Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 108

Thomas J. · 01-13-2007, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Elliott

Now, is BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN a "bad film" because it doesn't feature gore and hardcore sex or is that "viewer" in the wrong expecting it to live up to standards/rules he has in his head?

I know, right? Hypothetically speaking, am I allowed to say "Toy Story" is a bad film because animation doesn't appeal to me?

You have to judge a film based on what it's trying to accomplish, not what your prejudices wish it would have accomplished. Or else at least you shouldn't give your opinion an air of authority at all, whether it be in the classroom or in this thread. Just say "Antonioni doesn't make my type of films, but I admit that doesn't equate to him making bad films."

Some people are in here trying to argue Antonioni is a bad filmmaker for totally unjust reasons. How can you give L'Avventura 1 star when you're prejudiced against his intentions to begin with?

george kaplan · 01-13-2007, 02:35 PM

I'll just paraphrase one of Woody Allen's best lines here and say that if Brooks really wanted to pay tribute to Bride, he should have written some funnier jokes.

To paraphrase Brook, if Antonioni had really wanted to make a great movie, he should have written a better ending. And I think that brings us full circle.

But since "Great Art" is a subjective phrase, I don't feel compelled to lie and say that's what Young Frank is.

And I will take that as permission to not have to lie and call Blow-Up great art either.

I think I've said all I can on the topic, except that Thomas has me a bit baffled. It seems like the revolutionary aspect of L'Avventura is basically a given for you. Lots of other films have been mentioned, but ones like Eternal Sunshine and 8 1/2 are dismissed because L'Avventura came before. Yet, it's never a problem that L'Avventura came after ones like Un Chien Andalou and Man with a Movie Camera. You've got your beliefs about L'Avventura, and frankly (despite your attack on me for my supposed close-mindedness), it appears that there's nothing anyone can say that will change your mind that L'Avventura is the singularly revolutionary film you want to believe it to be.

Adam_S · 01-13-2007, 04:39 PM

Quote:

I'm going to take what you've written at face value and assume you didn't "leave anything out."

I left a lot out, I only spoke about my emotional connection to the films. Now this is one of the primary criterion for positioning a response to a film, but by no means is it the only one.

Quote:

Adam, also it seems to me that you're using Eternal Sunshine as a movie that solidifies your opinion of L'Avventura. In essence, you're creating your own historical context for L'Avventura, what Jonathan Rosenbaum calls a personal "mapping," based on the movies you had seen up to the point when you saw L'Avventura, rather than based on the movies that were created prior to L'Avventura.

Yes, I find personal mapping to be an excellent phrase and concept, it ties into how I actually perceive, it doesn't have the flattening effect of structuralism, such as the classic langue and parole approach.

for what it's worth, I saw L'Avventura about a year before Eternal Sunshine ever even came out.

I do take into account the historical context of a movie, but that's only one factor within the greater map.

To set aside myself and include only what has been safely catalogued in recorded history as the only viable lens through which to view a film would not be the right approach for me, personally, to take towards viewing films. Though it may be a perfectly viable approach for different personalities.

Quote:

You can compare a film to those which came before it, but you can't compare it to films that came after it and use that comparison as a justification for not liking a film.

Oh yes I can and will when I feel it's useful or appropriate.

Quote:

I'm victim of this, as we all are, even though I try not to be, but I'm also a bit disturbed by it, because it suggests that history is truly truly maleable, or even altogether nonexistent...a scary thought.

Yes, always maleable. Definitely non-existent, but only in an 'in-the-moment' post-modernist sense; few people can always think of history as non-existent (the real world clearly doesn't operate on such abstractions), but it's useful to be able to place yourself in that mindset from time to time. This ties into the comment I made about 'common sense', such as the common sense assumption that history is a dependable constant.

In many ways, your bringing up personal mapping is perfect, Eternal Sunshine becomes an even more useful example. How can 'what comes after' affect 'what comes before'? it's a physical, scientific impossibility and an important poetic device. Essential to Eternal Sunshine's success.

Quote:

You yourself say that solipsism is not your cup of tea, and then you seem to embrace it.

Touche. But my post was somewhat limited in scope in trying to keep it concise. Let me say that sharing is an enormous part of what I was talking about in the post comparing Eternal Sunshine and L'Avventura, and in many ways you're proving my point by sharing your experience with L'Avventura and trying to persuade others to find a similar experience within it, to find those connections that connect your personal map to others' maps.

Quote:

Flash forward comparisons would render much of the Sight & Sound list's films impotent.

I disagree.

Quote:

You base your entire knock of L'Avventura on an emotional response that lies in contrast to your emotional response to Eternal Sunshine

I can see how you got that. But the contrast was intended to clarify to you what succeeds for me in art cinema, not contrast two emotional responses.

Quote:

One, I don't think you're necessarily arguing that Eternal Sunshine is more cinematically advanced than L'Avventura

nope.

Quote:

Two, I'm not saying you can't have an emotional reaction to a film. But you must station and gauge your emotions within the film's historical context.

I take historical context into account, but I never treat it as a constant or dependable gauge.

Quote:

Three, the emotional effects produced by great films transcend the space-time continuum, yes, I'd agree. But it's not fair to knock a film for not being as good as a film that came 40 years later. That's just academically undisciplined. Flash forward comparisons are not acceptable, or else film history might as well just die.

But it's academically disciplined to do the opposite, rewind comparisons? If we never compare modern films with older films how on earth is film studies supposed to survive? From your rationale, how is it acceptable to compare an old film to a film even older?

Joe Karlosi · 01-13-2007, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Elliott

I'd personally say, very loudly, HELL NO!!!!!

If someone watches the NC-17 rated KIDS and gets mad at the film because it shows kids having sex and doing drugs instead of going to church, this "fault" is with the viewer and not the film. If someone doesn't like "bad people" and then bashes RAGING BULL, TAXI DRIVER or some other film with bad guys, that's the viewers fault and not the film. I know people who will bash a film for not having a happy ending. Again, I find this the fault of the viewer and not the film.

I really don't see the point of anyone making a film be up to their standards. I thought the excitement of a movie is going for a ride and a ride that you don't know where it's going to take you. On various message boards it seems certain people have a set of rules for a movie and if a movie doesn't follow his rules then it's a "bad film". I personally find this as silly as someone bashing BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN because there's no hardcore sex scenes in it. Hell, I've read reviews of Universal films where the "reviewer" bashes them because there isn't any gore like the FRIDAY THE 13TH films.

I see what you mean, and generally speaking you know from past discussions that I pretty much agree with you (even though I tend to see all sides).

So then at the same time I believe every viewer is different and brings whatever his own personality is to any movie critique. There are many people who are against a lot of blood and gore in their horror films, so they may watch FRIDAY THE 13th and simply say "I didn't enjoy it; I don't like seeing all that blood". I have a friend who hated NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD because it was too negative and depressing. Now, I tried to tell him that that was the whole point! This was what the director intended -- but when I tried to consider his side of the issue I started to wonder why a director's intent should matter at all, if a viewer is not entertained? I strongly disagree with my friend here, because I think NOTLD knows what it wants to do and achieves its goal admirably; it's not supposed to be a pretty picture. Still, this doesn't mean another viewer is required to say he enjoyed it for what it was, just because that was the director's intent. It can still turn him off, and thus he'd feel it was a "bad" film.

Quote:

Now, is BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN a "bad film" because it doesn't feature gore and hardcore sex or is that "viewer" in the wrong expecting it to live up to standards/rules he has in his head?

No, but I also believe that every critic (professional or not) has to invest a bit of his own beliefs and personality in a review. That's what makes it a PERSONAL review, and his own opinion. As I've said often enough in the past, what's the point of a review/opinion if everyone's is always the same, and if there were some imaginary "correct" ways to judge a film? In that case, we'd all be the same robots, and we wouldn't need individual critics; instead we could all just look in the OFFICIAL AND PROPER WAY TO CONSIDER THIS MOVIE handbook, and there would be the "correct" answer for every person on the planet. There'd be no need for any individual takes on things, biases, preferences or emotions. That's just boring.

Quote:

I personally find the biggest problem with movies today is that there isn't any shocks. You know how it will end, who will live, who will die and who will get the girl.

Hold on a minute. You're sort of contradicting yourself then. If you watch a movie and say "I didn't enjoy it because there weren't any shocks and I already knew how it would end" -- by your own argument, maybe the director intended no shocks and a pretty standard ending. Aren't you judging the film based on what you expected and wanted instead of what the director planned? Same thing.

The biggest problem I think is that some people believe "entertainment value" alone decides whether or not a film is good, and others believe you ought to put your personal feelings aside and be more objective about it -- if it's a well-made film, it's then factually "good" whether you like it or you don't. I'm somewhere in the middle on this; I review films with a little of both in mind. There's no way I'll ever consider a film "good" let alone "great" if I'm not personally entertained by it. Yet I can still give points for its technical cinematic accomplishments. To me, the most ideal situation is when east meets west, and BOTH of these factors work for me -- when I am very entertained by a film that is also virtually flawless in how it's rendered.

Michael Elliott · 01-13-2007, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Hold on a minute. You're sort of contradicting yourself then. If you watch a movie and say "I didn't enjoy it because there weren't any shocks and I already knew how it would end" -- by your own argument, maybe the director intended no shocks and a pretty standard ending. Aren't you judging the film based on what you expected and wanted instead of what the director planned? Same thing.

Not at all. You saying: director intended no shocks and a pretty standard ending is just a cop out IMO. That would be like saying Lugosi meant to give a poor performance in THE BLACK SLEEP or Ed Wood meant for PLAN 9 to turn out so bad so we shouldn't bash him for it. I never said I didn't enjoy a movie because it followed a formula but if you've seen 100 mindless slashers then the 101st one might not work if you're not seeing anything new.

Quote:

The biggest problem I think is that some people believe "entertainment value" alone decides whether or not a film is good, and others believe you ought to put your personal feelings aside and be more objective about it -- if it's a well-made film, it's then factually "good" whether you like it or you don't. I'm somewhere in the middle on this; I review films with a little of both in mind. There's no way I'll ever consider a film "good" let alone "great" if I'm not personally entertained by it. Yet I can still give points for its technical cinematic accomplishments. To me, the most ideal situation is when east meets west, and BOTH of these factors work for me -- when I am very entertained by a film that is also virtually flawless in how it's rendered.

As we've talked about before, this is the elitist attitude where I think the more a person sees the more he will be able to see something of value. If someone has never seen a silent then they might watch a Griffith film and not see what the big deal was. However, if they were familiar with the history of what came before it, then they might enjoy a Griffith film on a technical level. If someone doesn't know what rules something like BIRTH broke then they'd probably be lost in its historical value.

Quote:

Still, this doesn't mean another viewer is required to say he enjoyed it for what it was, just because that was the director's intent. It can still turn him off, and thus he'd feel it was a "bad" film.

If a horror fan can be objective on why he loves trash like FRANKENSTEIN'S DAUGHTER, PLAN 9 or DRACULA VS FRANKENSTEIN, then I've never understood why they can't be objective when it comes to something like NOTLD, BRIDE OF FRANK or PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. Again, these "opinions" are usually followed by a review that goes something like "that movie sucked a big one".

Quote:

That's just boring.

It might be boring but we've both read negative reviews of BRIDE. Did we respect the guys opinions or did we call him an idiot and say we are right? A fan of a great film can always fall back on the film's reputation when it comes down to a debate.

Joe Karlosi · 01-13-2007, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas J.

Hypothetically speaking, am I allowed to say "Toy Story" is a bad film because animation doesn't appeal to me?

See my more detailed response to Michael above. My immediate reaction here is to say you're correct, Thomas, but then I start to consider that each reviewer brings his own personality and belief system into his review. If a person can't stand animation no matter how much he tries, then TOY STORY will not appeal to him and therefore - to him - it may be a "bad film". If you believe that a film which contains elements or styles which do not work for you should still be given a "good" rating, I can't agree.

I also think it's a good idea to try and be a bit more objective too, but it can be damn near impossible for some, depending on the type of film. If someone gets very squeamish at the sight of blood and then gets physically nauseated while watching HOSTEL, and even makes repeated visits to the bathroom to wretch, is this person (presuming he can last the whole movie) really supposed to say "oh yeah - great film! I really enjoyed watching it because it thoroughly realized the director's vision"...? It might be argued that the film then achieved its goal to repluse the viewer (IF that was even the intent... and once more, how do we even know what the intended goal was without a detailed report by the director?).

Joe Karlosi · 01-13-2007, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Elliott

Not at all. You saying: director intended no shocks and a pretty standard ending is just a cop out IMO. That would be like saying Lugosi meant to give a poor performance in THE BLACK SLEEP or Ed Wood meant for PLAN 9 to turn out so bad so we shouldn't bash him for it.

First, I think your answer here could also be considered a "cop out" because I think it reveals a double standard. Obviously you don't agree, but that's fine. You are disappointed with a certain film because you "expect" shocks, but as you've said, perhaps "shocks" weren't what the director intended. It's that simple.

Quote:

I never said I didn't enjoy a movie because it followed a formula but if you've seen 100 mindless slashers then the 101st one might not work if you're not seeing anything new.

Then what if a person has only seen 1 or 2 slashers previously, and is satisfied by the one you called "the 101st that didn't work"? Is either one of you right or wrong? Absolutely not, as it's all a matter of subjective opinion and you're both using your own personalities and rationale in your reviews. You didn't enjoy it because you've already seen 100 routine slashers already; the other person liked it because he hasn't seen so many yet. I think you've just helped me make a great point here.

Quote:

As we've talked about before, this is the elitist attitude where I think the more a person sees the more he will be able to see something of value. If someone has never seen a silent then they might watch a Griffith film and not see what the big deal was. However, if they were familiar with the history of what came before it, then they might enjoy a Griffith film on a technical level. If someone doesn't know what rules something like BIRTH broke then they'd probably be lost in its historical value.

And I still say it's impossible for a person to appreciate and/or personally enjoy in some way each and every great film ever made. There are bound to be those they just don't enjoy or appreciate cinematically, no matter how many they've watched in their lifetime or how "professional" and "well versed" they are in the art of film.

Quote:

It might be boring but we've both read negative reviews of BRIDE. Did we respect the guys opinions or did we call him an idiot and say we are right? A fan of a great film can always fall back on the film's reputation when it comes down to a debate.

We've talked about this many times, and we still don't agree. I happen to think BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is a great film, and in this case I happen to join the "majority reputation" along with yourself. But it would be absolutely impossible for you or I to "prove" that it's great (whatever that means). Yes, I may snidely say that a guy giving a negative review of BRIDE "doesn't know what he's talking about" only because I believe in my own opinion as the strongest one I go by, but in reality I know that he's not actually "wrong" about the film, just like I'm not factually "right". You can't be right or wrong in film evaluation, you can only be in the minority or majority on any given reputation. And I will always question the sincerity of a person's reviews if he always conveniently tends to fit right into the majority for every film, be it positive or negative.

Brook K · 01-13-2007, 10:09 PM

I wouldn't know George, I've never seen Blow-Up. Though after reading this thread, I'm not sure I need to anymore.

L'Avventura, I recognize that it is about the things you and Thomas have discussed. I simply find it cold, clinical, and in its portrait of alienation, I found myself too distanced from the film to invest much intellectually or emotionally. L'Eclisse follows a number of these same themes, but is much more energetic and dramatically emotional, while still displaying the architectual relationships that Thomas discussed. Red Desert too, with Antonioni's experimentations with color, space, framing and a less philosophical more personally relevant socio-environmental theme was a film I found much more provocative. And I agree with Seth's views on The Passenger.