More fartsy than artsy, in my opinion, too.
Well, I can see one place here where we’re miscommunicating. To me, if one side of a conversation is saying “It’s crap,” and nothing else, then it’s not a debate. When you were saying this stuff happens in a “debate,” I was thinking you meant people who actually had, you know, arguments and stuff. Yeah, drive-bys that have nothing to say but an opinion are annoying. But, in my experience, most people who post something like that never bother to come back to the thread to see how people have responded in the first place, so even addressing them is a waste of time.
Anyway, I agree that more is more, but I don’t think it’s a comparative quality between people. Watching a movie three times will give you more understanding than you had when you’d only seen it once, but it does not necessarily mean that it give you more understanding than someone else who has only seen it once. You could still conceivably have less understanding than someone who’s seen the movie fewer times than you have.
I would say you did it in your first post in this thread. I’m not saying this to pick a fight or anything: I absolutely believe you when you say you try to avoid an insulting tone in artistic debates. However, I think, through no fault of your own, that you are not always successful at that. I can’t speak for Eve, but I know that if someone directed a post at me that began with “I’m disappointed in you, Miller,” I would be, if not exactly insulted, at the very least on the defensive.
No, it doesn’t. It accuses the filmmaker of dishonesty. It says absolutely nothing about the fans of the film.
Calling a work of art pretentious does not explicitly accusing anyone of dishonesty. It probably does implicitly accuse David Lynch of intellectual dishonesty. But it makes no comment whatsoever about the fans of the movie, of whom I am one.
It’s a comment on the movie, not on those who like the movie. It’s a simple distinction.
Check out any of my Verhoeven threads; that’s exactly the type of posters who insist on claiming all the attention in those threads.
Please point out where I suggested otherwise.
Well, I don’t use smileys, but my tone was meant to gently chiding, with a smile. More a reference to my very high esteem for Eve as a film historian and critic, and my inflexibly high standards for her posts on movies.
Well, I see in Roget’s that most synonyms are along the *arty, boastful, exaggerated * line. But I always think of pretentious–which shares a root with pretend–as an accusation of dishonesty:
To me, an accustion of pretension is a suggestion that the artist is lying when he claims artistic significance. Therefore, anyone who sees significance in the work is also lying, since there’s nothing there to see. In “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” the Emperor is revealed as pretentious, and the townsfolk who claimed to see his clothes don’t come off very well either. That story is explicitly about their complicity in the Emperor’s fraud.
But the Emperor isn’t lying, he’s deluded–and that is the context I always associate with pretension. It’s not that the filmmaker is knowingly trying to get away with something false; it’s that s/he actually believes there’s more substance to their film/idea/execution than is generally perceived to exist.
This is, of course, wholly subjective, but generally, a film’s “pretentiousness” has less to do with the audience’s reception (which is why it’s not a swipe against them) than with the artist’s failed intentions.
Of course the emperor is lying. He’s manipulated into making that choice, but it’s a choice nonetheless. He’s told that if he doesn’t see the clothes then he’s a fool. He’s so afraid of being thought a fool that he *lies * and says he does see the clothes.
Although he initially lies when shown the fabric, he eventually is convinced that something is there that is not. I don’t think he would’ve gone out in the street as he did if he, at that point, still believed there was nothing there. He allowed himself to be convinced, and it is his conviction that convinces the others to follow suit. Haven’t you ever heard of telling a lie often enough that eventually one starts to believe it? Same case here.
Of course, with artists, I don’t think it’s a matter of duping the public, although there’s no question that there are some “art-lovers” who fall into the category of Bandwagon-Liars, who feel obliged to claim to like something that they don’t really get or are hard-pressed to defend. Those people, I’d argue, are pretentious, but they also are the type to quickly resort to the “You just don’t get it” argument because they’ve got so little else in their arsenal.
I’ve read 'em. All of 'em, so far as I know. It’s damned interesting stuff, and it has made me re-evaluate Verhoeven (still don’t like him, but I appreciate what he’s trying to do, and hope he’s succesful with it some day). I think you’re mistaken when you say those people are claiming all the attention. You start one of these threads, and you get maybe three people who have interesting stuff to say, and twenty people who are just posting some variation of “He sucks!” The people who get my attention in those threads are the people with something to say. The rest of the crowd is just background noise. And, for the record, I think that’s about par for the course for any thread on these boards: a couple people have something insightful to add, and everyone else has jokes or hijacks or simple innanities. Just ignore them. Most of them don’t mean any harm, and getting angry at them just ends up derailing the thread.
Besides, every “Verhoevn sucks balls!” post is another bump that keeps your thread at the top of the forum, and makes it more likely that someone who’s got something worth listening to will see the thread and post to it.
That would be how I interpreted this bit:
Apologies if I’m misreading you.
I did get the tone, which is why I would have been “not exactly insulted” if you had directed it at me. I still wouldn’t have appreciated the comment very much, even though I understood you meant it in jest. Of course, I’m not Eve, and I don’t know what sort (if any) of a relationship there is between you two, so I can’t really comment in any absolute sense about how appropriate that remark was. God knows the two of us aren’t exactly buddy-buddy, so that definetly flavors my perception of the post.
I agree with your definition. I just absolutely and completely disagree with the idea that it is in any way transitive to people who like that director’s work.
That’s as may be, but I don’t see the relevance. In any meaningful discussion of the arts, both sides need to be able to express exactly and honestly what they felt about the work. When you say a movie I hated is really good, you’re not implying that I’m an idiot for not understanding what was so great about the movie, right? So why is it that if I say a movie you loved sucked, all of a sudden I’m accusing you of lying? All we’re doing is describing how the movie affected us, for good or ill. Neither of our reactions is exclusive of the other, and neither is intended to be (nor should be understood as) a comment on the character of anyone who disagrees with us.
The “might” was meant to suggest that any such comparison would vary with the situation. I certainly didn’t say that equal effort definitely provides perfectly equal understanding. The “might” was meant to suggest a note of speculation and hypothesis. If I’d thought it was unclear, I’d’ve reworded it thus: “more effort might lead to more understanding.” Sorry to’ve been unclear.
Bottomlineish, but not the whole story; just a note on tone and reception: “It’s crap!” is *meant * to be insulting; it’s an insulting sentiment in insulting language. Granted, the specific intent is to insult the director, but still. “It’s good” is not insulting, in tone or intent, at all. I think that’s part of the distinction. “It’s crap” comes with raised hackles attached; “It’s good” comes with no negatice connotations at all.
Notice that my complaint on this issue has never been about the situation where a film I dislike is praised by someone else; only the other way around. An emotional response, of course, but still. Personally, when someone praises a film I dislike, my emotional reaction is “Well, I just haven’t seen in it what they do.” When someone dismisses a film I like, my reaction is “Well, they just haven’t seen in it what I do.” This response usually gets me accused of elitism, while the first does not. I’d say there’s a bit of emotionalism on both sides. But, again personally, when I dislike a praised movie, I see it as a difference of perception; I don’t see it as my interpretation being right or absolute–“it’s crap.” When I like a derided film, my approach is the same: it’s a difference of perception. So, usually, honestly, in attempt to share the good experience of the film in question, I share my perceptions, or suggest an alternative perception, I’m accused of elitism.
The problem is the intellectual dishonesty inherent in such a sweeping pronouncement as “It’s crap!” No film can be objectively classified as excrement. You [One] didn’t like it; that doesn’t make it crap. The subtle yet important distinction there is the root of the problem. “It’s Crap!” is a fairly adversarial statement when one is addressing someone who enjoyed a particular work of art. Someone who appreciated the intent of a film and didn’t are for it wouldn’t be so brash as to proclaim it crap (I appreciate that Eve was kidding, I’m not accusing her of intellectual dishonesty, of course). It indicates a frame of mind that is closed to further consideration of a film. Saying that it is crap is insensitive, if not intentionally insulting to me if I’ve already said that I think Mulholland Dr. is Lynch’s masterpiece, and that Lynch is the best surrealist/satirist since Bunuel, whom he exceeds, IMO.
This is unsurprising. It is a reaction of defensiveness at what seem to be implied accusations of inadequacy. A large part of what we take from a film is what we bring into it, saying that further effort might help understanding the intent might seem to some that they don’t bring enough to the film to “get it,” even though that’s not the intent. Trying to convince me of the cinematic merits of Hope Floats the other day, my mother said that it was just as good as some of the crap I made her watch, like that stupid French movie with subtitles about a girl who finds a box of stuff and tries to give it back. “Amelie!??” “Yes! That was so stupid!” To try to say that she might get more out of it by watching it again and trying harder to understand the film elicits the predictable reaction. I’ve already seen it, it was crap. There’s nothing to “understand.” It was stupid and boring. How dare you insinuate that I couldn’t understand a stupid movie!
It’s a lazy viewpoint that has no place in a serious debate about the artistic merit of a film. If you want to say that you found Mulholland Dr. to be a muddled and mildly incompetent pastiche of film references and non-linear filmmaking visual cliches, that’s fine. But “it’s crap!” is insulting just based on the level of the rest of the debate. If you have nothing to add, just STFU. That itsn’t the case in this thread, but it is a common attitude in threads here, like any Verhoeven thread, fr-ex.
Basically the argument boils down to what the standards of the debate are. If you want to participate in a reasonable intelligent debate, do so in a reasonable and intelligent manner. It is not reasonable to stop into a thread where we are discussing Lynch’s debt to Hitchcock and Dali, or Verhoeven’s parallels with Sirk and say “Starship Troopers sucked ass!”
I think most people recognize that any such pronouncement is so obviously subjective that it doesn’t need to be specified as such.
Debate is an adversarial pursuit. If the film’s advocates can dress it up in whatever superlatives they desire, its detractors should have the same right to express their opinions as forcefully as they feel is necessary.
Nonsense. I appreciate that intent of Starship Troopers. I didn’t before, and I called it crap. Thanks to yourself, lissener, and Cervaise, I now understand what Verhoeven was trying to do. It’s still crap. Lofty intent does not make the film any less tedious.
Then why is it not equally insulting to come into a thread where someone has stated they hated a movie, and say it’s really, really good? And, seriously, it’s insensitive to not respect your feelings about a movie? I’m sorry, but I just can’t take that seriously.
How about, “It’s crap! It’s a muddled and mildly incompetent pastiche of film references and non-linear filmmaking visual cliches!” There are two seperate issues here: the contentless drive-by post, and the use of absolute terms in critical debate. They are not the same thing. I can discuss a movie I hate in the most vile terms imaginable, and still include credible reasons for my opinion. Similarly, I can drop into a debate on a movie and post nothing more than “I didn’t like it,” and I’ve just been as useless and annoying as someone who drops into a thread just to post “Verhoeven is teh suxxors!”
And, for the record, such posts are a lot less common than you or lissener seem to think. This thread, for example, has 78 posts. By my count, there are pricisly two posts of the type you’re complaining of. And one of the posters later returned to make a more substantial contribution to the thread.
Now, there were a lot of posters in there who weren’t afraid to call a turd a turd, but note that virtually all of them made some attempt to present a cogent reason for why they thought it was a turd. That makes it a debate, and that’s what the boards are here for. Sorry if some of your sacred cows get gored in the process, but y’know, that’s also what the boards are here for.
No, it’s not. But it’s also unreasonable to take critical comments that are clearly and unambiguously aimed at a movie, and twist them into a personal insult.
The use of absolute terms with respect to a work of art is entirely irrelevant, as there is no objective standard. Use of absolute terms that are as overtly acid and acerbic as “It’s Crap!” are completely without merit, lazy and fairly insulting. You didn’t like it, but who the hell are you (in a figurative sense, not literally you, Miller) to claim it crap as though by an objective standard? What are you saying about me when you proclaim that something that I like is undeniably and irrefutably garbage? That is what is insulting.
There’s a difference between, “It’s crap” and “It’s undeniably and irrefutably crap.” The former does not necessarily imply the latter, nor does it deny that other viewpoints may be relevant.
The only thing I’m saying about fans of a movie when it call it crap is that their tastes differ from mine. A comment on a work of art, positive or negative, no matter how strongly worded, is not a comment on those whose opinion is different.
I’m not offended by someone using a positive superlative to describe a movie I intensely dislike, such as calling Showgirls a masterpiece. So long as the poster doesn’t start using some variation of the “if you don’t like it, you must not get it,” I’m content to assume that the difference of opinion is a result of differences in taste, personality, point of view, or life experience.
I’m going to have to agree with lissener.
The OP makes it very clear they had no idea what they were getting into with “Mulholland Falls”, and were expecting a linear story.
I think we can all agree that, whatever else he was doing, David Lynch was not intending to create a nice, easy to follow, linear storyline.
Nor was he making a movie for people who just wanted to watch it for “Annie-Pie Miller”.
To me, it is the people who say “even though I knew nothing about this film, and came in with absurdly wrong expectations, the film should still have catered to what I wanted to see, and since it didn’t it is pretentious crap” who are truly being elitists.
It’s like it is unfathomable that, just maybe, there are people with different tastes than them, and just maybe movies are made for people with those tastes, and just maybe they won’t like them even though they are still good movies.
I can see where you are coming from, with “it’s crap” simply meaning you didn’t like it.
But personally, that is exactly the type of commentary I think we need less of in our society. It’s not like we are overflowing with acceptance of others’ opinions these days, is it? Is it so hard to say you didn’t like, or disagreed with, something, without having to burn it to the ground?
Strangely, for all the critic bashing in this thread, the OP’s problem could have been easily solved by reading some critiques of the film, which would most certainly not have implied a linear storyline.
I thought I had seen sticks up asses before.
But I had never fully appreciated the length and depth to which sticks could go up asses till I uttered the words “David Lynch.”
Is that your opinion, or an objective truth?
Who are you to assume that I’m being objective rather than subjective when I say (on those rare occasions that I do) “It’s crap”?
Hey, Eve, sorry you didn’t care for Mulholland Drive. I’m a pretty big fan of the movie myself, but I can see where it wouldn’t appeal to someone looking for narrative coherence. That’s never been one of Lynch’s strong suits – although I don’t think he’s ever striven to make it a strong suit, either.
Here is my conception of the movie’s plot, in spoiler box, without too many lurid details.
Betty is an aspiring actress who loses a part she auditioned for. She’s very upset because of this, and in her mind constructs an elaborate story of why she got turned down for the part.
Betty sees herself as a bright sunny, cheerfully nice person. She probably won beauty and talent contests in her hometown, thinks she’s God’s gift to acting, and plans to take over Hollywood. In her mind, she gave the most passionate performance of any of the other girls who auditioned. The reason she didn’t get the part is becaue the mean old studio executives and their gang boss friends had another girl in mind and forced the director to take her instead.
She also constructs an elaborate fantasy about the director’s fiancee Rita, and how she helped Rita escape from the clutches of the very same evil studio execs and crime bosses. A grateful Rita returns her love.
The blue box she and Rita open at Club Silencio is reality. At that point, the real story takes over. Betty is actually a drunken depressed deadbeat who pines for Rita, and has DTs about the old couple who rode on the plane with her to Hollywood.
Hope that helps. 
Knowed Out, that was a good, concise summary of the film. But you forgot one point–those chicks were totally doin’ it.
Eve, Mulholland Drive is one of my all-time favorite movies, and I’m kind of disappointed that you didn’t like it. (Which is silly, I suppose.) I can assure you that one needn’t be a David Lynch fanboy to love this movie, as you seem to imply in your last post. I hated Blue Velvet–I started out thinking “Ooh, this is gonna be great,” and ended up wishing I’d never seen it. I thought Dune had its good points, but was overall little better than mediocre. (But then I think the book is overrated, too.) I’ve never seen any of his other stuff.
So there you go.
Agreed.
But “overtly acid,” “acerbic,” “completely without merit,” “lazy” and “insulting” are okay?
Who the hell are you to claim it isn’t? Why should your opinion of a film be treated with more respect than my opinion of the film?
Nothing. Ab-so-lute-ly nothing.
Get over it.
Saying that something isn’t crap is merely objecting to the use of an absolute descriptor, IMO. I’m not saying that my opinion has more value than yours, I’m trying to make the point that nobody has the authority to classify a film with absolute terms as thought by an objective standard. When I say it isn’t crap, I’m not saying that it is objectively good, I’m just objecting to the use of absolutes.
But you can see how it could be taken that I have no taste, liking garbage as I do?
Point taken. 
Because you are saying “It’s Crap!” and not “I think It’s Crap!”
I hope you weren’t trying to say something bad about Eve? :dubious:
“Star Trek?” 