The Paul McCartney Film Canon

People are dismissive/derisive/hostile at poster Paul McCartney, but this got me thinking:

This post captures pretty much everything about you as a poster on these boards:

Find me ten guys on these boards who've seen Gunga Din. You know your movies. You have watched a lot of films. But your take on those films are just antithetical to what most people use to qualify a film as "good". You seem to hate any movie that takes itself seriously, or at the very least, you relish not taking serious films seriously. People used to dismiss you as being only into films in an "ironic" sense, but I believe there's more to it than that.

Over and over, you herald as virtues a film's ability to be "good natured" and "easy going." You seem to only want a "good time" from a movie, but the amount of films you've seen, and the length at which you can discuss those films, suggests that something else is going on. Am I imagining this?

I am asking politely for you to do a bit of self-reflection, and tell us more about your take on cinema. I am legitimately, without irony, curious to hear about your love of film.

I've been drinking, so to clarify: this is not a witch hunt. Paul weathered some serious antagonism on the Bond thread, but over the last couple years really proved that he knows a LOT about film. And that he can take some insults. But I really just want to know more about the film-loving song in his heart.

No but, I think when you come out with "I think Gunga Din is the real masterpiece of 1939", you're not exactly Fabfunk or Domingo or someone just running your mouth about Star Trek or The Expendables or Pixar.

I think people dismiss McCartney as being only interested in "goofing" on movies, but the guy goofs on them from one of the most well-versed positions I've seen on these boards. I think it's significant, and maybe there's something in here about the different ways there are to love movies, or maybe not.

Or maybe I'm just delaying my "Movies That Make You Hungry And Sad" thread, but I thought it might be an interesting discussion.

Not what I was looking for, yet totally what I was asking for. The other 9 are excused from me too-ing, though.

But McCartney is a target of derision because of his very specific take on both great films and reviled films.

Chavez: Yes, but over 20 years ago. Certainly not recently enough to discuss its place in ranking films of 1939.

That was what I meant by pointing to his citing it as a sign that McCartney's not some doof with no film knowledge. I find his breadth of knowledge and his taste a curious and interesting juxtaposition.

I don't think he does, really. Many of us have been dicks on this board at one time or another, but you never see him engaging in personal bullshit, and he's almost never off-topic.

Maybe later I'll search for it, but you wanna see dick behavior, check out how he was treated after saying Moonraker was a good movie.

Maybe? Just as this isn't a witch hunt, it's not a defense thread. I just want a place to talk about what he loves in film, why he loves what he loves, and how he got there. I think he's on the unique side, on the knowledge/taste front.

It'd be a shame if he was a joke poster, not the least of which because it'd make this thread (and me) pretty foolish. I don't think he's fake. That was our starting point years ago, but the stuff he responds to in films is consistent ("good natured" and "easy going" turn up in a lot of his praise for a variety of things), and though there's doubtlessly something lamentable about a person who does not seem to respond to mature storytelling on any level, maybe his shell is just that impenetrable, or something. He's a genre fan who seems uninterested in taking it at all seriously.

But again, the odd pairing of what he knows and what he thinks of it is compelling to me. Maybe this thread has nowhere to go, but I am intrigued by the idea of a person who loves film as much as he does, while cheerfully decrying its worth as much as he does.

And whether you like him or not, in the Bond thread at least, he's gotten people to attempt to see where he's coming from. I don't think it's insincere.

I think he has a pathological problem with sincerity, so yeah.

But I guess I just thought it would be interesting to get into a discussion with someone who loves films as much as you do, but for wholly different reasons. Most people who don't take films seriously don't, at the same time, know dozens of movies - mainstream and less so- up and down. I'm curious how that barometer was developed.

Anyone else, while we're here?

Thanks Bob - sometimes I take 4 or 5 posts without ever finding the right word. "Detached." Detached but immersed. I think he got on a plane to attend a Roger Moore book signing. That's what I'm talking about.

You're out of your element, Bob! Maybe I should have contained this shit to the Bond thread, where people have the proper backstory.

Yeah, the thread's not a call out. I like the guy.