Your Most Controversial Film Opinions?

Personally I like that idea, of course it depends on what is being considered as a personal truth. It's not applicable to all things and sets of circumstances but it works well for me when it comes to stuff like religion, philosophy and movies The opposite of true-for-me relativism is 'group think' and I'd puke before I do that. I've never went with the status quo. Though the status quo sometimes follows me. Just call me Adam Ant.

True of course. But I'm not suggesting people with empty bubble heads have better movie opinions than someone who's a film buff. What I'm saying is: self proclaimed know-it-alls can easily blind themselves with their self importance and love for the sound of their own words far too much to be of any use to anyone else, especially when they demean the 'little guy' for not having the same knowledge that they do. I don't like snobs, wine snobs, film snobs etc. Especially the type that has to knock others to make themselves look important.

I'm not talking about you I'm using your post as my segue to make my viewpoint clearer. And when I say 'know-it alls' I want to be clear I'm talking in general terms in the real world.

I have a manager who claims to have spent 29 years in fast food service, and he still has trouble ordering the skim milk for the week and getting along with his team.

It's disappointing to see so many people are still defaulting to whole-hog aesthetic subjectivism.

Discussion of art involves dimensions, some of which are much more secure than others.

Description

EX: The Godfather has a running time of 175 minutes.

The length of this film isn't simply a "matter of opinion." If your opinion is that The Godfather is 35 minutes long, congratulations, you have a wrong opinion.

Do we ever have debates about descriptions? Absolutely, but this does not mean that there is not a "right" answer or that we lack faith that there is "right" answer. It's just that, in some cases, our epistemic vantage point is uncertain. Years after a film is made, there may be conflicting memories about how a scene was shot, but this does NOT mean that how a scene was shot is "a matter of opinion." There is a fact of the matter, but that fact may not be available to us.

Categorization

EX: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is a Western.

Here our judgments are less secure. Category conventions shift over time. Films sometimes overlap categories. Nevertheless, we can rather securely say that The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is a Western, even though there are tough cases to parse.

Interpretation

EX: Deckard is a Replicant in Blade Runner.

Here our judgments are less secure, and yet we have been able to have mature discussion about questions such as this. Indeed, with regard to the above question, most people agree that in the Final Cut of Blade Runner, Deckard is also a Replicant. We had the debate. The debate was explored. They debate was settled. I was on the losing side of this debate. I have accepted this judgment. Is the question settled absolutely? No. Is our judgement here as secure proof of the Pythagorean Theorem or the atomic weight of chlorine? No. But so what? You cannot be absolutely sure of accounts of your infancy or promises of fidelity from a lover (e.g., people lie and misremember). Should we, for that reason, disbelieve all such information for failing to meet mathematical and scientific requirements of certainty? Science is inductive, so David Hume would have a word with them too. All we need to have here is the "better warranted assertion" and NOT "the absolute, unimpeachable, eternal truth."

And I have news kids, some interpretations are better than others. For example, the interpretation that Star Wars: A New Hope is a predictive allegory of the 2008 stock market crisis is a poor interpretation. It is not "just as good as" all other interpretations of the film. Some interpretations are better (more plausible) and others are worse (less plausible) and this is all we need to have in order to have a mature discussion about competing interpretations.

Evaluation

Here our judgments are the least secure of all. But even here there are resources for mature discussion.

1. Anything about which two people agree is in their mutual commitment store. This is a foothold for getting leverage to establish other propositions. When objectivity is unavailable, intersubjectivity still provides a resource (i.e., things are not, perforce, hopelessly subjective). And people agree about quite a bit when it comes to art.

2. Community standards offer locally objective criteria. I can't tell you that you're "wrong" for liking taste of Budweiser. However, I can show how, by community standards, how a Beef Wellington should be prepared, what its ingredients are, and how it should function as a result. These standards are constructed. They are not absolute, but they stand outside of us (personally) and are, in that sense, objective criteria for any discussion.

3. We can study audience psychology to determine the needs of the audience. Artworks are consumed by humans. They are made for humans. we can study humans. To the extent that humans are governed by "nurture" we can study the sociological and psychological patterns of an age to determine why something "works" for a given audience. Moreover, we can say that it is "good" in the instrumental sense of being made for an audience and serving the psychology of that audience.

4. There are objective standards of beauty relative to human biology. To the extent that we are governed by nature, we can look to deeper, more timeless answers. Humans, for example, prefer symmetrical faces (i.e., this is an aspect of "beauty"). For humans, musical tones and chords that resonate at some frequencies are preferrable to others. We find some smells noxious and some smells sweet. Males around the world have an overwhelming preference for a certain hip-index ratio. Artworks serve the public, and the public, like Soylent Green is made of people, and people have some universally (or very nearly so) distributed perceptions, many of which are evaluative (e.g. the perception that the smell of sulfur is foul).

So, no we don't have to cash out for Platonic Idealism to hope to have a serious discussion about the evaluation of art.

I think this is a good example of a valid vs. invalid opinion.

If someone doesn't like that film, or think it's boring, then that makes sense to me - even if I disagree with it.
But the opinion that it is slow is invalid.
It's not possible to do a "faster" version (unless you watch it a double speed) and an edited version would ruin the point and effect of the film.
And since the tempo of Jeanne Dielman remains consistent throughout, I don't think that the person who critiques it as being "slow" would rate a 90 minutes version as "well-paced".
It's not as if they could say, thankfully a version that cuts a lot of unnecessary scenes and goes straight into the action.

Having said that, a few weeks ago I watched Last Year At Marienbad for the first time, and I was disappointed. I sort of knew what kind of film it was going to be and that was also the reason why I watched it.
It's not just the knowledge, but also the interest and passion (maybe even more so).

I've always know that Star Wars is not the film for me, at first subconsciously and later it was the bits and bobs shown on TV or the internet that confirmed it.
Nevertheless, a few days ago I decided to watch it because I didn't want to be that only person in the world who had never watched Star Wars.
Not surprisingly, I didn't enjoy it. On the other hand, I have nothing negative to say about it.
It made me feel....well, nothing. When the film was over I congratulated myself for making the effort and almost instantly forgot everything I had watched.

Conclusion: there's a difference between my opinion of Last Year At Marienbad and my opinion of Star Wars. But I'm not entirely convinced that it has something to do with knowledge because that kinda suggests that we can't fall in love with a genre or a filmmakers distinctive work based on first experience.
If someone has watched a thousand horror films then that still doesn't tell me if that person can distinguish between a good and bad horror film.
But if someone is passionate about horror films (or Star Wars films!) then I'm more inclined to pay attention to his/her opinions.

I can agree with that. But in the case of a person who said Jeanne Dielman was slow, I'd venture a guess that they don't mean the film is flawed and needed tighter editing, they most likely mean 'it's too slow for their taste'. If there's one thing I've learned from this thread it's that it is very hard for one person to know exactly what another person means especially on a discussion board.

IMO Marienbad is cinema in its purest form, and pure cinema criticism - for me it encompasses it all in a distinct and beautiful and brilliant way.

It's never the same movie twice - every time I watch I have a unique experience. I catch things I didn't before or am moved in a different way. There are dozens of interpretations of the picture that have been well documented, and several ways to critique it. And, while I'm sure there have been arguments about it, in general, most fans of the film don't get upset at those who hate it (the way they might with other movies). Because with this particular picture, it's only right, that's how it should be, we shouldn't all love it or expect that - so whether you are of the opinion that the movie is an enigmatic artistic masterpiece or feel it’s the pretentious work of two self-indulgent intellectuals, this is the magic of Marienbad. Each viewer works the film out for themselves, and no two people see the same exact thing.

That might be the one perfect example of the validity of multiple or warring opinions because it simply is not, ONE thing, it's many.

As for slow or the boring in Dielman, isn't that part of the fabric of the film? The tedium, the mundane, unbroken routines - it's not just telling you life is tedious, it's baked into the pacing of the film (and then we watch as that comes undone). So slow or measured is not really an issue for me; in fact, I find that brilliant. For me, I'm trying to find a way not to push back, and to sink into its rhythms. So, I'll take the advice given on that.

__________________
Completed Extant Filmographies: Luis Buñuel, Federico Fellini, Satyajit Ray, Fritz Lang, Andrei Tarkovsky, Buster Keaton, Yasujirō Ozu - (for favorite directors who have passed or retired, 10 minimum)

And to me it looks like something that could have been the film you described.

There was a guy on another forum, years ago, who'd always give me a hard time whenever I'd mention buying a Criterion release. This was in a thread about movie purchases, and he never said a word if I bought a martial arts film, or a Kaiju flick, just the Criterions set him off - and I could understand that if I lorded it over him, or implied he was too dumb to understand these types, but I never did that.

I figured maybe some snotty person, sometime, somewhere, gave him hell about arty, foreign, indie films, and my mentioning Criterion just triggered him. lol, I don't know.

But ever since then, I've accepted the snob label, yup that's me, but it's not the only me, I was also the guy who found the middle seat at the IMAX and donned the 3D glasses on opening weeks a new Resident Evil debuted, just because I thought it was a blast watching Milla kick butt. It was great trashy, silly/exciting fun.

You didn't bother to read further, did you?

The portion you quoted is only part of a larger point.

Maybe he thought Captain Quint should be pirating instead


Criterion releases are great always good video quality.

I think too many people feel compelled to say how great 'Jeanne Dielmann' is, and people intellectualizing.. If someone says "It's boring, shitty" - "That's the point - to show you how mundane her life is", and it seems to be a typical response.



I think some (especially newer movie fans) think if they criticize it, they'll be told they are young, and don't know shit about movies, and probably love mainstream garbage, etc..

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

The issue for me is “it’s boring and slow.” Is never a good criticism of the movie aims for that to begin with. It’s low hanging fruit. Yet the movies is so much than that! Typically, people who don’t like it never mention her character arc and slow descent into madness until the final scene. And no one tries to discuss the scenes that occur and what it signifies.
Instead, the film is reduced to its easiest criticism. That of it being “too slow and boring”

That's the typical response? Gee whiz, and here I thought I said something new.

I don't like the "people feel compelled" arguments for any movie, there might be some examples of that, but to generalize like that, it's disrespectful to the individual. I'm not forced into liking something by anyone, I don't pretend, I don't put on airs. If I say a movie is great, I mean it, I wasn't compelled.... "Why um, yes, I do love Tarkovsky, indubitably, that film about the chap in the space station for example..." (makes note to self to rush home, subscribe to Criterion, and watch a Tarkovsky. Hopefully they have the one about the chap in the space station).

But I do think there are directors, movies, that are worth the extra effort, so yeah, I'll try, try again for them.

And to reiterate the obvious, it’s ok to not like a film that is considered a Masterpiece by others. Even if that includes Tarkovsky or Akerman’s Jeanne Dielman. However, be ready to explain to your reasoning (notice I didn’t say “defend” as I purposely avoided that word as I think some take it personally when they have to defend their view).

For example:
I’m not a big fan of Fulci or Cassavetes, 2 directors usually held in high esteem by most, and I’ve given my reasoning behind them, and actually gotten better at explaining my issue I think during my time here.

Jeanne Dielmann isn't boring.

If it was boring, I wouldn't like it.

And I imagine if other people thought it was boring, they wouldn't either.

People who like it, like it.

Just because it's a serious examination of something rather mundane, doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed in ways similar to a lot of other less strident films.

Bro wrote an essay.

__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.

Probably controversial to Americans:

The hottest black character in film is Hedy Lamarr in White Cargo.

Why quote the entire post when I only need this part to express how I feel about the film?
Actually, this forum version makes it impossible to do partial quotes so I had to quote everything and then remove the part that wasn't relevant to my reply.
But I'm not saying that it wasn't relevant to your reply.

Anything does go in films but that’s a double edged sword. I’m not a fan of censorship either, however….there’s a difference between portraying racism, misogyny, torture, pedophilia et all, and championing it.
A film like Schindler’s List about the Holocaust isn’t the same thing as a film like Triumph of the Will or A Birth of a Nation that crossed the boundaries of ethics. Even if they are well made films.
And it isn’t a matter of hypocrisy.