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

To me his arguments sound a lot like, "Look, I know better, because... I know better, period!"

I think many of his arguments boil down to “I’ve seen more than you so I must know why I’m talking about.” Which isn’t necessarily true, but I don’t want to make this thread as an attack on him, despite what I wrote.

I will say I do like his encyclopedic knowledge of film, especially most given directors. If I want an opinion on certain directors, he’s one of the first I’ll ask because he has watched so many. So that’s one thing I’ve appreciated from him.

What would you call it, since it does require money and hopefully holds my attention.

In many European countries they have government subsidies for the local film industry. For filmmakers over there, it's a lot easier to not "sell out".

But Hollywood don't play like that.

Hey guys! I thought this was about watching movies, not about antagonizing experiences. Can you quiet down a little?

I don't think I follow you entirely here, Minio, and to be honest your rambling about critics and professional film analysts -not all of them are critics! There's also essayists, historians...- strikes me as particularly mean-spirited; it's just a job with a certain goal which implies analyzing quality and/or appropriateness of films according to certain consistent standards.

Your main point however, I get but it is very ingrained in your own experience. You value an ideal of purity when approaching a movie that to me for example doesn't make much sense, because I assume beforehand that I can be inclined to have certain expectations and make it part of my experience. If I expect to love or hate a film, or if I just come in blind and go with the vibe, these all make in the end different viewing experiences and I think they are equally valuable. And in the end, this and not the film as an independent entity is what I feel, rate and talk about. I don't know how much sense I'm making but I guess it's just to say that just because you are influenced and driven doesn't invalidate your experience, it just makes it different and I like this potential diversity of approach.

Art.

Your survival requires money too yet you're not a product.

No filmmaker cares about YOUR attention SPAN.

It's the only true and sincere response you can sometimes give. I'm not the kind of guy who'd talk about try and convince and person who disliked the film. They simply don't get it. Nothing I can do about it. Getting is different from understanding. I may understand a film but not get it. I can also get a movie without understanding it. Understanding a movie is not essential to liking it. Getting the movie is. Conversations where I explain something to another person make little sense when discussing art. If you do it for social reasons, okay. I don't care about the social part of the site.



great cinema defends itself. If somebody doesn't get it I can't say anything to make them get it apart from the boring lib "NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY U LOVE IT BUT ITS NOT FOR ME" which translates to I'm a normie and have bad taste.

supposedly is a nice touch. People doubted mark f too. It's not just that they might think a given cinephile fakes the ratings. It's that they cannot fathom someone can love cinema so much they dedicate their whole life to it.

They were all Cinema 101 obviousness including the ones you mentioned. Not my fault normies only know American cinema. Normie is not just somebody who doesn't watch them butapso somebody who's seen em all and hated most.the latter is even worse.

I'm not arguing.im just stating the obvious. You can have seen 200 films only and have good taste or 34848484 and have bad taste.

oh. I prefer my old self when I was less knowledgeable. Less lenient to obvious non-legit movies. I was truer and more sincere by understanding less too. I was a peasant, a child. My vision was the purest.

Always.

expectations are a bitch. They soil your experience. Free yourself from it.

Sometimes I'd rather not know the real opinions or beliefs of a person. I'd rather infer them from their film ratings. It really sucks to learn something about them that doesn't fit their taste or your idea of them as a person, though. I like myths and mysteries. I like to engage with ratings instead of a person. This ensures greater purity on my side.

Did you poll every filmmaker in the world?

Do you want me to poll them on whether they care about skizzerflake's attention span?

You just spoke on their behalf. Either you can read minds or you just made it up...

Nah, I value them. Expecting >>>> unexpecting

No self-respecting director cares about some normie's attention span.

Well, that's your opinion. My opinion is that a lot of directors do care about not boring the audience.

They're sellout non-auteurs for the most part. No reason to care about them.

No reason for you to care? Yeah, ok.

And anybody who doesn't cater to your particular likes is a "sellout"? Sure, Jan.

Anybody who says asinine stuff like films are commercial products and need to make one entertained because that's what you pay for is part of the problem. Anybody who makes films just to sell them as products is not an auteur but a joke of a director. Their films can still be good and entertaining, but the director themselves is a joker.

Yes, we are familiar with your opinions. But that's just what they are - the opinions of one person among 8 billion people on this planet. And I respect your opinions just as much as you respect other people's opinions.