He’s helping others? We’re not talking about feeding the poor in Calcutta here. Movies are just entertainment and watching a lot of movies doesn’t make us special. We’re just people who watch a lot of movies. Let’s not get too high an opinion of ourselves because we’ve watched some old movies.
So . . . he’s a dishonest poser who doesn’t really think those movies deserve a wider audience . . . because he’s not feeding the poor in Calcutta? Dude, moving the goalposts is one thing. Replacing with something else entirely, something not even goalposty, is another thing entirely. Fine, it’s your opinion that anyone–even a world-renowned film critic of decades of experience–who’s heard of movies you haven’t is a poser who cares what you think about him. What the hell ever. But since when is feeding the frikkin poor in Calcutta–sorry, Kolkata–the line that separates posers from non-posers? I await your vacation pics showing you wielding the milk ladle.
There are a million movies to choose from/ There’s no reason to assume from my off-the-cuff list that I have no use for the other 999,990. But Powell can be an acquired taste. Although I was first in line to buy the DVD when it finally became available last year, I’m not sure I’d lead with A Matter of Life and Death. It’s pretty concentrated stuff, and most of the movies I’d start with are relatively low on the “oldfashioned” acting style scale. Total judgment call of course, and it’s a film that should be relatively high on any such list. But maybe with a little prep first, imo.
Understood, thank you.
Lissener, we’ve already been warned so stop trying to challenge me into a debate.
I never said Rosenbaum is dishonest or a poser. What I said is that knowlege of movies shouldn’t be inflated beyond what it is.
[LIST=A][li]Thanks, Mod Jr.[/li][li]You most certainly did say exactly that. You said that his stated goal of honestly sharing movies that he thought were worthy of wider recognition was false, and that his actual intent was to make you * think he was smarter than you. That is precisely an accusation of dishonesty and posing.[/li][li]The post to which you responded with the outlandish straw man that he’s no Mother Teresa claimed only that he was “helping others learn about cool things they wouldn’t have otherwise.” No more, no less. Where the frick does that imply he’s curing cancer? If you don’t have a leg to stand on, making something up just to keep a petty argument going only makes *you *look silly.[/LIST][/li]
(*I know I know, neither was she. Best I could come up with on short notice.)
I have no idea what feeding the poor in Calcutta has to do with anything Rosenbaum said or did. Rosenbaum has a list that he, and others, feel is a good starting point for classic film appreciation. In other words, he is helping others find movies to enjoy. He is a film critic. Therefore as a profession he has watched movies for years. Probably more than you or I. This fact says nothing about the worth of anyone.
Nowhere in his essay did I see anywhere near a claim that he was special, or had a high opinion of himself. I didn’t really agree with the entire essay; I actually thought some of his opinion was thrown out there without any support at all and this detracted from his claims. But, the list that followed is awesome. It is an excellent counterpoint to the AFI list. I don’t have huge problems with the AFI list, but seeing other classic films talked about makes for an interesting conversation. Some of the movies listed I have seen, others I haven’t. I don’t see it as an attempt to be hipper than thou in any way. He purposely set out to choose movies that the AFI list omitted. This is good for everyone. It opens our eyes up to more films we might enjoy.
Agreed with all of this. It’s silly and juvenile that several posters have gone to great lengths to smear what they believe is the imaginary intent behind Rosenbaum’s list.
I’ve never seen it before myself. There are quite a few movies I like on the list, some that I don’t like, many more I’ve never heard of and will Netflix and several others that don’t sound like my cup of tea so will probably not getting around to renting. This is the point of lists like these and not, as has been suggested, a way for the author to point out how much cooler he is compared to everyday yokels. To suggest otherwise reeks of insecurity and reminds me of Sarah Palin’s battle cry of “Elistist” every time someone graduates from an Ivy League University.
P.S. Ace in the Hole rocks.
You lost me at “movies are just entertainment.” Not everyone sees it that way, and being “special” has nothing to do with it. If you just want to be entertained, that’s fine, but it seems like you’re going to extra lengths to smear everyone who wants more out of movies than that.
But movies are just entertainment, if they aren’t then they are documentaries. But this does not mean that you can’t want to share lists of movies you found especially good for one reason or another. Sometimes a movie is nothing more than a great flick to grab a box of popcorn and an iced tea, and spend an hour and a half being amused. I found Big Trouble in Little China to be such a movie. It has no redeeming feature other than being amusing. I found Apocalypse Now to be the most stultifying boring piece of crap in the world, and actually found little difference in watching it through properly and [accidently] mixing up the reels [it got shown on several nights in the long redux form, and it got taped on a bunch of different tapes because we didn’t have a single one available to tape it and the tapes got stacked out of order] There are people on the board that are the opposite of me and love porklipz nao and hate BTLC. Meh - I don’t care what you like as long as you don’t force me to watch it, and don’t refuse me the right to watch what I like. But I may recommend movies because I like them - I love “M” by Fritz Lang, and Metropolis, and the Cabinet of Dr Caligari, and the Dr Mabeuse series from the 20s and 30s. I like a lot of the movies made in the 30s and 40s and 50s. I find The Penny Princess absolutely charming and funny [smuggling alcoholic cheese into the rest of europe, priceless] I find the interminable dance sequences in the movies of the 50s boring as hell though I actually like the rest of the movie [hey, they had several expensive artists and were getting their moneys worth by stuffing a 20 minute ballet in the middle of a light romantic comedy, I can go make a sandwich or something] and you like Sex in the City, Godfather 1,2 and 3 and porklipz nao - big meh to me but enjoy yourself. There is room for all of us.
To you they are. That’s fine. Just don’t pretend it has to be that way for all of us.
Yes, sometimes that’s exactly what it is. Other times, for some of us, it’s more than that; I don’t see why this bothers people so much. I know books can lead to profound changes in one’s worldview, can enhance one’s life immeasurably - why the skepticism I’m getting toward the idea that movies can do the same thing?
yeah, Apocalypse Now is one I don’t much care for.
It’s true that there’s room for all of us, which is why I don’t like the reverse-elitism of those pretending that anyone who holds a higher standard for film than that of entertainment is somehow wrong for doing so. There are different levels on which to appreciate anything.
I feel I’m at a disadvantage here. I make comments about Rosenbaum and people are responding with personal comments about me. And having been warned against making personal comments about other posters, I feel I cannot defend myself.
Nonetheless, a question for those who feel movies are more than entertainment. In your opinion, what are movies? What do you equate them with?
Movies can be a lot of things. A lot of my favorite movies aren’t “entertainment” in the sense of a rollicking good time at the theater, but they’re emotionally wrenching, philosophically compelling, visually appealing. Bleak exercises in alienation like Nostalghia, In Vanda’s Room, or Berlin Alexanderplatz express things visually that, say, a book couldn’t put across to the same effect. Or there are radical experimental works like La Region Centrale that reveal intriguing things about the human sense of time and space. Or there are just plain joyful and emotionally-compelling films like Distant Voices, Still Lives and Opening Night that offer experiences unlike a conventional piece of “entertainment.” (My examples all have this in common: I learned of them via either Rosenbaum or similar critics without whom my life would never have been enriched by these movies.)
I mean in short, the best movie can be equated with the best book. No one thinks literature is just “entertainment” unless they’re deliberately trying to be contrarian, so why hold movies to a lower standard? There’s nothing wrong with watching only multiplex entertainments, the problem comes in when people insist that all films are on this level and that anyone who thinks differently is just being pretentious.
Maybe we just have different interpretations of what entertainment is. I don’t feel entertainment has to be simple. Lots of people are entertained by deep and complex works of art.
You made personal comments about Rosenbaum and what you felt was the intent behind his list of movies. Other people, including myself, disagreed with your assessment. And now you’ve got the sads? Lame.
FWIW, I don’t think this much about movies or anything else that occupies my time. Maybe that’s your problem?
If we’re approaching “entertainment” from that perspective, we might as well use “engagement.” There are plenty of films that are literally tedious from the point of view of a viewer seeking entertainment in a more traditional vein (I’m thinking of stuff like Satantango or the aforementioned In Vanda’s Room, which is pretty much just three hours of girls doing drugs and chatting between themselves), but which entertain through their challenges, their ways of provoking the mind, and so on. If “entertainment” means intellectual or emotional engagement, I’m on board with that.
My problem is when people whose definition of the word entertainment has connotations of escape, distraction, etc.–which, don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love escapist movies when they’re done well–but when people who think that movies are “only” entertainment get all eyerolly and judgmental with people who are also engaged with movies on additional levels. These entertainment-only people will insert themselves into a thread (like this one) just to roll their eyes and snobbishly dismiss anyone who, as an individual, takes movies more seriously, as pretentious, or whatever. This astounds me. These are the real snobs–around here at least–the ones who look down on movies as a lower form of endeavor, incapable of achieving the greatness of other artforms like literature and music. They dismiss anyone who has more respect for movies as an artform than they do. The truly bizarre thing is that these snobs are the ones who are always throwing accusations of snobbery around, totally clueless as to their own snobbery.
Someone said upthread, and I have to agree, that this really smells like insecurity. Someone *chooses *to approach movies purely as “entertainment,” *chooses *not to approach them more seriously, and then somehow feels left out when someone else, someone who approaches movies differently, shares their thoughts about a movie that they may have seen something different in. To react to that with petty defensiveness, and name calling, and hypocritical accusations of snobbery, to me only makes the one doing it look childish.
You like movies only for entertainment? Awesome. More power to you. There’s no reason to insult and denigrate others who take a different approach just to make you feel better about your own. Rosenbaum’s list looks like it’s a little heavy with titles that seem more like homework than entertainment? So effing what? So skip it. Don’t watch the movies on the list. Make the choice. But please be responsible for your own choice and don’t try to assuage whatever sense of exclusion you have *imagined *by petulantly putting it off on someone who’s just trying to share something they love with other people who might love it just as much.
This may surprise you, lissener, but I’m not one of the mutiplex crowd you disdain. I’d rather watch the latest Atom Egoyan than the latest James Cameron. I think Throne of Blood was a better movie than Iron Man.
But I don’t think people who like Atom Egoyan or Throne of Blood are better than people who like James Cameron or Iron Man. I’m not Atom Egoyan or Akira Kurosawa or Vittorio De Sica or Jean-Luc Godard - they’re entitled to feel pride for having made great movies. But I’m not entitled to vicarious pride for having watched them.
I’m not judgemental about the movies themselves. But I do “all eyerolly” about people who judge themselves and other people by what movies they watch.
Are there a lot of people who do this? I’d rather talk film to someone who’s educated in the subject, but that has nothing to do with thinking such a person is “better.” Only one or two of my friends are anywhere near as interested in film as I am, and that’s fine with me. The attitude of reverse elitism seems more prevalent to me than anyone judging others based solely on the films they watch.
I’ve listened to Howard longer than you and raise you. Yes, Howard got more “real” with the FCC restrictions lifted, but he did not get funnier. You pointed out that he’s abandonned the things he did in the past (his myraid bits that made the show a success in the first place).
Give me a week of “the homo room” over a week of Artie Lange rehab stories any time.
If you can’t stomach the old braodcasts because of censorship then you miss the whole point of Howard, and likewise, movies of the past. You can be entertaining even with so-called hand-cuffs on; sometimes even funnier than without the cuffs. Hand-cuffs do not invalidate art. This is true for Howard and for film.