Movies you wish you could appreciate, but ultimately cannot - Page 3

OK, I'll bite. Not because I think I can add something by racking down on a classic, but because I genuinely don't like Gone with the Wind. "The fault lies with you". Yeah, probably, that doesn't change my opinion, though. The first time I saw the film, I hated it. I later read up on it as an all-time movie-history classic and tried to rewatch it with more of an eye towards the elements that supposedly gave it this status.

I immediately disconnect from the film in the opening scene. It's Leigh's performance that does it for me. I never feel it's a "character", she's always giving a "performance" (I'm not sure if that even makes any sense, and I know it has to do with a difference in acting styles from more modern films). As she manipulates and flirts her way through suitors I start to get bored. It's all elements that have become soap-opera cliché, and the fact that it may be done for the first time here doesn't make it any more interesting to me. I also don't buy the romance (Butler's too fucking old and Scarlett is such a complete bitch), and the fact that it takes almost 4 hours before he tells her to fuck off is another thing that works against this film in my mind. I do like the fact that in the end he actually does dismiss her.

The casual racism is another thing that just immediately turns me off. It's not hateful racism, but the film is condescending to a maddening degree. It also wants me to feel nostalgia for a lifestyle based on racial segregation. No. And the fact that it was made "back when people were stupid" is no excuse (that is a joke, no one has actually said that, but the idea that the view on such matters was very different then is something that I see often in regards to this issue).

Certainly, the cinematography looks great, absolutely beautiful. Sets, costumes, props; beautiful work all the way. Certain scenes are wonderfully staged. Technically it's probably a masterpiece, but I know little about such things since I am not in the business. There are many things I do like about the film.

In the end, I'm left with nothing more to add on the subject than the opinion you initially so categorically dismissed: I am bored by it. Unrelatable characters, uninterestingly written romance, excessive length (a result of the first 2 points, not being engaged in the story makes the 4 hours excruciating) and a very casual attitude towards racism all work together to form a film that I don't like.

I'm perfectly willing to have my ass handed to me over this, but the idea that I'm "irrefutably wrong" is bullshit, arrogant elitism and nothing else. If someone would explain exactly what it is that to them makes it a classic, I'm always willing to give a film like Gone with the Wind one more chance. Point me to an essay or article about its influence on modern film, something that makes me reevaluate my position and I'll read it and maybe watch the film again. Don't just tell me I'm wrong.

Better labeled, Gone with the Wind would be a "movie I wish I could appreciate but ultimately cannot".

Gone With the Wind is a movie I shall never see, simply out of weird family tradition.

Perfectly labelled as "movie I wish I could appreciate but ultimately cannot".

You just gave an eloquent reply detailing what worked for you and didn't. You may have fond the picture unlikeable (Scarlett is actually meant to be that hateful, not that it makes iy/her any easier to warm to).

You marvelled at the set designs, so maybe I'd challenge that it "bored" you, and had no redeeming aspects. More likely you found it dull/difficult to like/silted ? Which I proposed the difference between a few posts up. Ultimately, you didn't dismiss it as simply "boring". You'll take from it the burning of Atlanta set piece, maybe. You're not dismissing it with a snide "whatever". That's the difference.

You're probably right. Perhaps I get a little defensive at times.
On the topic of GwtW, much of that rant is leftovers from an earlier thread, where some of the same arguments appeared. I didn't feel like taking the bait then, but at least you left the door open for discussion here.

I agree that there must be reasons for liking or disliking any of the above, but I don't think people should be chastised for not being able to fully express them. There isn't a single person on this board who hasn't at some point allowed blind instinct to influence "critical thinking". And instincts are nightmarishly tricky things to take apart and analyse. Indeed it's often easier to weave a shirt out of fog than understand what it is that makes us like one thing or dislike another.

Attempts to find Truth at the heart of instinct often yield answers that produce uncomfortable contradictions and hypocrisy (A man may despise 2001 because it has "no plot", yet consider a similarly plot-less action movie to be the height of cinematic invention). How many of us have used criteria A, B & C to praise movie X and then damned movie Y despite it meeting exactly the same criteria? How many of us make instinctive decisions about books or films and then look to create rules or criteria to dress these decisions up as anything other than instinctual?

Of course, this doesn’t mean we should hold our hands up, admit defeat and cease all attempts to better understand our psychology and therefore the reasons behind our preferences – far from it. I just think it’s wise to recognise the fact that even when we think we’ve found the truth behind qualitative labels such as “good” or “bad”, we may well have done little more than peeled away yet another layer of instinct-rendered delusion.

Well, I I guess agree, Geoff. And I'm not chastising that particular impulse. I'm challenging the impulse, the one to just dismiss is a "boring" or "pretentious" because so often people will think just because it's their immediate opinion, that the thing in question can't be approached from a different angle, in a different light, or with any contextualisation. Which is particularly true of older pictures. A teenager could watch Sunrise today and find the performances ludicrous, thus finding the picture unwatchable. But it's still a landmark, visionary piece of cinema, who's perfomances are of the time. So their opinion, while in the context of heir natural impulse, is understandable, but to surmise that it's bad because of that would be, yes, wrong. We wouldn't be talking about the "casual racism" of the time which might marr Birth Of A Nation or to an extent Gone With The Wind. We're talking of something more akin to criticising Chaucer because he doesn't write in recognisable English. It's hypothetical, but fitting I think.

Hands up: there was a time in my late teens/early 20s when I found The Searchers and 2001 slow an pretentious. Until I started reading about film more voraciously and studying cinema more enthusiastically.

I still loathe the character of Holly Golightly so much that I can't stand to watch Breakfast At Tiffanys. But it doens't stop me from seing that it's a wonderfully breezy, stylish romp with a brilliant theme song.

Looking beyond your impulses is the way to overcoming prejudice in all walks of life. It can be enlightening, edifying and more.

True, but what's happened in this thread is not so much people being "chastised" for not being able to express their reasons for disliking a movie, but more that people are rolling their eyes at the fact that there's no attempt to express reasoning at all.

Indeed, any attempts to dig for reason or explanation are, as usual, met with defensive cries of "Elitist! I just like the films I like!"

Reading this thread is like the Alamo for intelligent film discourse.

The problem with this thread is that some dope makes it every two weeks.

Genuinely personal reactions, like Mr Cobblepot's, can often be the most interesting reactions. if they are honest and open then they can be far more useful in gaining perspective on a film than a great deal of dry, academic discussion - both for fans and non-fans of a particular film. they are also very human reactions, which is also great on an impersonal messageboard.

if this thread were filled with posts like that, it would be a great thread. as it is it got filled up with very closed-down (and, i would suggest, dishonest) shit flinging. the only perspective they gave was that they were people not willing to have their opinions questioned.

Oh, absolutely. My opinion is that “good” and “bad” exist purely in the mind of the individual and are entirely relevant to his or her frame of reference alone. As I get older I find movie reviews that feature line after line of such qualitative judgments (in all manner of dressing) rarely ignite my interest. Not because I think the reviewer is “right” or “wrong”, but rather his perception of such is entirely different to mine and therefore not much use in my frame of reference.

On the other hand, retrospective, in-depth critiques (the likes of which can be found in say Sight & Sound Reader editions) that try to avoid qualitative assessments, instead concentrating on the structure, context, subtext etc. of movies, are both stimulating and perception altering. A good example of such was Mark Kermode’s newspaper piece last week concerning the original Amityville Horror in which he described the movie as a metaphor for mortgage paranoia. I can't say that I'm entirely convinced yet, but I will admit his argument holds more than a little water.

Yes, but isn't such (aggressive?) probing counterproductive? Do people withhold their reasons because they simply don’t have any, or because they feel uncomfortable putting them into an arena that is inherently hostile (especially to newbies)?

A, shall we say, more timid member who goes to great lengths to deliver an honest, yet ill considered appraisal of a movie which subsequently brings down the disproportionate contempt (or worse) of all and sundry isn’t likely to stick his neck out again, is he? Perhaps if people adopted mellower attitudes towards others’ opinions (instead of wading in with axes held high against those that differ from their own) fewer people would feel the need to adopt entirely defensive attitudes and genuine debate would blossom.

This is not a sleight against you, Dan. I just feel each of us must shoulder some responsibility for the nature of debate on this site.

The problem with that, Geoff, is that more often than not, these threads bring people like MattCG out of the woodwork. It brings out the people that just want to spew venom at popular films, or films recognized as classics, just to sound cool and edgy and anti-establishment.

Bullshit breeds bullshit, I suppose.

If we are being truly honest, most of us could have been found guilty of such a charge at some point in our lives (I know I've made an ass out of myself more than once). Of course, the amount and nature of the invective is something else.

The solution is, of course, beer.

And lots of drugs.

And sex.

There is a clear correlation between exposure to the above and message board demeanor. <grin>

Maybe we could just get Dev or Dave to fix the board perameters so that "boring" and "elitist" become b***** and e******.

To be honest, I've never liked the word "elite" since I miserably failed to reach ELITE on Elite. Sixty thousand hours stuck at "COMPETENT" can leave one feeling quite bitter.

Oh, ain't that the fuckin' truth!
Hey! I must be the nicest guy ever!
Great, great point.
I also think that most of the people who post here are just casual film fans (or perhaps "amateur" is a better word?). Going up against people in the business or "pros" is more or less impossible. Movie appreciation, understanding and analysis is actually something that can be learned, which if I understand Strax correctly is what he is going for: If one is truly a movie fan one would make an effort to provide informed opinion (which is what we supposedly have the right to). And I completely agree.

But someone who posts on his lunchbreak might not have time to completely work out his argument, or to write something longwinded about his opinion on the influence of whatever on the modern language of film. It also has to do with the amount of film one sees, not everybody have the time to go back and watch all the classics.

Well, I think the trick is not to enter every thread thinking it’s a competition that must be won. Far too many members (new and established) fall foul to the infectious delusion they are gladiators, with this board being the coliseum in which to earn self-worth fighting “warriors” of wider repute.

When you are totally ignorant of a subject, the temptation is to regard others that aren’t as elitist know-it-alls and write everything they say off as pretentious nonsense. The ability to wrestle this very human impulse and take in what my be troubling or even painful is a mark of maturity. Just as rubbing one’s superior knowledge in the ignorant man’s nose is a firm indicator of childishness.

By "going up against" I merely meant "attempting to argue an opposite view", I never intended for it to sound like I think it's a contest. Because I really, really don't. But the thought that a failure to argue a point might lead to ridicule is not entirely without precedent on these boards (which probably was the point you were making with the "disproportionate contempt" remark earlier) and that can easily be considered a defeat, at least to the poster at the receiving end of it.

I think that depends on the strength of one’s character and willingness to accept one’s own limitations. Broadly speaking I agree.

But let’s be frank here. If you choose to become a member of a message board, any message board, you must expect to be held accountable for what you post. Even on the most genial sites, members aren’t likely to accept absolutist decrees such as “this movie stinks” without attempt at qualification.

The problems arise when a person goes to some effort to produce a crude explanation and is then ridiculed for it. Such mean-spiritedness, whilst occasionally funny under certain circumstances, is to fostering intelligent and stimulating debate what a concrete wall is to a speeding motorcycle.

Indeed, the worst culprits seem to be afflicted with a bizarre and unique form of schizophrenia which allows them to publicly humiliate “fools” one minute and then complain about the mediocre standard of debate on the boards the next without choking on their own hypocrisy. Whether there is a pill for that is anyone's guess.

I don't think I worded that correctly, but it seems like you got the gist of it.

We seem to be in agreement here.

There are certain heroes that due to their nature I would never believe are in any real danger. Jack is one of those due to I think his "cartoon" nature.

Jack isn't a hero, he's a giant arrogant prick. that's why he doesn't believe he's in danger: he thinks he can handle anything with a smirk and a one liner. every so often (like when he's dangling over the well in the wheelchair) he gets this tiny inkling that he is WAY out of his depth and a look of panic momentarily passes his face. it's everyone around him who is the hero. they know the danger they are in, and they always save Jack's ass.

so him never knowing he's in danger is what makes it funny. to me, anyways.

Barry Lyndon...
Every time I watch the "Life in Pictures" doc on the Kubrick set I want to give this another chance, but I can't get into it at all.

Wes Anderson's films. I still don't get the appeal and I think I never will. I just watched The Life Aquatic tonight and it was one of the mosr boringest films I've seen in awhile.

AMEN,BROTHER,TESTIFY!

One of things about the Internet that drives me crazy is the number of people who will say and do any stupid thing in order to sound cool and anti-establishment.
Or will attack anything that is popular because, in their own mind, it makes them a daring rebel.
A prime example is "Titanic". Not a great film IMHO, ..but not a bad one either....but the venom with which it is attacked indicates that some agenda that has nothing to do with it's flaws as a film is at work.

For my own blind spot, I just cannot get excited about "The Thin Red Line". It is visually stunning, has some good performance, and might be techincally speaking a better film then "Saving Private Ryan", but I just could not care about any of the main characters. I did care about the soldiers in SPR.
ANd I think that SPR, for all its flaws, gives a better portrait of men at war then "Line". Line struck me as more of a intellectual's idea of what soldiers at war think and feel, with Ryan I thought I was getting the real deal.
COme to think of it, I have the same problem with Malick's "Days of Heaven" also. Beautiful to look at but totally uninvolving. I think the "Badlands" is the only film of Malick's I really liked.
I also have to wonder if some..but no means all..supporters of "LIne" do so because they think that favoring Malick over Spielberg makes them seem more "intellectual".
I also think that "Donny Darko" is a prime example of a film we are seeing more and more of: Aimed at 18 year olds who want to be intellectual and profound but don't want to the hard work of actually studying philosophy.

For me, this is Blade Runner. I always heard about how amazing it was and so on. And while I was watching it, I knew I was missing something. I could feel it, like I wasn't getting the whole picture but there WAS something there to be found. Only I couldn't find it.

So ultimately, I don't hold it in as high esteem as many other people with similar tastes as myself do. I'd like to, but I don't know what's missing.

Maybe someone here can explain to me what's so good about it. Maybe viewing it with someone else's insight would help me find some of my own.