Ernest Rister
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2001
- Messages
- 4,148
a lot of people act as if there is, and for some funny reason, it usually coincides with what they like.
Human beings are self-centered animals, operating out of self-interest. They want more of what "they like" and less of what they don't in all things -- food, religion, politics. Art is no different.
There's a censoring effect. "I don't like it, so I refuse to believe that an audience exists for it." And if you're in a position of power, you can keep films from being distributed (Jerry Perenchio and the original cut of "Blade Runner"?).
Or Michael Eisner and "Song of the South", or Jeffrey Katzenberg who cut footage out of The Black Cauldron weeks before its release. This is the age-old war between art and commerce.
Here's another question for you: do you like the movies you like because you've chosen them, or have you been trained to accept certain types of movies as "good"?
Both, actually. Film school has an indoctrinating effect, but on the other side of that coin, my appreciation for film was exponentially amplified in my teens by knowledge of film history and film techniques. Work in the film industry and private studies have shaped my own tastes and opinions to such a degree that it is hard sometimes to differentiate between film craft and film art. I think that is the black hole people like Ed Wood fall into. His craftsmanship is poor, his production values notorious, and for some that clouds whatever statement he is trying to make.
quote: "There is such a thing as consensus of opinion, which can be relied on from time to time." Yes, if the opinions come from people whose tastes you know and can use as a guide. Sometimes consensus of opinion is just lowest common denominator, which can be harmful.
True, however, if a million people say a certain movie is great, it might be worth the time to check out said movie. That is no guarantee that I will like what these masses are praising -- Shrek 2 was crazy-popular earlier this last summer, I finally saw it and found it to be a juvenile name-dropping exercise in bad taste. Doesn't make me right, I don't speak for the world, I only speak for myself.
Even though there are directors (say, Stanley Kubrick), whose filmographies contain titles I don't like ("Barry Lyndon," for example), would I rather they didn't make them? Is it possible that Kubrick learned something in that movie that translated over into, say, "Full Metal Jacket"?
The crazy thing is -- people's tastes and opinions change over time. When I was a teenager, Barry Lyndon bored me to tears. I hated it. So much so I refused to see it again, even when I purchased the Stanley Kubrick DVD box set four years ago. Just last year, I decided to give the disk a spin, and I absolutely loved the thing. Why? I'm not the same person I was when I was 16. Opinions are just as in a state of flux as the individual person. As you change, your opinions change.
Is our desire to minimize/eliminate the "I don't like" harmful to the artists and to the art?
Well, consider the HTF itself. We as a group have a consensus of *opinion* regarding pan-and-scan versus widescreen. Some (perhaps just a few, but some nonetheless) want pan-and-scan stomped out altogether as it is an alteration of a filmmaker's work. We "don't like" it, and yet sales of pan-and-scan DVDs help fuel studio coffers, allowing perhaps for release of more obscure titles. I think deciding we don't like something is different than demanding no one else should be allowed to like something or even see it, but even the best of us sometimes slip along those lines. If I had my way, I'd burn the negatives of the direct-to-video cheapquels like "Cinderella 2" and the forthcoming "Bambi 2", because I have a moral issue with making cheap, low-budget, child-centric sequels to films against the wishes of their creators. That's different, though, than telling people they can or can't like them, as if I or anbody else has that kind of power.
Human beings are self-centered animals, operating out of self-interest. They want more of what "they like" and less of what they don't in all things -- food, religion, politics. Art is no different.
There's a censoring effect. "I don't like it, so I refuse to believe that an audience exists for it." And if you're in a position of power, you can keep films from being distributed (Jerry Perenchio and the original cut of "Blade Runner"?).
Or Michael Eisner and "Song of the South", or Jeffrey Katzenberg who cut footage out of The Black Cauldron weeks before its release. This is the age-old war between art and commerce.
Here's another question for you: do you like the movies you like because you've chosen them, or have you been trained to accept certain types of movies as "good"?
Both, actually. Film school has an indoctrinating effect, but on the other side of that coin, my appreciation for film was exponentially amplified in my teens by knowledge of film history and film techniques. Work in the film industry and private studies have shaped my own tastes and opinions to such a degree that it is hard sometimes to differentiate between film craft and film art. I think that is the black hole people like Ed Wood fall into. His craftsmanship is poor, his production values notorious, and for some that clouds whatever statement he is trying to make.
quote: "There is such a thing as consensus of opinion, which can be relied on from time to time." Yes, if the opinions come from people whose tastes you know and can use as a guide. Sometimes consensus of opinion is just lowest common denominator, which can be harmful.
True, however, if a million people say a certain movie is great, it might be worth the time to check out said movie. That is no guarantee that I will like what these masses are praising -- Shrek 2 was crazy-popular earlier this last summer, I finally saw it and found it to be a juvenile name-dropping exercise in bad taste. Doesn't make me right, I don't speak for the world, I only speak for myself.
Even though there are directors (say, Stanley Kubrick), whose filmographies contain titles I don't like ("Barry Lyndon," for example), would I rather they didn't make them? Is it possible that Kubrick learned something in that movie that translated over into, say, "Full Metal Jacket"?
The crazy thing is -- people's tastes and opinions change over time. When I was a teenager, Barry Lyndon bored me to tears. I hated it. So much so I refused to see it again, even when I purchased the Stanley Kubrick DVD box set four years ago. Just last year, I decided to give the disk a spin, and I absolutely loved the thing. Why? I'm not the same person I was when I was 16. Opinions are just as in a state of flux as the individual person. As you change, your opinions change.
Is our desire to minimize/eliminate the "I don't like" harmful to the artists and to the art?
Well, consider the HTF itself. We as a group have a consensus of *opinion* regarding pan-and-scan versus widescreen. Some (perhaps just a few, but some nonetheless) want pan-and-scan stomped out altogether as it is an alteration of a filmmaker's work. We "don't like" it, and yet sales of pan-and-scan DVDs help fuel studio coffers, allowing perhaps for release of more obscure titles. I think deciding we don't like something is different than demanding no one else should be allowed to like something or even see it, but even the best of us sometimes slip along those lines. If I had my way, I'd burn the negatives of the direct-to-video cheapquels like "Cinderella 2" and the forthcoming "Bambi 2", because I have a moral issue with making cheap, low-budget, child-centric sequels to films against the wishes of their creators. That's different, though, than telling people they can or can't like them, as if I or anbody else has that kind of power.
