Movies

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Yes you've touched a raw nerve. I hate opinionated snobs who believe their taste is better than others. You might notice my list doesn't pretend to be a list of the greatest film of all time although I'd defend Napoleon, Casablanca and 2001 to be considered. Certainly they are far worthier than Pulp Fiction and Spinal Tap.

Of the 15 you list I've seen 8. Of the two you slag for being popularist, Star Wars was groundbreaking in its day according to most sources. It may not be a great Art movie but it certainly made an impression and had great influence on everything after. As well as remaining popular thirty years on. LotR is likewise a blockbuster of epic proportions. I'm not claiming that it's GREAT ART but a film that the vast majority think is good and above all enjoyable. Surely the point of cinema or shouldn't entertainment be counted for anything? FWIW the IMDB a resource used by the film industry and film buffs alike rate LotR & SW in the "top ten films of all time" which suggests they have some value. Or does only your highbrow opinion count?

So what if you've been a movie buff since 10 or 11, so've I, what does that prove? Absolutely nothing. You repeatedly claim you have a right to denigrate others opinions and taste 'cos you know better. Unfortunately you don't. The thing is you are in a very, very small minority and as such what you think is of little consequence.

Tom
http://www.activesbl.plus.com/RecordIndex.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom

At last I've the chance to sit down and reply to your post!

I think your reply actually says more about you than my alleged snobbery.

Did I say my list constituted the best films of all time? No, don't think I did.

When, in my original post, did I say "my" "taste" was "better" than anyone else's? I don't think I did. What I did say was that it (the list) was elitist, which it is - some of the films (esp the Dreyer) are very difficult to see because they're rarely shown; they are not light viewing and will not appeal to everyone and most people will never have heard of them, let alone seen 'em. What's wrong with that?

I said Star Wars and LoTR were pap - what's wrong with that? I think they are! At least one person, Tim Jones, seems to agree with me on that one. Or are we not allow to criticise these precious cinematic talismans?

What I didn't do was slag those two movies off for being "popularist" (not sure there's such a word, but we'll let the OED decide that one). What's the point of, or value in, criticising something 'cause it's popular? In previous posts I have criticised "Star Wars" for infantilising visual cuture, which is a very different thing. Because it is so popular, I think its influence has been especially malign (interestingly it's been more inflential on studios and the commercial/marketing/merchandising sides of movie making than on the aesthetic - which is why its influence is regrettable), but that again is a different thing from slagging it off 'cause it's popular. Is it not?

I haven't got a "problem" with you or anyone else going to see LoTR or SW - watch what you want, it's a free country. But what's wrong with pointing out that there are alternatives?

I am aware of the IMDB, thank you very much, I've used it for some years as a resource. But so what if a small proportion of its many millions of users voted LoTR one of the best films ever? What do these polls mean? They don't actually tell you anything, apart from providing pointers about who voted, and when.

So what if 99.999999999999999% of the world's population think Star Wars is great? I think it's crap, and I have a perfect right to say so. Or perhaps you think I don't. Which says more about you than it does me. Again.

Also, how can you possibly call me a snob, an elitist, etc with a straight face when you say things like "surely the point of cinema". What an absurdly pompous thing to say! Who the fuck are you (or anyone else) to say what's the point of cinema? If you thought before dipping your nib you'd realise that human creative activity (what we call "art" for shorthand) - be it painting, music, poetry, prose, sculpture, film - has no single "point" or "purpose". There is no purpose to cinema. It can be entertaining, yes (and it's always best when it's entertaining), but its purpose is not to entertain. Get the difference?

Finally, I saw Gance's "Napoleon" (was it at the Festival Hall?) many years ago when Kevin Brownlow restored it, with a live orchestral accompaniment. While it was undoubtedly a hugely impressive film, staggering in its technical ingenuity and its heroic energy; hugely individual (it could not have been made by anyone else); immensely appealing in mmany ways on all sorts of levels, for me it lacked the depth or intelligence of a Renoir (or, for that matter, Marcel Carné, early Godard [before he disappeared up his arse] and even the little-seen silents of Gance's predecessor, Louis Feuillade). The triple-screen, while initially impressive, is ultimately pointless, like Kubrick's endless re-takes and his specially-ground lenses.
The point is that there's no real story under all those effects, no real exploration of Napoleon's character or the effect it had on the world around him (David Thomson once memorably wrote that it was "a banal and thorough endorsement" of the Corsican dictator). That's not to say it's a bad film, just that it's deeply flawed; still very much worth watching, though (like Griffith's 1916 epic "Intolerance", or even "Apocalypse Now").

I suspect that when it comes to film you are sometimes or even often seduced by shiny surfaces and grand gestures. Nothing wrong with that, but there are more subtle pleasures you know, and some people find those seductive. Nothing wrong with that either. But you should beware of what Tim Jones so astutely called PR pap - phrases like "a blockbuster of epic proportions". It doesn't mean anything; it's not an aesthetic judgement, it's marketing-speak.

Anyway, I guess you have once again chosen to ignore what I have said (I look forward to you choosing to competely ignore my future movie musings) in your rage - or whatever hangup you have – to avenge the slights made against you and all all other decent people by culture "snobs" like me.

I think your posts on this matter demonstrate that you are actually an inverted snob with some issues you need to sort out. What are you so scared of if you're in the majority, as you claim? But you seem like a nice enough bloke.

Cheer up!

Kevin (Grateful Dead: Europe 72)

BTW, I've seen, I think, 19 films this month (only three of them I'd seen before); two at the pictures (including "Birth" which I saw this afternoon - OK, not great); 9 on DVD/video and the rest on telly. Paradoxically my semi-employed state allows me the time to see more movies, but of course I can't afford to - which is why public libaries, generous friends and (cough) "other sources" come in so handy. One of the better ones was "Bridget Jones' Diary" which I saw on TV on Saturday night - of its type, I thought it was well made and very enjoyable (although the music on the soundtrack was very annoying).