# I Watch "Mulholland Falls." Baby Jesus Cries. Then Shoots Himself. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 4, 2004, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547 "2004-07-04T22:08:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/41 "2004-07-06T23:11:18Z")
. . . which largely my point. It pisses me off when someone says “This movie is a piece of crap” rather than “I hated this movie.” Take responsibility for your opinions. To state, as fact, that a movie is crap, is, well, crap. To say “I didn’t like it” is a statement of opinion. To discover something of value in a movie is to prove that there is something of value in that movie. To disagree is fine; not to have found the same value in the movie is fine. To say that it’s not there–that the movie is crap–is not fine. It’s calling the person who’s found something of value a liar. ---
**Author:** ![Kaitlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/73ab20/32.png) [@Kaitlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaitlyn)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/42 "2004-07-06T23:37:44Z")
And you’re missing my point. You keep claiming that a negative evaluation is just an opinion, while a positive evaluation is a statement of fact: > [@](#): > > To discover something of value in a movie is to prove that there is something of value in that movie. No it doesn’t. If I personally found two beautiful women having sex to be of value, does that prove that lesbian sex is absolutely “something of value”? Of course not, it just means I reacted positively to that aspect of the movie. A positive reaction no more proves anything about a movie than a negative one does. Both are opinions, and no matter how well one defends one’s opinion, it never becomes a fact. Calling a movie a piece of crap is an opinion; it does not make any judgement whatsoever about those who like it. I think _Freddy Got Fingered_ is a piece of crap. This doesn’t mean that I think people who like it and think it’s funny are liars, or that they didn’t find something of value in that movie. It just means that our opinions differ. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/43 "2004-07-07T00:03:38Z")
Your example of lesbian sex as something of value is pretty far outside a discussion of artistic merit, which is where I’m coming from. Nonetheless, it’s possible to disagree about whether a particular aspect has value or not without negating the point I was trying to make. The thing that you find value in–lesbian sex–is inarguably _there_. The thing I find of value–the dreamlike freedom from plot–is inarguably _there_. To disagree as to the relative value of either aspect does not negate their existence. To say “that is not important to me” or “I hated it anyway” is to take responsibility for your own opinion; you’re speaking in terms of your own subjective judgment and acknowledging the room for a difference of opinion. To make the absolute statement “the movie is crap” is to place the responsibility for your opinion on the film, not on your own judgment. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/44 "2004-07-07T01:10:01Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Whaa? if you hated it you hated it. That doesn’t make it “crap”; it just means that YOU, as an individual, hated it. Fine. In addition, for things that require more effort to appreciate, it’s perfectly fine not to find, on first viewing, that it’s worth your time or effort to dig deeper. Fine again. YOU didn’t like it on first viewing. Again, that doesn’t make it “crap.” Yes, it does. At least, as far as I’m concerned. Which is as far as any statement I can make about a work of art, positive or negative, can possibly go. A comment on a work of art is just that: a comment on the work of art. Any attempt to extrapolate that into a comment on other people is preposterous. > [@](#): > > I see it this way: you’re more likely to be able to convince someone, with effort, that a piece of art they didn’t like on their first experience of it is better than they thought, by \*adding \* to their knowledge of it, or suggesting an interpretation that hadn’t occured to them, or whatever–than you are to convince someone who likes a piece of art that it’s crap, because whatever good they see in it can hardly be unseen. I disagree with this entirely, on two seperate levels. First, I doubt you’ll often be able to change anyone’s opinion about a work of art one way or the other. Convincing someone to like a film the previously disliked is every bit as unlikely as the other way 'round. In my experience, most people set their opinions first, and then examine the film to find what in it made them like or dislike it. Secondly, and speaking simply from personal experience: I have seen far more films that I initially liked, and then grew to dislike the more I thought about it, than I have movies that I initially disliked and then grew to enjoy. Off the top of my head, I can think of _The Lion King_, _Saving Private Ryan_, and _Independence Day_ as movies that I enjoyed on the first viewing, when I customarily try to suspend my critical facilities, only to find on subsequent viewings severe problems with plot, theme, characterization, or subtext that made it impossible for me to enjoy them anymore. The only film I can think of that that had the opposite effect was _The Big Lebowski_, and even with that one, I didn’t start from the position of hating it, only from being mildly disappointed with it after seeing _Fargo_. > [@](#): > > This is the value of critics, IMHO. A good critic can \*add \* to one’s understanding, and therefore appreciation, of a movie. There are plenty of movies that require knowledge, or consideration, or whatever, beyond what’s immediately evident on the screen, on first viewing. Take frinstance a parody. With most parodies, one’s appreciation of it will be greatly enhanced by familiarity with the object it’s parodying. Lacking that knowledge you’d miss a lot of what the parody is trying to say. You’re right about parody, of course. I just want to ask, since you know a lot more about film and film criticism than I do: do most film critics avoid making negative comments about films they don’t like? From what I’ve seen of film criticism, most critics do not hesitate to call a film they don’t like “crap,” although most of them pretty it up a bit for publication. > [@](#): > > In any case, I don’t think calling something “good” makes anyone who [hates] it feel like they’ve been accused of lying, so despite your semantic parallel I don’t buy your argument. Similarly, I don’t think calling a movie “crap” makes anyone who likes it feel like they’ve been accused of lying, with the singular exception of yourself. My parallel was not merely semantic: both propositions are similarly ridiculous. If making an absolute statement of value about a movie is insulting, then it is insulting wether the statement was positive or negative. > [@](#): > > Most people who thinks something’s “crap” will react to a disagreement by feeling themselves superior, for not being fooled by what they see as the emperor’s new clothes. My amateur psychoanalysis interprets that as defensive bluster–often; not always–for feeling “left out” of the joke, or whatever. Nonsense. If I didn’t like _Mulholland Drive_ I could say, “Speaking only for my individual opinon, I found it boring and pretentious, and generally a waste of my time and money, although I can understand and respect how other individuals might disagree.” Or, I can say “It was crap.” Both communicate more or less the same information, but the latter saves significantly more keystrokes. Choosing the latter approach says nothing about the poster aside from A) they favor blunt speech over lengthy description, and b) they didn’t like the movie. > [@](#): > > Which is stupid. It’s every individual’s choice whether they want to apply specific effort to understanding something that requires that effort; that they choose to expend their efforts elsewhere doesn’t make such works crap; neither does it make them stupid. So, if someone dislikes a movie that you like, the most obvious explanation for the discrepency is that they haven’t spent as much “effort” on the movie as you have? Please correct me if I’m misreading you, there, but that is itself a pretty insulting proposition. Basically, what you seem to be saying here is that anyone who disagrees with you about a movie is, by default, ignorant. Or at least, ignorant of movies relative to yourself. Because if they put as much “effort” into understanding the movie as you have, they couldn’t possibly have come to a different conclusion than yourself. I apologize ahead of time if that’s not what you’re trying to say, but I honestly don’t know how else to understand what you’ve written, and I further don’t see how that can not be taken as insulting. While I freely acknowledge that you have much greater bredth and depth of knowledge than almost anyone when it comes to movies, it doesn’t give you the right to brush aside other people’s opinions as uninformed. Your opinions are not any better or worse than anyone else’s: both are equally subjective. You just have the tools to better explain and defend those opinions than most people. Further, it is, in fact, entirely possible for someone to have applied as much, if not more, effort and attention to a film as you do and still come up with a different opinion of its merits. Value is _never_ an absolute, in any context, and most especially in the context of art. That someone might disagree with you is in no way an indication that they have applied less effort to the understanding of the work in question. Look at it this way: I hate mushrooms. I hate the way they taste, I hate their texture, I hate everything about them. No amount of eating mushrooms is going to change that opinion. No amount of description of how yummy they are is going to make them taste any different in my mouth. Because taste, both literal and figurative, is entirely, 100%, subjective. You and I could take the same film, watch it the same number of times, read the exact same reference books about the film, write exactly the same number of dissertations on the film’s merits and flaws, and still come to _completly different conclusions._ And it doesn’t mean that one of us wasn’t paying attention, and it doesn’t mean that we’re accusing each other of lying. > [@](#): > > But it does mean that those who have found something of value in a work _have found something of value._ Therefore, and absolutely, there is something of value in the work. Therefore, and absolutely, the work is NOT crap. To state otherwise is to promote your individual opinion to a statement of fact, and to call someone who claims to have found something of value a liar. Sorry, but the fact that you think you’ve found something of value in a movie is, itself, a statement of opinion. First, that whatever you found exsists in the movie (maybe David Lynch isn’t a post-modernist: maybe he just sucks at editing), and secondly, that what you’ve found is, in fact, valuable (not everyone likes post-modernism, and not all post-modernists are equally skilled. Just because you enjoyed the post-modernism in _Mulholland Drive_ does not mean that it will be enjoyed by other post-modernists, to say nothing of the population in general.) > [@](#): > > It pisses me off when someone says “This movie is a piece of crap” rather than “I hated this movie.” Take responsibility for your opinions. To state, as fact, that a movie is crap, is, well, crap. To say “I didn’t like it” is a statement of opinion. Okay, but you go first: don’t ever use a statement of absolute positive value to describe a film. Otherwise, you’re not taking responsibilty for your opinions, you’re putting them on the film. It’s movie criticism as intervention: only “I” statements, people! Lastly, for the record, any statements in the above I’ve made about the relative merit of _Mulholland Drive_ are purely hypothetical. I have not seen the film, and as such, have no opinion of it. Oh, and since we’re both in this thread, **Number Six** , I wanted to tell you how much I appreciated your last post in the recent Donnie Darko thread. It was an absolutely perfect summation of my own opinions about criticism, which I’ve been trying and failing to do for years now. I’m going to have the whole post tattooed upside down on my chest for daily reference. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/45 "2004-07-07T01:34:24Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Okay, but you go first: don’t ever use a statement of absolute positive value to describe a film. Otherwise, you’re not taking responsibilty for your opinions, you’re putting them on the film. It’s movie criticism as intervention: only “I” statements, people! OK, I’ll go out on a limb and speculate that this is merely a noun vs. verb debate. Lissener objected to the movie being characterized as “just crap”. I propose that if Eve had said that she found the film “crappy”, it would not have had the same air of finality and not rankled him quite so much. Adjectives are naturally prone to have a greater level of subjectivity inferred than are nouns, so a reponse of “That movie was boring” will come across differently than “That movie! What a bore!” I know we’re dealing with Six vs. Half-dozen, but this debate seems rooted in semantical nuances as it is. Similarly, I can call _Mulholland_ brilliant (which I think it is), but someone who hates it will probably take that as mere opinion, whereas if I announce it as “A Masterpiece”, they will be more likely to take it as some Critical Voice from the Mountain that they’re obliged to contest. So I don’t think it has to do with extreme positives or negatives as much as a simple Parts of Speech issue. Just my $0.02. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/46 "2004-07-07T01:35:16Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > . . . I disagree with this entirely, on two seperate levels. First, I doubt you’ll often be able to change anyone’s opinion about a work of art one way or the other. Convincing someone to like a film the previously disliked is every bit as unlikely as the other way 'round. In my experience, most people set their opinions first, and then examine the film to find what in it made them like or dislike it. . . . I’ve had plenty of experiences wherein I’ve been able to change someone’s mind about a movie through reasoned debate. Or rather; usually I’ve intrigued them enough with my perspective that I’ve gotten them to rescreen it with my perspective in mind, and they’ve come to see what I saw in the film. > [@](#): > > . . . From what I’ve seen of film criticism, most critics do not hesitate to call a film they don’t like “crap,” although most of them pretty it up a bit for publication. Pretty unfair, without a cite. A good critic will tell you whether they liked or disliked it, perhaps, but they’ll ALWAYS tell you why. Notwithstanding the occasion rhetorical device. (Pauline Kael on the \*Breathless \* remake: “It’s crap, but it’s crap on a motorcycle.” But Kael’s chief weakness as a critic, IMHO, was her habit of speaking in absolutes.) > [@](#): > > Nonsense. If I didn’t like _Mulholland Drive_ I could say, “Speaking only for my individual opinon, I found it boring and pretentious, and generally a waste of my time and money, although I can understand and respect how other individuals might disagree.” Or, I can say “It was crap.” Both communicate more or less the same information . . . This is ludicrous. You could say “My sister went to college on a basketball scholarship and went on to play professional basketball” or “My sister is athletic.” They do NOT communicate “more or less the same information.” > [@](#): > > So, if someone dislikes a movie that you like, the most obvious explanation for the discrepency is that they haven’t spent as much “effort” on the movie as you have? Not at all; I was just addressing those situations where that IS the case. In any case, in a respectable debate, you have to back up your position with as much effort as your “opponent.” If I say “I liked this movie fore reasons A,B,C, and D” and all you can say is “I didn’t like the movie because it’s crap,” you haven’t met your burden in the debate, IMHO. The inevitable implication, as in ANY debate, is that you have NOT made the effort to participate in a serious debate. If you offer nothing to back up your position, then it’s hardly your opponent’s fault if he wonders if you HAVE anything to back up your position. Second, if I arrived at a particular opinion through study and effort, it’s hardly insulting to imagine that you’d have to undertake the same study and effort. It’s not insulting to acknowledge your CHOICE not to undertake that effort; it’s merely a reflection of what I went through, and suggesting that if you met me halfway, effort for effort, your opinion might change. And again, I don’t expect someone who’s put in the same effort as I have to reach the same conclusions; I only expect him to hold up his end of the debate. “It’s crap” does not meet that expectation. > [@](#): > > (maybe David Lynch isn’t a post-modernist: maybe he just sucks at editing), and secondly, that what you’ve found is, in fact, valuable (not everyone likes post-modernism, and not all post-modernists are equally skilled. Just because you enjoyed the post-modernism in _Mulholland Drive_ does not mean that it will be enjoyed by other post-modernists, to say nothing of the population in general.) I think I acknowledged this. > [@](#): > > Okay, but you go first: don’t ever use a statement of absolute positive value to describe a film. Otherwise, you’re not taking responsibilty for your opinions, you’re putting them on the film. It’s movie criticism as intervention: only “I” statements, people! When speaking in “critical” terms, I try always to stick to that rule. In casual conversation, I may say something like “it’s a masterpiece!” but in serious discussion I try to present a reasoned explanation of why I liked it, without absolute statements. I know I don’t always hew successfully to that line, but I do try to keep it as a guiding principle in my discussions of subjective matters. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/47 "2004-07-07T03:03:34Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > I’ve had plenty of experiences wherein I’ve been able to change someone’s mind about a movie through reasoned debate. Or rather; usually I’ve intrigued them enough with my perspective that I’ve gotten them to rescreen it with my perspective in mind, and they’ve come to see what I saw in the film. Good for you. You’re more persuasive than I am. > [@](#): > > I think I acknowledged this. Some parts of your previous posts seemed to agree with this, other parts seemed to contradict it. I think, however, that I’m starting to get a better handle on where you’re coming from, and am resolving the dichotomy. > [@](#): > > Pretty unfair, without a cite. A good critic will tell you whether they liked or disliked it, perhaps, but they’ll ALWAYS tell you why. Notwithstanding the occasion rhetorical device. (Pauline Kael on the \*Breathless \* remake: “It’s crap, but it’s crap on a motorcycle.” But Kael’s chief weakness as a critic, IMHO, was her habit of speaking in absolutes.) I don’t see how that’s a weakness. In fact (and I admit I’m speaking from ignorance, here: I’ve only read a small handful of Kael’s criticism) I’d call it part of her strength as a critic. She certainly could create a memorable turn of phrase with it. The one that always sticks with me is her description of Arnold Schwartzenegger as looking like “a condom stuffed with walnuts.” But more on this theme later. > [@](#): > > This is ludicrous. You could say “My sister went to college on a basketball scholarship and went on to play professional basketball” or “My sister is athletic.” They do NOT communicate “more or less the same information.” Okay, not my best analogy. But they both communicate the same basic concept: my sister is in good physical shape. However, neither communicates an unspoken addendum of “unlike you, you fat lazy slob.” > [@](#): > > Not at all; I was just addressing those situations where that IS the case. In any case, in a respectable debate, you have to back up your position with as much effort as your “opponent.” If I say “I liked this movie fore reasons A,B,C, and D” and all you can say is “I didn’t like the movie because it’s crap,” you haven’t met your burden in the debate, IMHO. The inevitable implication, as in ANY debate, is that you have NOT made the effort to participate in a serious debate. If you offer nothing to back up your position, then it’s hardly your opponent’s fault if he wonders if you HAVE anything to back up your position. Second, if I arrived at a particular opinion through study and effort, it’s hardly insulting to imagine that you’d have to undertake the same study and effort. It’s not insulting to acknowledge your CHOICE not to undertake that effort; it’s merely a reflection of what I went through, and suggesting that if you met me halfway, effort for effort, your opinion might change. And again, I don’t expect someone who’s put in the same effort as I have to reach the same conclusions; I only expect him to hold up his end of the debate. “It’s crap” does not meet that expectation. Hold on there, pardner. That’s an entirely seperate issue from the one you originally raised. You said people shouldn’t criticize movies with absolute statements like “it’s crap.” But I can call a movie crap and then follow it up with fifteen paragraphs detailing in excruciating detail _why_ it was crap. Similarly, I can drop into the middle of a thread where people are posting their fifteen paragraphs, and just say, “I didn’t like it,” which still adds nothing substantive to the debate, despite being an unambiguous statement of opinion, and not an absolute. Now, I agree with you on this much: responding to a carefully crafted and considered OP with “It was crap!” is definetly annoying. Opinions are meaningless: it’s how well you defend an opinion that makes a debate interesting. However, not all discussions of a movie are necessarily debates. This isn’t the Giant Frontal Lobe MPAA-Approved Internet Forum for Cinema Auteurs. It’s just the SDMB Cafe Society, and while there is room for the giant frontal lobe debates, there is _also_ room for beer-and-pretzels style “Boy, that movie blew chunks!” dialogue. Which, judging from the OP, is more or less what **Eve** was trying with this thread. And coming into that sort of a thread and castigating (as you have done before) or even gently chiding (as you did here) people for not having enough critical vigour in their posting is every bit as annoying. This is an open forum, after all, and people should be free to frame whatever sort of discussion they want. > [@](#): > > When speaking in “critical” terms, I try always to stick to that rule. In casual conversation, I may say something like “it’s a masterpiece!” but in serious discussion I try to present a reasoned explanation of why I liked it, without absolute statements. I know I don’t always hew successfully to that line, but I do try to keep it as a guiding principle in my discussions of subjective matters. I’m familiar with this line of reasoning in critical discussion. It’s crap. Any reasonable adult should be able to recognize that an absolute statement, when applied to a work of art, by nature can be nothing other than opinion. Everyone already knows that it’s all IMHO, so why futz around trying to shoe-horn “I think” into the beginning of every sentence? It pads the essay unnecessarily, does not add to comprehension, and makes the critic look like he lacks conviction. It’s just bad writing, no two ways about it. This gets back to Pauline Kael: sure, she wrote in absolutes. But that was part of her style, which is what made her a popular and memorable critic. This wasn’t a weakness, because it didn’t detract from what she was supposed to do: give her opinion on the merit of certain movies, and explain how she arrived at that opinion. Anything that does not inhibit that purpose is not a weakness, it is merely a consideration of style. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/48 "2004-07-07T03:07:45Z")
Looks like, while cutting and pasting **lissener** ’s post in my reply, I got part of it out of order. Sorry 'bout that. ---
**Author:** ![Mauvaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mauvaise/32/11084_2.png) [@Mauvaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mauvaise)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/49 "2004-07-07T04:54:27Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Whaa? if you hated it you hated it. That doesn’t make it “crap”; it just means that YOU asn individual, loved it. Whaa? if you loved it you loved it. That doesn’t make it “art”; it just means that YOU, as an individual, loved it. Why don’t you see that opinions of movies, art, poetry, literature, etc. works both ways? Just because you see something of value in a movie doesn’t meant that if I don’t, I’m lacking, or not aware, or whatever. I happen to think The Lion in Winter is one of the best movies ever made. Recently someone commented that it was “incredibly bad” and the “whole thing was stupid” (albeit he did commend the dialogue). While I could never feel the same about this movie, I certainly didn’t think he was calling me a liar or insulting me directly. I could understand how it might not appeal to everyone and didn’t think he was lacking depth or wasn’t aware enough to dig deeper to really appreciate the movie - he just didn’t like it. There’s no crime in that; and it wasn’t a direct reflection on me. ---
**Author:** ![Kaitlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/73ab20/32.png) [@Kaitlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaitlyn)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/50 "2004-07-07T06:13:07Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > To discover something of value in a movie is to prove that there is something of value in that movie. > [@Me](#): > > "If I personally found two beautiful women having sex to be of value, does that prove that lesbian sex is absolutely “something of value”? > [@lissener](#): > > Your example of lesbian sex as something of value is pretty far outside a discussion of artistic merit, which is where I’m coming from. Nonetheless, it’s possible to disagree about whether a particular aspect has value or not without negating the point I was trying to make. The thing that you find value in–lesbian sex–is inarguably _there_. The thing I find of value–the dreamlike freedom from plot–is inarguably _there_. To disagree as to the relative value of either aspect does not negate their existence. My example of lesbian sex as something of value is absolutely on point in a discussion of artistic merit, and I chose it for exactly that reason. Few people would find artistic merit to lesbian sex, but there are those who would. The artistic merit is there for those who find it there, but not for those who don’t. In either case, the value or artistic merit of the lesbian sex is not an element of the movie, it is a judgement about that element made by the viewer. Substitute another element of the movie into that statement, and it’s still true. Finding something of value in a work of art does not mean that the value you found is an indisputable fact. Your finding value in the “freedom from plot” does not mean it is absolutely, indisputably something of value any more than my finding value in the lesbian sex scenes means those absolutely have value. More simply, whether Mulholland Drive has lesbian sex in it is a question of fact that can be answered absolutley. Whether that element of the movie has artistic value is a matter of opinion that has no one correct answer. > [@](#): > > Oh, and since we’re both in this thread, Number Six, I wanted to tell you how much I appreciated your last post in the recent Donnie Darko thread. It was an absolutely perfect summation of my own opinions about criticism, which I’ve been trying and failing to do for years now. I’m going to have the whole post tattooed upside down on my chest for daily reference. My students never react that well to my “schools of criticism” lecture (snoring is a more common reaction). Maybe next semester, I’ll just copy that post and use it as a handout. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/51 "2004-07-07T14:34:33Z")
I was disappointed, Miller, that you didn’t acknowledge–let alone address–what I thought was the heart of my last post: > [@lissener](#): > > . . . Second, if I arrived at a particular opinion through study and effort, it’s hardly insulting to imagine that you’d have to undertake the same study and effort. It’s not insulting to acknowledge your CHOICE not to undertake that effort; it’s merely a reflection of what I went through, and suggesting that if you met me halfway, effort for effort, your opinion might change. . . . This was kind of a eureka moment for me. I’ve never adequately understood people’s insulted reaction when I suggest that with a little more work, they might come to a different understanding of the subject. It never felt in the least insulting to suggest this, and so I’ve never really addressed it. People always accuse me of being elitist or whatever when I suggest this. This was the first time I’ve thought about it enough to realize that the reason I’ve never been able to fathom the feeling of insult people take from this is because _I_ had to put in some extra effort to gain a certain level of understanding of whatever work is under discussion, so it’s hardly insulting to suggest that an equal degree of understanding might require an equal degree of effort. No one gets insulted when you point out that understanding James Joyce requires extra effort; to feel insulted in parallel situations just makes no sense to me. > [@Miller](#): > > Now, I agree with you on this much: responding to a carefully crafted and considered OP with “It was crap!” is definetly annoying. Opinions are meaningless: it’s how well you defend an opinion that makes a debate interesting. However, not all discussions of a movie are necessarily debates. This isn’t the Giant Frontal Lobe MPAA-Approved Internet Forum for Cinema Auteurs. It’s just the SDMB Cafe Society, and while there is room for the giant frontal lobe debates, there is _also_ room for beer-and-pretzels style “Boy, that movie blew chunks!” dialogue. Which, judging from the OP, is more or less what **Eve** was trying with this thread. And coming into that sort of a thread and castigating (as you have done before) or even gently chiding (as you did here) people for not having enough critical vigour in their posting is every bit as annoying. This is an open forum, after all, and people should be free to frame whatever sort of discussion they want. This of course is absolutely correct. I apologize again for the hijack. ---
**Author:** ![Mollie\_Magill](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mollie_magill/32/20882_2.png) [@Mollie\_Magill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mollie_Magill)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/52 "2004-07-07T16:07:40Z")
Seriously, I have really tried with this movie. I’ve read annotations and kept the notes close by and referred to them during the movie, and I still have come to the conclusion that David Lynch knew exactly what he was doing. He was pulling a fast one. That’s right. He started off making a potentially great film, and then, with about 30 minutes left, he veered so far right that everyone had whiplash. My impression was that he decided to make as screwed up a movie as possible, and then see how people would interpret it. It reminds me of a lot of modern art or Andy Kaufman that way. Some people believe Andy Kaufman was a genius, I thought he was a hack. some people think David Lynch is a genius, and I agree, but I also think he has a mean streak a mile wide, and this movie (and the resulting debates about it) would be an example. That’s my _auteur_ opinion, as a theatre major who had to write so many frappin’ critcal reviews it still makes my head spin. My _Beer and Pretzels_ opinion was and remains, "Those two chicks were _TOTALLY_ doin’ it. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/53 "2004-07-07T16:27:00Z")
I had the same reaction to _Lost Highway_. Didn’t see anything in but a middle finger to the critics; “I’md David Lynch and I can do whatever the fuck I want. I don’t give a shit what any critic thinks.” Then I read a couple things, watched it again a couple times, and the pieces started to fall together. It was like one of those computer generated 3D thingies: you have to work pretty hard to get your eyes twisted into the right focus before the picture emerges. But that picture is there, whether you see it or not. I guess that’s kind of why it’s hard for me to take “it’s crap” criticism seriously. With the 3D poster model in mind–I give myself a headache, but i finally see the flying horse; you take one look, maybe squint, and then say “You’re nuts, it’s nothing but a random bunch of dots. You’re reading into it.”–well, you’d be wrong, and aggressively ignorant. The fitting puzzle pieces are there in _Lost Highway_, e.g., whether you see them or not. To insist that they’re not is to suggest that I’m delusional or lying. I guess part of my prejudice for positive criticism over simple dismissal is that you can’t prove a negative; to insist there’s nothing there just because you don’t see it is irrational. ---
**Author:** ![Mollie\_Magill](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mollie_magill/32/20882_2.png) [@Mollie\_Magill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mollie_Magill)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/54 "2004-07-07T17:32:46Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > It was like one of those computer generated 3D thingies: you have to work pretty hard to get your eyes twisted into the right focus before the picture emerges. But that picture is there, whether you see it or not. Maybe that’s my problem. I still can’t see the sailboat. I don’t think I’m being aggresively ignorant. I don’t think you’re being delusional. I think you have one opinion regarding this movie, and I have another. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/55 "2004-07-07T17:49:59Z")
> [@Maus Magill](#): > > Maybe that’s my problem. I still can’t see the sailboat. > > I don’t think I’m being aggresively ignorant. I don’t think you’re being delusional. > > I think you have one opinion regarding this movie, and I have another. [list=A][li]Like all analogies, mine was a metaphor; not the thing itself. “Aggressively ignorant” and “delusional” are more extreme adjectives applicable to a more cut-and-dried situation like the 3D poster. [/li][li]Absolutely. I was talking about those situations when somebody says, in response to, say, an assertion that there is this reference or that symbolism, “It’s crap, there’s nothing there at all,” not to different reached by two different people from the same information.[/li][/list] ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/56 "2004-07-07T17:59:34Z")
not to different _ **opinions** _ reached ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/57 "2004-07-07T22:10:14Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > This was kind of a eureka moment for me. I’ve never adequately understood people’s insulted reaction when I suggest that with a little more work, they might come to a different understanding of the subject. It never felt in the least insulting to suggest this, and so I’ve never really addressed it. People always accuse me of being elitist or whatever when I suggest this. This was the first time I’ve thought about it enough to realize that the reason I’ve never been able to fathom the feeling of insult people take from this is because _I_ had to put in some extra effort to gain a certain level of understanding of whatever work is under discussion, so it’s hardly insulting to suggest that an equal degree of understanding might require an equal degree of effort. I’ve got several problems with this. First off, I disagree that equal understanding requires an equal amount of work. This is a very flawed model of human intellect. Understanding is not quantifiable. Watching a movie X times doesn’t give you X understanding. A movie you had to watch a half dozen times to “get” may be perfectly clear to someone else on their first viewing. This is not only a function of intelligence and education, but also of personality, life experience, and plain old dumb luck. I also feel that, in a debate about a film, it’s poor form to make comments on the other debators. If your understanding of the movie is so superior, it shouldn’t be necessary to come out and say so: it should be obvious from the quality of your arguments. Indeed, from a certain point of view, the purpose of the debate is to establish that you understand the film better than the other person. When looking at a debate in this way, your argument becomes a tautology: I understand the film better than you because I understand the film better than you. Don’t just say it, _show_ it. > [@](#): > > No one gets insulted when you point out that understanding James Joyce requires extra effort; to feel insulted in parallel situations just makes no sense to me. Ha! Like hell they don’t. I mean, it’s one thing to say, “Understanding James Joyce requires extra effort,” but entirely something else to say “You don’t understand James Joyce because you haven’t put in enough effort.” The first is an acceptable generality. The second is an insult. You say something like that in a debate about _Ulysses_, I guarantee you’ll have a fight on your hands. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/58 "2004-07-07T22:30:09Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’ve got several problems with this. First off, I disagree that equal understanding requires an equal amount of work. This is a very flawed model of human intellect. Understanding is not quantifiable. Watching a movie X times doesn’t give you X understanding. A movie you had to watch a half dozen times to “get” may be perfectly clear to someone else on their first viewing. This is not only a function of intelligence and education, but also of personality, life experience, and plain old dumb luck. > > I also feel that, in a debate about a film, it’s poor form to make comments on the other debators. If your understanding of the movie is so superior, it shouldn’t be necessary to come out and say so: it should be obvious from the quality of your arguments. Indeed, from a certain point of view, the purpose of the debate is to establish that you understand the film better than the other person. When looking at a debate in this way, your argument becomes a tautology: I understand the film better than you because I understand the film better than you. Don’t just say it, _show_ it. MY problem with this is that I agree; that doesn’t contradict what I said. More is more; it’s that simple. By trying to gauge how much effort they’ve put into it, I’m trying to understand where they’re coming from. If they have nothing to offer besides “It’s crap,” and make no attempt to elaborate on that absolute statement, I’m forced to assume they have NOT made any effort. Before I give up on the debate, of course I’m likely to suggest that MORE effort–not necessarily equal, just more–MIGHT lead to MORE understanding, if they’re interested in that. Seems pretty innocent to me; to be insulted by that is childish. The response I’d \*expect \* would be either, “No thanks; not interested enough to put in any extra effort,” or “Hm. More effort might lead to \*more \* understanding! I’ll try it!” or “Well, I feel like I did put some effort into it, but I only got A, B, and C out of it, and still don’t like it.” But the default response is “Fuck you, you elitist asshole. I saw it once, that oughtta be enough. It’s crap.” > [@](#): > > Ha! Like hell they don’t. I mean, it’s one thing to say, “Understanding James Joyce requires extra effort,” but entirely something else to say “You don’t understand James Joyce because you haven’t put in enough effort.” The first is an acceptable generality. The second is an insult. You say something like that in a debate about _Ulysses_, I guarantee you’ll have a fight on your hands. You find me one instance where I’m guilty of your latter example. I try, by habit, to avoid the passive voice in writing, but I also try to avoid an insulting tone in artistic debates. That is, I try to avoid the appearance of elitism, because I’ve learned that an awful lot of people will comb through anything I say to find something to hang a hollow accusation on. So I tend to vet my Cafe writing with that in mind. Find me a single instance where I failed to do that and I’ll apologize. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/59 "2004-07-07T22:50:29Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > If they have nothing to offer besides “It’s crap,” and make no attempt to elaborate on that absolute statement, I’m forced to assume they have NOT made any effort. “_Pretentious, artsy-fartsy, self-indulgent_ crap.” ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547/60 "2004-07-07T22:56:12Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > “_Pretentious, artsy-fartsy, self-indulgent_ crap.” Sorry Eve, I apologize a third time for the hijack, but it’s very definitely taken on a life of its own. I think we’re talking general principles here, not the OP in particular. That said, “pretentious” is more insulting than “crap,” because it explicitly accuses fans of the film of dishonesty. But “artsy-fartsy” cannot be argued with. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-watch-mulholland-falls-baby-jesus-cries-then-shoots-himself/253547.md?page=4)