The dangers of (re)watching films with a subconscious bias

But of course, it's my opinion. Not just me, but any thinking true cinephile who takes the art seriously MUST spite normies who buy into the consumerist hellscape of cinema turned product you consume. Even if you watch and love mainstream and consumerist films like I do, it doesn't preclude you from criticizing them. The films aren't the problem. The industry is. The mindsets are. Money is. Maybe it's inescapable. But it sure doesn't help to spew hogwash like:

Yep, normies never even heard about Sex and Zen. Seriously, though, it's awful to say stuff like this. It's awful to approach cinema this way and say you're, hell, not even a cinephile, but that you love cinema. A person like this doesn't love cinema. They love everything that goes with it. They love going out in the evening. They love the dinner afterward and meeting up with friends before. In all that, cinema becomes secondary, an afterthought.

It's shocking I have to evangelize about such obvious things in a place that calls itself MovieForums, though the word 'movie' instead of 'film' is very telling. I think this place has many great individuals. Just few cinephiles, let alone great ones.

While making this thread, I never expected I'd be met with such a strong opposition of lib and normie blubber. The caustic and acerbic tone is there for a reason. It's a manifesto of sorts.

Some music that'll fly over your heads, anyway:

It's always "us versus them" with you, isn't it?

I've become less elitist with time. It's your turn to get a better taste now.

It is not about taste, sweetie.

Absolutely nothing is too high-brow or too low-brow for me. I am curious about every movie from every era from every corner of the world.

You say "chocolate is better than vanilla". I say, "Chocolate isn't enough for me, vanilla isn't enough for me - I want to taste chocolate, and vanilla, and every other flavor in the whole wide world!"

I wouldn’t call the two documentaries I mentioned as cinema 101 obviousness. More obscure really, which makes them very less obvious picks I would think, yeah?

Maybe some of the pink stuff, since pink films are widely known by cinephiles, but not so much the films you picked. Except for School of the Holy Beast, where it’s an obvious one.

Very well, honey. It's nice to see you use such terms of endearment after a rocky set of retorts.

That's the spirit!

I don't even know what this is supposed to be an analogy for.

Not obscure in the least if you're in the (right) and (best) circles for cinephiles on the internet, which you should be if you take the art of cinema seriously. Pretty much anybody who takes cinema seriously will discover those two directors at the latest 5-6 years into their cinephilia, probably earlier than that. And by discover I mean watch their films because hearing about them is a matter of way less than 5 years. But there's an obvious problem: if you don't know the right circles, don't know the right websites, don't spend a shitload of time searching, you end up watching either 101 Film School Classics or normie crap for the rest of your life. Finding masterpieces and people who bring you new masterpieces through their ratings is dedication no lesser than watching films. That's why I'm sometimes reluctant to share them too easily with the normies. They have to put in the work to find them. That's what I thought anyway but I don't anymore for the most part because it's so rare anybody watches anything anymore even if you push it down their throats, so expecting them to find it themselves is believing in miracles. Of course, marvelous, miraculous cinephiles exist, but not many of them.

Save for Wakamatsu, Adachi, Sato, and maybe Suzuki, pink films are not that widely known by cinephiles. Definitely not in the elitist canon, classical canon, or even in most new canons. It's one of these weird situations where the obscurities of the yore are actually well-known and obvious, whereas the popular mainstream of its time is back in obscurity.

That was a movie reference. Clearly you didn't get it.

Going by that, if you have to search for it by being in the best circles of the internet for cinephiles, it is by definition obscure. It shouldn’t be that hard to discover.
I do, however, thank you for bringing them to my attention.
I also find the time table a little arbitrary, though. As long as they discover the films, regardless if it’s 5, 6, or 10 years, it shouldn’t matter.

As for Pink films….I’ve always gotten the feeling Pink films are pretty well known to cinephiles, it’s just that many avoid them for various reasons.

It’s funny you mention how cinephiles do a lot of research, I spend a lot of my day at work on Saturdays reading up on directors and other related film movements to pass the time. Especially for any I may not have heard of previosuly.

Anything apart from the mainstream is hard to discover if you don't take deliberate action to look for it.

Yeah, it's just always shocking to me to find a cinephile of 10+ years who still hasn't seen an obvious masterpiece. I think I've seen EVERY SINGLE obvious masterpiece and now only have to watch OBVIOUS NON-MASTERPIECES and look for more obscure/non-canon masterpieces. But that's me. I put years into making sure I am where I am now.

If by 'known' you mean they know something like that exists, then maybe yes, although most of them don't really know what they are EXACTLY, for example. If you mean that they watch them, then, no.

You must do it. Especially until you have a good connection of people to follow. Then they do most of the work for you.

But of course, it's my opinion. Not just me, but any thinking true cinephile who takes the art seriously MUST spite normies who buy into the consumerist hellscape of cinema turned product you consume. Even if you watch and love mainstream and consumerist films like I do, it doesn't preclude you from criticizing them. The films aren't the problem. The industry is. The mindsets are. Money is. Maybe it's inescapable. But it sure doesn't help to spew hogwash like:

>>>>It's not awful, it's entertainment, why they call it the Entertainment Industry. It's a business, run by corporations with stock prices to support, based in the revenue brought in by the various means that people like you and I pay for it.<<<<<

Yep, normies never even heard about Sex and Zen. Seriously, though, it's awful to say stuff like this. It's awful to approach cinema this way and say you're, hell, not even a cinephile, but that you love cinema. A person like this doesn't love cinema. They love everything that goes with it. They love going out in the evening. They love the dinner afterward and meeting up with friends before. In all that, cinema becomes secondary, an afterthought.

>>>>>All that reminds me too much of the people I've known, so-called audiophiles, who think that their stereo needs wire that costs $100 foot. I don't. I like movies, but, it's entertainment...."Dinner and a Movie"...Saturday night downtown, followed by some beer and conversation. That's a good thing. Don't make it into an academic pursuit or a monastery.<<<<<<

It's shocking I have to evangelize about such obvious things in a place that calls itself MovieForums, though the word 'movie' instead of 'film' is very telling. I think this place has many great individuals. Just few cinephiles, let alone great ones.

>>>>>Most moves are not on film anymore by the way. I think, now, I will insert a note of enlightenment.

I believe MoFo has only one self proclaimed cinephile. Don't think anyone else has ever referred to themselves by that term. Which other MoFo members would you say are cinephiles? Just curious, it's not a complaint or anything like that I just can't think of any myself.

A cinephile is a person who loves cinema. Isn’t that everyone here?

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

In theory, yes. But I feel like the term is used more or less pretentiously depending on the context. I’m definitely the cinephile in my social circle, but I wouldn’t call myself a cinephile here.

I’m gonna call myself a cinephile & just let anyone stop me!

Same. I thought I was just the biggest movie buff until I came here. Here I'm practically.a casual viewer, even when I used to watch at my greatest pace. Definitely got an education reading everyone's posts, and reviews.
TBPH ignorance is bliss lol! I don't know movies as well as some here, but I have more fun. Being easy to please isnt a weakness nor a sign of idiocy. A healthy mind able to see the good in things where the jaded one scoffs, and discredits to their own prideful dissatisfaction. Only one finds contentment and serenity.
A great majority of this forum isnt like those that think they're better than anyone. You go to places like that and they come alive when they can critique or berate someone. It's the only time they feel worthwhile.

Heh, I need to learn from that.

If you want. I think the way cinephile is being used in this thread, it's not a nice term. Myself, I'm just a film buff.

I do relate to this post overall, but I didn’t quite mean that (that I thought I was the biggest movie buff). I’ve always looked for something really specific in books and films — so to me much of the experience is about whether they conform to what I’m looking for. I was always relatively conscious of that, and while it sounds really reductive, I don’t think it is necessarily. To me over the years it’s been a case of ‘do I dig this film’s/show’s worldview?’. I make no claim to be passing an objective judgment.

In this way, I’m not ‘easy’ or ‘hard’ to please as such, but I often feel the nagging disappointment from the various storytelling cliches that abound even in relatively ‘niche’ films, but that’s just my personal reaction. It doesn’t mean I love all films any less. I believe Minio(?) had a thread a few months ago about loving all films, finding something to like in even the basest of romantic comedies. That’s kind of how I feel. Every single film makes me think, and I do actually spend 20 hours out of my 24 thinking about art, film, narratives. Not super-healthy, but it means any random Netflix thriller will give me food for thought and stay on my mind. I can see how someone might define that kind of love for cinema as cinephilia.

I do enjoy reading essays on film and everyone’s thoughts and reviews here, and when I watch anything, I very much critique it from the get-go despite myself, see who borrowed from whom, etc. And again, I do agree with Minio that it’s probably a good idea to see as much as possible and live this every day, watch something that will challenge me instead of something I’m reasonably sure that I will like. I do do this. Maybe I do this so I could come across something else that speaks to me personally, to my worldview, really deeply. And while I’m on the lookout for these films, I may as well check out everything else out there.

But I think I look for something really specific from films, whereas cinephiles proper just appreciate film as an art form. And I admire that, but that’s not what I’m looking for at all.

I guess I’m a subjectivist at heart? I do think only my experience matters (when it comes to experiencing art for sure). I don’t much care for authorial intent, or allegories, or any of that. When I was younger, I would painstakingly read up on everything to see what this or that filmmaker was thinking when making the movie. I still do this for the most part, but it no longer informs my experience that much; I’ve gone full Death of the Author. Intuitively, I feel like that makes me less of a cinephile because I’m wilfully ignoring authorial intent, what is being said, why it’s being said. But I don’t mean this in a ridiculous ‘fan theories’-type way, I just focus on things in the narrative/execution that interest me, matter to me, first and foremost. Everything else comes second.

In terms of looking down on people with less discerning habits, this can definitely verge on the ridiculous, but I also think it’s irrational to criticise people who look down on others too much, because we all do this in one way or another. So it’s human. My mother adores the Italian Nero Wolfe adaptation TV show:

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2164423/

She’d watch it all day long on repeat if she could. Do I make fun of her for that? Sure. It doesn’t mean I look down on her, I don’t even look down on the actual stuff she watches, it’s just interesting that this appeals. She used to be into Buñuel, Lynch, Bertolucci — that kind of thing (I’m not saying they are ‘better’, it’s just a different kind of cinema that has a broader existential focus). Then again, she would always notice people’s clothes, hair. I used to work in fashion, for my sins, but never cared about this in film. I find this interest in costumes really basic, feel like it misses the bigger picture. I think we’re all cinephiles compared to someone else. Not sure what it even does to compare. It’s a conscious choice to explore an art form deeper or not; it’s even a conscious choice to say, ‘Actually, I think I’ve gone deep enough, I’ll go back to murder mysteries now, thanks.’ And that’s perfectly fine, I think.

Well said. I probably am easy to please but I'm also quite picky. Life's too short.

No, not me. Having grown up in a time and place where nobody even knew what a cinephile was, I've never proclaimed myself as that. There was a time, however, when, for a few days, I proclaimed myself as an audiophile, but seemed pretentious, so I quit that and just said that I had a nice stereo.

A cinephile is similar, the uptown version of a movie lover (the latin stems of the word) but since I actually do speak a little Latin, I know that Julius Caesar would have no idea what that was, even though he did know what a vomitorium was.

Like a lot of things in the English language, the term cinephile seems to have meaning that goes way past just its literal meaning as a "movie lover". I do have several movie venues in my city that proclaim themselves as "Cinema", but those are the ones that charge more for tickets, have meals and serve intoxicating beverages. I generally do not go to them because the food isn't that good and I can drink at home.

I DO love movies, but I'm reluctant to use that term. A lot of movies that I see are really bad, like old horror movies or James Bond or bad comedies; I rarely write about them here. Movies like that are pretension-preventers.