Meh. Not cheap enough to get me to drink Jaeger. Hell, Sidney Frank would have to pay ME to drink Jaeger…
A few years ago I was discussing a particular comic strip in an online forum. I liked it, he didn’t. He was saying that he didn’t like it because of the xenophobia expressed in it. I was trying to tell him that he has missed a point, the strip is making fun of people that talk like that. The strip was actually condemning xenophobia, not promoting it.But I’ve learnt from experience that discussions like this are a waste of time. You like a movie/book/comic/whatever or you don’t. Pointing out bits you’ve missed isn’t goingt to change your mind.
Ahhh…Jaeger. Instant vomit. Usually in the corner of the bar.
I hang out at some class establishments, let me tell you…
Um . . . did Ukulele Ike whoosh you, or are you whooshing me? (His comment was a play on the topic of the thread.)
You make a lot of good points in the rest of your post, but I don’t really get this one. Why should all films – or all music, or all literature, or all anything – be pitched to the lowest common denominator? Most of them already are. Why should all of them be?
If “understanding” a movie depends on having all the right literary references, and that’s not something that interests you, the filmmaker doesn’t bite – he or she just isn’t making films with your preferences in mind.
Of course, it’s very possible to strive to be highbrow and still miss the mark and make a crappy film. “You just didn’t get it” isn’t a valid critical defense – but neither is “you’re overanalyzing it” a valid criticism of someone’s opinion.
I said nothing of the sort, and my own personal taste in movies is not exactly “lowest common denominator”.
First, yes, this drives me crazy. However, I do try to head it off at the pass by starting with something like “While I admire the director’s ambition to explore (whatever issue or theme seems to be at stake), I didn’t think he/she was particularly successful, and I didn’t care for the film.”
It also makes me see red when we get to the other extreme … someone who says “that film sucked!” but can’t or won’t articulate anything else about their opinion. Okay, yes, I have said “Teen Wolf sucked!” in my lifetime, but for the most part, if someone is interested in discussing most films I don’t care for, say for example “Good Will Hunting,” I can step up to the plate and describe the various aspects that were simply not working for me.
Well, I hate people who dismiss Se7en and Saw as gratuitous. But I’m all about story and allegory. Which both movies have in a deep and meaningful way… They are powerful movies knitting a very intricate point, to dismiss them for their psychological power and terror is exactly misssing the point. They say more than their initial gore and violence. An important message for modern man…
I don’t know – in most cases I’ve heard this phrase uttered (or uttered it myself) the circumstances have been that the addressed person really obviously missed the point completely.
The last time it’s come up was just this week, after showing someone Last Night. Disgusted, at the end, she said, “So nothing happened? It was just like the millenium?”
Mods: The above is unspoilered because viewer had so thoroughly not gotten the movie that their summary of the ending of the film in no way resembles anything that could be observed in or inferred from what they had just seen.
On the other hand, I know there are times when I Just Didn’t Understand. Napolean Dynamite is phenomenonally popular – and I know that there must be something there that people appreciate. For me, the movie was almost pure tedium, and almost painful – except for one sublime moment – a single scene where everything came together and I Got It. Just that one beautiful scene. But the rest — I didn’t understand it.
You don’t often hear people make a claim of “You didn’t understand it” on something that’s lowest-common-denominator. Nobody defends The Red Green Show with “You just didn’t understand it,” everybody understands that if you don’t enjoy The Red Green Show it’s because you’re just not cognitively impaired enough to manage it.
No you’re wrong. Obviously you don’t understand oddly flavoured Germanic liquers 
Well, I’m flabbergasted. Clearly, I have formed a skewed impression of Menocchio and Excalibre. (Moreso the former.)
You’re both taking the position I would not have expected from you.
I agree with Menocchio and Excalibre.
I’m going to go see if the sky is falling.
You said a little something of the sort.
This is going a bit too far. . .
A skilled filmmaker can make a movie that requires understanding all the right literary references for it’s enjoyment. Or sports references or scientific references. It doesn’t mean he bites.
Now, if his goal was to set out to make a mass appeal summer blockbuster and he takes it into those channels, that might mean he bites.
As to the OP – we’re not privy to your actual conversations. It seems odd that your friends would say to you “you didn’t understand the plot” if in fact you did understand the plot. Understanding the plot isn’t something that can really be misconstrued in conversation. You either got that Tyler Durden and the Narrator were the same guy or you didn’t.
But, they also could have meant that you didn’t understand the subtext of the movie. Or, they could have meant that you didn’t understand the skill behind the creation of the tension and violence. Or, they could have meant that you didn’t understand that the enjoyment of such a film doesn’t come from understanding the story, but rather HOW the story is told, or many other things.
You could probably follow the plot of Saw but if you’re not schooled in gore, you were probably not appreciating the movie on that level.
For some movies, understanding them really is closely related to enjoying them, e.g. Adaptation or Shakespeare in Love or Eternal Sunshine. . ..
God, I’d love to know what that scene was so I could pretend I hadn’t wasted time seeing it. It’s like it was assembled in a Cult Film Factory.
“Watch as I criticize the way the media glorifies violence by making a movie that totally glorifies violence!” :rolleyes:
The part where Napolean displays his talent. That I understood. Beautiful.
Actually it is quite possible to not like a movie precisely because you understood it. Or at least understood what it was trying to say. For example, I like to think I completely understand The Truman Show, but I think it fails in what it is trying to accomplish and therefore I do not like it that much.
Likewise, and a lot more than a quarter.
I’ve heard people say ‘You just don’t get it!!’ and then be completely unable to articulate what it was I was supposed to have not gotten.
I took that to mean that they had a subjective opinion that the film in question was good and had absolutely nothing to use against my critique of it’s glaring deficiencies.
So Milton screwed up with Paradise Lost because you’ve got to know a whole wealth of references and allusions for it to make much sense?
As Trunk said, unless the film is meant to be digested easily and with a minimal amount of work, I’m not sure why a movie inherrently should be non-literary.
I agree with the OP - it is a really annoying thing that people do.
However, I think I’m probably guilty of it with The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover. I just LOVE that movie, and when someone says they thought it was crap, I have to assume they didn’t get it.
I mean, if they say it was too violent, or that they didn’t care for the story or whatever, I can get behind that. But just saying that a movie is “crap” generally seems to be something that someone who really missed the point would say.
So I suppose it depends on the sort of dismissal that you give a movie.