Verhoeven is overrated in the sense that people like me continue to defend him on these boards. He’s overrated because a small (but growing) handful of critics recognize his importance. He will be taught in film school one day; don’t forget that Hitchcock was considered a genre hack for much of his career.
Rob Reiner is overrated because so many people just love, love, LOVE his movies: his popularity does not reflect his lack of originality.
Oh, why oh why did someone had to open the can of worms labeled Verhoeven?
Lissener, Ilsa. It’s not very becomming of either of you to act this way. I’ve seen so many threads about Showgirls and ST or where those movies and/or Verhoeven popped up, where you’re being total jerks.
People keep saying that they get the satire, but still think the movies are bad. You come back with: “No, you don’t understand it - if you did, you wouldn’t think it’s bad.”
And using expletives directed towards posters, in Cafe Society, is un-cool, m’key, Lissener.
Do get of your high horses. You may think that you’re fighting ignorance here. You’re not.
Back to the OP: Ron Howard, Spielberg, Cohen Bros.
I don’t smoke, but if I did, it would be cloves. I drink Belgian gin and Dutch vodka. I cannot read philosophy, but otherwise I read a LOT. And for most of my younger life, I had close to a photographic memory. So my attitudes and understanding are a synthesis of a HUGE base of knowledge; not just Derrida and Foucault. Although, I have read ONE Foucault book, and have of a Derrida book. Most of what I read nowadays is by dead people: I’m mostly reading Nobel laureates; kind of a lifelong project. I hate Pernod.
All very well, but you ignored my main point. Typical.
Do you gesticulate?
I think he made 11 movies, so 100 hours maybe a tad bit off. 
Personally I don’t see that particular theme at work in Dr. Strangelove, but yeah, he did go for the questions about humanity theme a lot. I don’t see that as a major flaw, since a lot of writers directors explore the same few themes.
I’ve finished with politely ignoring aggressive ignorance, on this one subject in particular. Gamaliel’s post have demonstrated VERY CLEARLY that he doesn’t, in fact, get it. I just get so fucking tired of people who refuse to acknowledge that. THere are LOTS of things I don’t get, and I’m always ready to admit that and discuss these things with someone who’s seen a different perspective on them. BUt I’m tired of dishonestly pretending that all opinions are equal. You have to show your work. I have NO respect for someone who dismisses something without a convincing reason. Especially when what reasons they offer indicate, unquestionably, that they have NOT put any special effort into something that requires effort, from ANYbody, me included; and when their prejudices are so clearly trumping their reason.
Any criticism of Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers that refers to Heinlein’s greatness or that some kind of reverence is OWED to Heinlein, is just not a valid argument.
Acknowledging the efforts of an artist and suggesting that a similar uptick in effort on the audience’s part might necessary to get more out of the art, is NOT elitism, or snobbery, and I’m sick and fucking tired of having to simply bow of threads because someone plays that card.
What such idiots are suggesting is that film, as a medium, is not WORTHY of such greatness; that whatever you get on your first skimming of a film is ALL THERE IS TO GET. THis is the baldest elitism and snobbery: rejecting a work on some general principle of sacred cow authors, or agreeing that Joyce is worth multiple readings but no MOVIE can ever be worth extra effort on the audience’s part, is sheer, bald elitism and snobbery. It’s like the people who are such literature snobs that they dismiss comics out of hand. THis is the kind of elitism that refuses to acknowledge, and seek out, the multiple layers of a film such as Starship Troopers. And no, I will refuse from now on to dishonestly avoid saying they don’t get it, because they don’t. And there’s no hierarchy of snobbery in saying that; If I can get it, anyone can get it. If you don’t get it, it’s because you choose not to get it; no value implied. I just wish one of these sourgrapes, self-ashamed, envious anti-intellectual *snobs *would come out of the closet and admit they don’t get it; that would be cool, no? Instead, anyone here who doesn’t get something use that as a weird kind of weapon, to suggest that anyone who DOES get it is a pretentious snob. I finally call bullshit on that.
So is impersonating a moderater.
Good god! You weren’t kidding! Pandoras box of film elitism hath been opened!
So-and-so sucks!
Does!
Does not!
Does too!
Damn, that went out too soon. What I meant to say was that this thread was intended to be an intelligent discussion rather than a slanging match. Please?
Holy crap. How can one person that so casually tosses out negative judgment on one director turn around and rabidly assault anyone that does the same to his pet hack?
The mind boggles. And frankly, I think some questions are best left unanswered.
Anyway.
Regarding Tarantino: What I like about him is a sort of perceived “purity” of style that he uses. Sure he rips elements from other movies. But never from any ONE movie… he mixes and matches the elements that he considered the best - and not all of them came from the movie - and putting them together in what he considered the best way.
Obviously, the best way to meld often-disseparate elements is a very subjective thing, which is why some people didn’t like, say, the uber-exaggerated blood in Kill Bill… and I understand why it’s disliked. For me, it simply established the movie even more solidly as a comic book-ish movie, which explained many of the other ludicrous elements.
But, yeah, I guess I’m just saying, “He ain’t for everybody.”
When I was starting out my radio career almost 30 years ago, I had a mission. A purpose. I loved music and I wanted to get on the air, as a DJ, to pa,ly music to other people. Radsio was different back then. DJs could pick their own play lists, diversity was greater. But there was basically the same dividing line betwen good/bad music that exists today: Some people sneer at the commercial shallow pop music (Brittney now, Osmonds then) and revere in quality music (whatever now, Al di Meola then). That was the time when serious critics in prestigeous magazine hailed Bruce Springsteen as the man who was gonna save rock’n’roll.
My mission was to make Joe Public get the good music. I thought the way to do that was put all of Frank Zappa’s ‘Billy the Mountain’ on the air. And I used a lot of expletives when people didn’t get it.
I do get that you think Verhoeven is a genius. I do think you are sincere, and not a poser, wearing black turtleneck, spoarting a goatee and smoking Gitanes. I do think you feel you have a mission here.
But the thing is, people may and will disagree with you on that issue, as with any other where judgement of creative work is on the line. I liked Titanic, I think Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Aniston are great actresses, I dug Eastwood when I was taking a filmclass, back in '82, when all my fellow students thought he was an imperialistic macho symbol of the repressive American political military-industrial complex (or whatever). Some may disagree. Some may agree.
But I’ve gotten past the point of calling them stupid and accusing them of not getting it. I have yet to see you or Ilsa write a post where you acknowlege that someone did get Showgirls or ST, but still didn’t like it.
As for junior modding: I just wanted to point out why your post rubbed me the wrong way. Believe me, had I wanted to do something more serious, I’d take you to the pit or report the post in question. But it’s not worth it. I just wanted to point out that you guys are not being very resonable.
I’d just like to point out here, that I am not (to my perception and not in my intent) trying to be a jerk, or be pushy about Verhoeven. I mean all of this very lightheartedly. I’ve only made exactly one post about Verhoeven in this thread anyway; all I said was “Whoosh.” I’m more concerned about other directors in this thread more than Verhoeven.
The difference is that I’m perfectly willing to discuss and debate, while people who dismiss a particular artist without willing to discuss and debate, just scream “elitist” and roll his eyes, is not arguing in good faith.
And I didn’t assault anyone’s opinion; I assaulted the “elitist” bullshit. Everyone has a personal approach to how they watch a movie. If you go to a movie with expectations different from mine, that does not make me an elitist. When it comes to movies, I am the opposite of an elitist. I’ll watch ANY movie once, and rewatch movies that intrigue me, even if negatively.
To casual start the slinging by namecalling as “pretentious” or “elitist” is nothing more than a lazy forfeit of the discussion.
So yeah, from now on I’m gonna react when someone calls me such unfounded names, because for fucking chrissakes, there is absolutely ZERO elitism–let alone pretension–in my willingness to defend a film in detail, and even “show my work” so you can know HOW I came to that opinion. I’ve always taken this lying down; as soon as someone lazily and dishonestly plays the “pretension” card, I know that I’m dealing with someone who has any intention of good faith discussion, so I usually abandon a thread when that card is played.
No more. You call me names that are absolutely untrue, just because YOU have a different approach to watching a movie from mine, is obnoxious and insulting FUCKING ELITIST.
And I have yet to see anyone post any EVIDENCE that they got it but didn’t like it. I present the most elaborate defense, and all the “haters” say is “I do get it, but you’ll have to take my word for it, because I’m not gonna defend my position at all.”
This is far more often the case with negative opinions than with positive ones, so the inevitable negativism–and oft-accompanying condescending, patronizing, elitist tone–undoubtedly add some grit to the process. People who dismiss stuff negatively, but who won’t show their work, will be called out from now on, by me at least, when I’m in the mood to do so. Driveby criticism is lazy and insulting.
And until the driveby pisser shows that he DOES get, my presenting the possibility that he doesn’t, or that he might get more out of it if he approaches it THIS way or THAT way, is an attempt to move the debate along and to toss this theory or that question into the debate to suss out their understanding of the piece at hand. What the FUCK is elitist about that? “It’s bad because I say so” is far more pretentious and patronizing than my attempts to clarify this or that mis/understanding. And I’m sick and goddamn tired of rolling over and absorbing all this “elitist/pretentious” bullshit because I’M not the one being a snob.
Look, in highschool English, did you always catch onto all the bits of symbolism in a Faulker or O’Connor short story? Did you “get” all of it on first reading?* The Scarlet Letter? Great Expections?* No? Well did you call your teacher an elitist snob when they pointed those things out?
No, I’m not comparing myself to a teacher.
I’m just saying that people accept suggestions for a new take or a better understanding when it’s a short story or a poem, but scream “elitist! pretentious!” if someone suggests that a particular film is worthy of such annotation. This is hypocritical snobbery, and I’m done letting it go.
Lissener, you have a good point and it is well made. “Elitist” and “pretentious” can indeed be cop-outs and argument avoiders, elitist in particular. But be careful. People may describe a film or a director as “pretentious” without implicating you in the criticism.
Yes, I know; I’m reacting specifically to where it directed at me personally.
And The Fearless Vampire Killers! The funniest parody of monster movies ever made. HI larry us. Features a Vampire who’s immune to crosses because . . . . . .wait for it . . . . . . HE’S JEWISH! Starring the lovely lamented Sharon Tate.
::: Moderator cracks whip and pounds gavel, energetically :::
lissener, you are out of order in personal insults and attacks on another poster in this thread. If you want to call someone an “ignorant asshole”, go to the Pit. If you think that he called you a name first, hit the REPORT THIS POST button, do NOT, repeat do NOT, call him a name back.
You’ve been around here long enough to know better.
Consider this an official Warning: get your act together. If you think you’ve been insulted, the proper response (in this forum) is to REPORT THIS POST. You do it by clicking on the little exclamation point in the upper right corner of the post.
Any other action, and you’re the one who gets reported. I do not have the time, energy or inclination to play police inspector and judge and jury and go back and sift thorugh 80 posts to find out “who started it.” You’re the one who was caught, and you were way over the line. And you’ve been around long enough to know better.
Now, having said that: Gamaliel, you’d better take this to heart, because it certainly looks to me as if you’re the one who started it, with a comment comparing lissener to “mindless sheep.” If lissener had reported that post, you’d be the one getting reamed out. Listen up: personal insults directed against other posters are NOT permitted in this forum. The place for such is the Pit.
:::: pounds gavel again, hoping to hit someone’s finger ::::
Now, play nice or don’t play in this forum.
Cafe Society is about the arts and entertainment. It is possible for someone to admire something as high art that you think is a pile of shit. Each to his own taste (pretend I said it in French.) There’s a massive difference between saying that the art is a pile of shit, and saying that the person who admires it is same.
Of all the forums, this one should be the one where it’s easiest to confine the criticism to the works in question (or the artists/authors), and not to insult other posters.
Got it??