be a true movie lover and declaring that another is not simply based on what they watch or want to watch or will watch is destructive. I’ll say only this:
I started watching things outside my comfort zone not because I wanted to join a particular club or so I could hang it over the heads of others, but because I wanted to challenge myself in a particular way. That doesn’t make me a better film viewer or anything else over someone else–it merely means that my choices are different and made for different reasons. You don’t watch what I do? Cool. Enjoy what you watch, and get from it what you can.
About five or six months ago, I sent Dylan a recommended list of two dozen older films in a variety of genres. My guess is that he hasn’t looked at it since. He may remember, though, that I suggested two films per month off the list for a year, if for no other reason then that, at the end, he could say about any genre of film pre-1970 “I’ve seen a couple and I’m done with them” just to shut down this kind of dialogue.
And with that I respectfully bow out. We are now leaping on a damp patch of ground upon which a dead horse used to lay.
Twitter: agracru
March 17, 2012 3:36 pm
Ultimately, I’m of the opinion that declaring one person to be a true movie lover and declaring that another is not simply based on what they watch or want to watch or will watch is destructive.
And I think that equating the love of someone who just watches bad horror movies to the love of someone who watches anything and everything is disingenuous. Go back to food. You can claim you love food, but if you only ever eat Italian food, how much do you really like food? You can say you like Italian food, but calling yourself a foodie is just plain lying.
Similarly, declaring yourself a movie lover and then admitting you have not and never will watch anything made before 1990 puts you in a bind, because if you really loved movies– as opposed to movies made in a really specific era– then you wouldn’t impose those restrictions on yourself.
The real issue here is that many declarative phrases have been put in my mouth that were never part of my original post. Apart from the fact that I feel like I’m playing a really transformative game of telephone, it’s kind of exhausting having to re-state my intentions over and over, and I’m also not fond of the continuous, wanton martyrdom of Dylan, someone who I like and respect immensely (and relate to as well) and who I didn’t at all have in mind when I wrote my original post (because he at least has given/continues to give classic movies a chance, whereas I’m saying that people who want to write about films and outright refuse to watch them really have no business doing so or describing themselves as film lovers).
So yeah. Enjoy what you watch, but be honest about what your exclusionary proclivities– if you have them– say about your interests.
OK… here’s my problem with this discussion as a whole. I’m not taking sides anywhere, as I can see and agree with parts of both sides.
I take no issue with using “cinephile” as a catch-all term for movie lover. But, semantics or not, using it ALSO as a term to equate movie knowledge is not proper. I can see why you would do it and what you’re saying, Andrew/Jandy/et al, but I also think Steve’s metaphor is apt. I, too, hate the taste of coffee, and I know that no matter what spin you put on it to alter its taste, the base taste of coffee is still gonna be there, and I’m still not gonna care for it. Now, there might be a rare occurrence where some flavor overpowers the coffee taste altogether; if somebody tells me about that, I’d be willing to taste it. But until then, I don’t see the point if I know I’m not gonna like it. Getting back to the point, it shouldn’t make a person any less of a cinephile because they aren’t willing to experience a type of something they know they won’t like.
I also understand what you’re saying about “it’s not about like or dislike, but the willingness to experience it.” But see, this is the difference between a cinephile and a movie aficionado. A cinephile loves movies and will, therefore, watch movies he/she loves. Why would you watch movies you know you won’t love if your goal is to simply love movies? To make this a little dirty (and lighten the mood a bit), someone can love porn, but they ain’t gonna watch a type of porn they know won’t get ‘em off. HOWEVER, if you’re a movie aficionado and your goal is to learn more and gain knowledge about movies, that’s something else ENTIRELY. This is why I say you can’t lump the two ideas together, which is what is happening here, which is why there is an argument.
Nobody here is really saying there is a lack of want. If somebody says “hey, I know you don’t like such-and-such, but I think you’ll dig this one,” I think everybody here would check it out. I know Steve doesn’t like anime, but I had him watch Spirited Away anyway, and you know what? He liked it. Most teenagers loathe the idea of a black and white movie and will write it off immediately. But last year I showed my students 12 Angry Men, and they ended up really liking it.
The point is that, given certain situations, we are all able to like a film in a style we don’t care for. We just have to be guided there. And that’s the problem with the very basis of this argument (here and elsewhere): People are more likely to name-call and say “you’re not a true movie lover if you don’t want to experience these films” (as if loving film and wanting to experience all types of film are the same thing… which, as I just finished stating, they are not) than they are to guide someone to a particular film or two of said style that they might enjoy. Don’t tell me I need to watch Citizen Kane because it’s a classic and I need to see it. Tell me to watch Annie Hall because you know it’s my style and you know I’ll dig it.
I guess I don’t make any distinctions between the terms “cinephile” and “movie aficionado.” Those are utterly synonymous to me, and I define them both the way you define “aficionado.” In other words, even though “cinephile” denotes “movie lover” if you translate it directly, it carries decades of semantic baggage with it that makes it actually connote “movie aficionado.”
Also, even though I know it sounds like I’m making a value distinction between “cinephile” and someone who loves watching movies but doesn’t care about expanding their knowledge of cinema, and I often offhandedly DO make that value distinction because I do tend to be elitist if I don’t actively stop myself (which I try to do), I don’t think it has to be that way. It’s merely a different way of relating to movies that doesn’t have to carry a value judgement along with it.
I have a master’s degree in English literature. I went to school to study literature, learn more about it, and learn to look at it in different ways. I do NOT love reading any more than my friend who reads stuff she likes voraciously but wouldn’t see any point in reading outside her comfort zone. She probably loves reading more than I do, in fact. But I relate to it in a different way than she does.
Twitter: agracru
March 18, 2012 10:44 am
Nick, as I’ve mentioned before, the definition of “cinephile” isn’t as set in stone as you’re arguing it is. Following its roots, sure, it literally means “love for film”, but I think that as much as that’s the definition, that’s not what strictly what it means. Regardless, I’m not the one who’s been getting hung up about the word here, though I admit I used it casually and maybe shouldn’t have used in the first place, because if I’d just said “aficionado” then we wouldn’t be here right now.
Your comment here is also a case of losing the crux of my original post, as I mentioned to Steve above. Again, I’m not the guy who started tossing around “true movie lover”; I’m simply saying that if you want to be a movie writer, you really ought to know the classics and the essentials. Full disclosure on my part– that’s why I started writing The Criterion Files. There are tons of classics I have to catch up, and Criterion has housed a number of them under its name. Ergo, I tune into the Criterion DVDs I personally own and also the ones available through Netflix– disc or Instant– so that I can start knocking them off my list, and maybe find some new favorites. (E.g., you should all watch Le Doulos if you like macho crime movies that are drenched in style, a’la Drive.)
Again, my problem isn’t with people not having seen these films. My problem is with people flat-out refusing to watch them. You need to see Citizen Kane as a movie writer and enthusiast because it’s Citizen F’ing Kane, but it’s fine if you haven’t gotten around to it yet. It’s a different story if your attitude is, “pfft, screw that movie, it’s in black and white/really old/boring/stupid/it doesn’t apply to my tastes”.
Dude… I thought we were done with this. Can we just drop it all already?
I know what you’re saying; you’ve clarified yourself many-a-time at this point. My points were not directed specifically at you, just as yours weren’t directed specifically at anyone here (as you’ve said).
We all understand where everybody is coming from. To continue with what Steve said, we’ve gone past beating a dead horse to smashing it into nothingness.
Twitter: agracru
March 19, 2012 5:46 am
Nick, given the dialogue of this entire thread, it’s really hard not to read your last post and interpret them as being directed toward me in particular. It’s my comment that took the thread in this direction, after all. Believe me when I say I’m not trying to do anything other than create foolproof clarification of my position in a thread where I personally feel that that’s been lost.
Regardless, I would like to see this discussion continue, but maybe in this capacity it’s run its course.
how the heck do I unsubscribe from this thread already?!
Twitter: agracru
March 19, 2012 2:26 pm
/iwishicouldquityou?
What does it say when I agree with the basic premise of a piece, but hate the writing so much, or perhaps I should say I hate the writer’s voice so much that I want to reject the entire premise? Because of this article I may never watch another classic movie again. I hope you’re happy.