MST3K: Anti-cinema?

No, "ugly" is actually a very polite word for what it is

Agree with you there, he definitely deserved that Pultizer

Can't believe you couldn't tell I was being totally facetious there

That's why you brought up the film, yes. But since then others have begun to talk about its positive qualities. Like the quality of the photography, which you didn't acknowledge beyond referring us to an Ebert review which criticizes that. And then when the films critical reassessment began to be mentioned, we went back to talking about its financial failure.


And yes, it was a massive flop.and yes, it gets blamed for killing New American Cinema and putting creative control back with the studio's. But it losing money doesn't have any bearing on its qualities outside of that, so pivoting back to it's lack of box office earnings, yet again, is either implying you think this fact does have a place in the argument about the films reassessment, or maybe it's just a frustrating reflex you've got to keep mentioning it whenever someone tries to say anything positive about the movie.

I think I have Heaven's Gate at a 7/10. I think The Deer Hunter is the better film since its prolonged first act flows much smoother, while with this film, having the posse leave the film for an extended period of time after they're introduced as a threat serves to rob the film of a significant deal of narrative momentum, but I still like the film quite a bit. As for the cinematography, I think it looks great and borders on fantasy at times given the colors of the wildflowers in the background. Just because Roger Ebert said something negative doesn't mean we all have to accept his opinion as an indisputable truth.

Well, no, as a general rule, I wouldn't exactly advise you to do that.

In this very specific case, however, I think he was absolutely spot-on. What he had to say when he was writing about the film contemporaneously does sound very close to my original reaction to the film (in all fairness, he may have been just a little bit harsher than I would have been!)

But that doesn't get us back to the point I made originally when mentioning the movie - and the point stands.

I’ll never understand this criticism that he wasn’t a “good” cinephile. He had vastly different tastes from you, sure, but is there more to this claim?

Getting back to the topic...MST3K, of course it's "anti-Cinema". It's cheesy, late night entertainment that involves creepy stuff. Nothing about that content or the expected time-slot or anything else about those movies says "Cinema", which generally implies some level of pretentiousness. It's a re-packaged concept that's been around since the 50's. It's meant for fans of that sort of moviemaking

This is enough. Wanted to say more but no time atm.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

All of this talk about the importance of the word or designation of cinephile, is starting to sound a lot like how limiting and restrictive the term 'punk rock' was. That was a scene I embraced when I was young, and standing for the virtues of punk seemed a noble thing initially. Until it began to seem that a group of people had come in and decided, on their own, what qualifies for this term of Punk, and all it was was a mirror image of the very narrow qualifications they had for a person to measure up. Or to fit in. To be accepted. And it was all just another trap to tell people how they should be thinking and behaving. Another bunch of rituals you had to abide by to be acknowledged by a group that it had absolutely no real value to be acknowledged by. Basically, exactly the kind of dogma that art so perfectly rejects if we don't buy into that cliquey bullshit.


Do I agree with a good deal of what Minio believes to be the most virtuous way to watch movies? Yes. But is there any need for anyone to be considered a cinephile? No.


So was Ebert a cinephile? Who cares? Do I agree with a lot of his tastes or critical reasoning? **** no, I think a lot of it was swill. But did he at least find his own way to engage with and articulate his love of film. Yeah, pretty consistently. Which is more than can be said for 99 percent of the world's population. So I'll cut him all the slack he needs, regardless of his terrible takes of Ridgemont High or Blue Velvet or Pink Flamingos or Elephant Man. Regardless of whether or not people want to accept him as a cinephile.

It's that "phile" part that makes it go bad. I've seen that used too often, also in the recorded music world where an "audiophile" can't listen to music unless it comes from super expensive equipment, including thousand dollar wires.

In the movie world, when I think of a night out at the movies, it does have to be some sort of enjoyment and that can take a lot of forms. A "good" movie, as I see it, is one that delivers what I expect. If it's Pink Flamingos, I expect Divine in his/her glory, waiting for the dog to poop. Nobody expects that in a dramatic movie or a space-cowboy flick, or a high-concept sci-fi epic.

I worry when somebody uses the "phile" suffix. it means being judgmental about an art form that can be a lot of things. I have to admit that, when I think of a movie being "good", it means delivering what I expect much more than conforming to somebody's set idea of what a movie has to be.

Ah, to confine the vast and variegated expanse of cinematographic art to the narrow confines of personal expectation is a lamentable display of critical myopia. A truly ‘good’ film should transcend the pedestrian puddle of predictability to swim in the oceanic depths of innovation and ingenuity. It ought to challenge the intellect, stir the emotions, and elevate the spirit, not merely regurgitate a formulaic concoction tailored to the lowest common denominator of anticipatory fulfillment.

So it's about conforming to your set idea of what a movie has to be. Gotcha.

There is nothing wrong with the word. It means someone who is passionate about film. I don't trust anyone on a movie forum who isn't. But I wince at applying labels to ourselves. They almost always come with blinders. The illusion that it means something if we somehow qualify ourselves to be considered this other 'thing'.



If I always got what I expected, I'd stop watching movies tomorrow. I don't use art like a thermostat to set the temperature of a room to what keeps me most comfortable. I'm not 'entertained' by comfort.


That's a weird use of the word conforming. You demand a film, that was made by others, and made by people who do not know you, and maybe sometimes not for you, should somehow be delivering exactly what you want. And if it doesn't conform to your standards, it's conforming to the idea of what a movie 'has to be'.



A movie is what the person who makes it wants to be. It is their individual statement. If they made it exclusively for your purposes, THAT would be conforming.

Is it really hard to understand that cinema is both art and business?

If you look at it mostly as an artistic endeavor, you'll look for the artists and the artistic trends that appeal to your senses.

If you look at it as a business, you're just looking for something that's a good value for your entertainment dollars.

But in either scenario you're still looking for the movie or movies that deliver what you're looking for.

And you can apply any labels to yourself or others that make you feel better but at the end of the day, they are just labels. Call yourself the Supreme High Priest of Good Cinema for all anyone cares - if that's how you get your kicks, then that's what you need to feel good, I guess.

You people

To suggest that the zenith of cinematic excellence is the mere delivery of the expected is to disregard the luminary directors who dare to ascend towards the sun of artistic ambition, often with wings wrought not of wax, but of daring creativity and untrammeled vision. It is the unexpected, the unanticipated, the undreamt-of that often carves the deepest niches in the annals of film history.

Let us not fetter the boundless potential of film to the Procrustean bed of individual expectation, but rather, let us celebrate those works that defy, that challenge, that push us beyond the comfortable and the familiar into realms of the sublime and the extraordinary.

This sounds like a terrible parody of what you'd get if you asked ChatGPT to give you the most pompous statement imaginable on what makes good movies.

Interesting, so I asked that:


ChatGPT
A truly exceptional cinematic masterpiece transcends the mundane confines of mere entertainment, ascending to the realm of profound artistic expression, wherein the delicate interplay of narrative, visual aesthetics, and emotional resonance coalesce harmoniously to provoke introspection, challenge societal norms, and evoke a cathartic synthesis of intellect and emotion within the discerning viewer's psyche.

So now I just asked, What makes a movie good?

ChatGPT
...Ultimately, what makes a movie good is subjective and can vary from person to person.

There's the answer

Imagine that!

For what it's worth, I agree 100% with Mr Minio.

And to anyone ridiculing his statement: You're just jealous 'cause you can't be that highfalutin'!

__________________
"It's what people know about themselves inside that makes 'em afraid." - Clint Eastwood as The Stranger, High Plains Drifter (1973)

Quoting Shakespeare for no particular reason... no reason at all