Different ways to watch/enjoy movies.

[Ace of Knaves]

Now before I begin, I mean to diss no one here. Or call into question their opinions.

But I've been thinking, it's strange the way different people watch movies.

You got people who don't care about plot, good acting or anything like that. They just want to see some **** blow up, some great action scenes etc.

You got people who want a good plot, good acting along with great action scenes and **** blowing up.

Then you have people who go on about things like "composition" and "lighting" and stuff like that.

Here is a quote from Carmine Falcone about Watchmen.

"It's badly directed because there is no link whatsoever between the form and content of a scene"

I'm sorry, but what the **** does that even mean? To me that just sounds like a load of old cobblers to sound more intelligent. (Again this is not intended as an insult, but just expressing my bafflement. If someone explains to me what it means I might change my mind.)

What I'm trying to get at is this.

By meticulously studying film like this, by picking apart things like composition and lighting and "the link between the form and content of a scene" does that stop you experiencing what movies and plays were invented for? ENTERTAINMENT. Does studying film so ****ing obsessively come to the detriment of your experience?

Now I have an eclectic taste in movies. One day, I can watch a film like Desperado and enjoy it for what it is. A trashy action movie. The next day I can watch Schindler's List and enjoy it.

I'm no film expert, I never studied film in school. But I KNOW good acting when I see it. I KNOW good cinematography when I see it. I KNOW a good story when I see it. That is as far as it goes for me.

I want to know, why are some people so obsessive and meticulous over what I believe are such trivial things? Why do some people think they are more intelligent when talking about what I and others think are such trivial things? Why do we all watch movies and get enjoyment out of them in different ways? More importantly, why do some people watch movies in a certain way if more often than not, it will ruin their enjoyment of a film? Films are their to entertain first and foremost IMO, not study as an art form. The art is a big part, but ENTERTAINMENT is the most important part. And by studying film so meticulously you are missing out on that entertainment more often than not.

 

[Carmine Falcone]

I want to make films ''when I grow up''. I look at them differently.

By the way, nice how you handled your reaction to something I said in another thread. Quoting me here and basically saying I talk ******** and asking someone else to explain it to you, without asking me. Stylish.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Well I was expecting you to be one of the first here anyway. And I wasn't implying you talk ********. In fact I was implying that I might be ignorant about it.

So what does it mean then?

 

[Art_of_Crime]

why do I get the feeling thread this has a lot to do with people arguing with you about Inglorious Basterds.

Anyway, films are so subjective. Some people really respond to amazing visuals, some to engaging plot, interesting characters with lots of exposition and development throughout the film, some to plot twists and mystery. Films come in so many different flavors because people's tastes differ so much. What is crap to one person is gold to another.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

It's nothing to do with Inglorious Basterds.

I'm genuinely asking why people meticulously study films even if it proves to be to the detriment of their enjoyment. Like I said, my mentality is films are their for entertainment first and foremost. Why do something if it won't allow you to enjoy something for what it is?

And I'm still waiting for an explanation to what.

"It's badly directed because there is no link whatsoever between the form and content of a scene"

means.

When I watch a film the first thing I want is to be entertained. Not to study composition or lighting etc. As far as I'm concerned, that is not the reason the medium of film was invented.

And sometimes it comes across pretentious.

"Bah well I watch films to study the art form. That makes me superior to you"

 

[Upset Spideyfan]

That's like saying people shouldn't study art and instead be content to just look at the pretty pictures.

Sometimes learning about composition and lighting can ENHANCE your viewing experience.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

That's like saying people shouldn't study art and instead be content to just look at the pretty pictures.

Sometimes learning about composition and lighting can ENHANCE your viewing experience.

I'm sure it sometimes can.

But sometimes I find it ridiculous. "Modern art" as people put it. I remember there was this display at the Tate in London. It was literally a pile of rubbish. People were calling it art and talking a load of pretentious nonsense about it. I can't stand that.

Sometimes I just find the whole thing snobby and pretentious, but yea that's a matter of opinion.

Like I said I can recognize good acting, beautiful cinematography and good story lines. But that is as far as it goes for me.

I want to know why people go further with it even though their "higher brow taste" will lead to them enjoying less movies. And most of the time if a movie doesn't meet their "higher brow taste" it means it's **** and the people who like it for what it is are numb skulls. I seriously cannot stand that mentality.

 

[Carmine Falcone]

Well....it's nice to see that you were inspired to make a whole new thread on account of a comment I made. Just a pity that the first post is a kind of a gutless indirect attack on me and of the way you think I watch films. The ''some people'' you refer to is obviously a description of me, or of what you think I am.

''Studying film so ****ing obsessively'' does not necessarily come ''the detriment of my experience''. Yes, I am a little more critical since I have started studying film and I'll be the first to admit that I at times get too harsh in my critique. I many cases the obsessive studying adds tremendously to my enjoyment.

 

[Upset Spideyfan]

It sounds like you're real problem is with film snobs, which I understand and agree with, but I don't get why you're harping on a legitimate study and understanding of film.

Movies are a visual medium and therefore things like composition and lighting are key, there are a major part of what you are literally watching, so when those elements are presented strongly the audience benefits for it.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

It wasn't an indirect attack at you. Believe me, people on here who know me better know if I'm gonna criticize someone I'll do it to them in person. Well not in person, you know what I mean.

But your comment in the other thread lit up a light bulb in my head about something I've been thinking about for some time. That's all.

And I'm still waiting for an explanation to what that Watchmen comment means. So if you don't want me to suspect you was talking rubbish to sound more intelligent, explain what it means.

 

[Art_of_Crime]

It's nothing to do with Inglorious Basterds.

I'm genuinely asking why people meticulously study films even if it proves to be to the detriment of their enjoyment. Like I said, my mentality is films are their for entertainment first and foremost. Why do something if it won't allow you to enjoy something for what it is?

And I'm still waiting for an explanation to what.

"It's badly directed because there is no link whatsoever between the form and content of a scene"

means.

When I watch a film the first thing I want is to be entertained. Not to study composition or lighting etc. As far as I'm concerned, that is not the reason the medium of film was invented.

And sometimes it comes across pretentious.

"Bah well I watch films to study the art form. That makes me superior to you"

Lets put it this way. If you spent your whole life thinking that there was only one way to cook a hamburger. That was the only burger you ever tasted, you would probably think that it was great. However if you learned more about burgers and how to make them, you learned to appreciate the subtle flavors that you can get by adding different ingredients you might think that a lot of burgers are really bland, but you would truly enjoy the burgers that are well made.

It kind of sounds like you are pissed at film snobs for making you feel inadequate and unsophisticated. Why do you care? Do you want to sound like one of those people? Why let it bother you? If you enjoy movies, and have no interest in learning about the more subtle and technical aspects of film, then don't worry about it. Don't let someone's criticism get to you.
On the same thought though, don't hold it against someone if their opinion differs from yours.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

It sounds like you're real problem is with film snobs, which I understand and agree with, but I don't get why you're harping on a legitimate study and understanding of film.

Movies are a visual medium and therefore things like composition and lighting are key, there are a major part of what you are literally watching, so when those elements are presented strongly the audience benefits for it.

Yea I understand that. But like I've said, I can appreciate those things without getting too meticulous about it. And with me not getting too meticulous about it, I can enjoy a wider variety of films. I'm questioning why others don't follow this mentality.

And yea I guess my real problem is with film snobs. Well, snobs in general really. And I think there is film snobs on this forum.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Lets put it this way. If you spent your whole life thinking that there was only one way to cook a hamburger. That was the only burger you ever tasted, you would probably think that it was great. However if you learned more about burgers and how to make them, you learned to appreciate the subtle flavors that you can get by adding different ingredients you might think that a lot of burgers are really bland, but you would truly enjoy the burgers that are well made.

It kind of sounds like you are pissed at film snobs for making you feel inadequate and unsophisticated. Why do you care? Do you want to sound like one of those people? Why let it bother you? If you enjoy movies, and have no interest in learning about the more subtle and technical aspects of film, then don't worry about it. Don't let someone's criticism get to you.
On the same thought though, don't hold it against someone if their opinion differs from yours.

I don't really let anything get to me, not film snobs anyway. I think film snobs and snobs in all walks of like are pricks. But I don't let them get to me.

And I understand everyone has different opinions. I opened this thread to get an insight into WHY other people have different opinions about films. A discussion into WHY some people find the more subtle, technical aspects more important. WHY some people find explosions and more lighthearted stuff like that more important. And also, does it depend on what sort of film you are watching? Would you study a comedy film the same way you study a drama film? Or an action film?

Basically, why there is so many levels of enjoyment on the film watching spectrum. I think those are legitimate questions that can offer good discussion.

 

[Carmine Falcone]

Well.....I must admit that I think the term I used sounded kinda snazzy....

What I meant to say that, at times in Watchmen, I wondered WHY Snyder chose to show a scene in the way he did. And usually, that question was answered with a simple: ''Well...because it looks ****ing cool!''. And to me, that is just not great directing. Especially when you compare with the graphic novel (which is a whole different discussion altogether I know) where scenes already where cinematically ''directed'' to their fullest potential. Snyder did not improve on those scenes.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Well.....I must admit that I think the term I used sounded kinda snazzy....

What I meant to say that, at times in Watchmen, I wondered WHY Snyder chose to show a scene in the way he did. And usually, that question was answered with a simple: ''Well...because it looks ****ing cool!''. And to me, that is just not great directing. Especially when you compare with the graphic novel (which is a whole different discussion altogether I know) where scenes already where cinematically ''directed'' to their fullest potential. Snyder did not improve on those scenes.

Ahh I see. And I'm inclined to agree to an extent.

But I do think there was some beautiful imagery in the movie too, that I felt heightened the scenes from the book. The scenes on Mars for instance, or when Rorschach and Nite Owl land in Antarctica. Or at the funeral. The Comedian's death at the start.

But like I said this was no way a personal attack on you. See the post above yours, I'm just curious about the different reasons people enjoy films

 

[Art_of_Crime]

I don't really let anything get to me, not film snobs anyway. I think film snobs and snobs in all walks of like are pricks. But I don't let them get to me.

And I understand everyone has different opinions. I opened this thread to get an insight into WHY other people have different opinions about films. A discussion into WHY some people find the more subtle, technical aspects more important. WHY some people find explosions and stuff like that more important.

Basically, why there is so many levels of enjoyment on the film watching spectrum. I think those are legitimate questions that can offer good discussion.

For me it really has to do with the mood i'm in, and how much effort I want to put into the film experience.
If I'm wide awake, and feeling introspective, I want to see something with some serious depth. I want the film to challenge me. I want to see the characters evolve.

If I'm tired, bored or just feeling the mood I want something that takes no effort to enjoy. A Stallone, Arnie or JCVD movie. Action, neck breaks bad one liners and gratuitous violence and nudity. Pretty movies with stunning visuals made only to look awesome fit into this category too.

If I sit through one type when I am in the mood for a different type I won't enjoy it as much as i might have another day. Its like trying to watch Schindler's List when I want to laugh. Or Bambi when I'm aggravated and need a release.

However mood will quite often not overcome poor acting and bad writing.
Poor acting in my definition is the inability of the actor to embody the role, to give the character a believable or likable quality, or simply playing the character as bland, stock, unimpressive or unlikeable for the wrong reasons. Example Hannibal Lecter is a despicable person, but he is interesting and engaging.

Bad writing for me is something a little more hard to quantify. It might be that the story is a cliche, or the dialog is stock, or the movie does not flow well, or perhaps the story just goes nowhere. Its much more subjective. Some people love Memento for its nonlinear story, others hate it for being to confusing and erratic. Some people love how in Pulp Fiction there are lots of dialogs and monologues that have nothing to do with the core stories.
do you sort of see where I'm coming from?

 

[Ace of Knaves]

For me it really has to do with the mood i'm in, and how much effort I want to put into the film experience.
If I'm wide awake, and feeling introspective, I want to see something with some serious depth. I want the film to challenge me. I want to see the characters evolve.

If I'm tired, bored or just feeling the mood I want something that takes no effort to enjoy. A Stallone, Arnie or JCVD movie. Action, neck breaks bad one liners and gratuitous violence and nudity. Pretty movies with stunning visuals made only to look awesome fit into this category too.

If I sit through one type when I am in the mood for a different type I won't enjoy it as much as i might have another day. Its like trying to watch Schindler's List when I want to laugh. Or Bambi when I'm aggravated and need a release.

However mood will quite often not overcome poor acting and bad writing.
Poor acting in my definition is the inability of the actor to embody the role, to give the character a believable or likable quality, or simply playing the character as bland, stock, unimpressive or unlikeable for the wrong reasons. Example Hannibal Lecter is a despicable person, but he is interesting and engaging.

Bad writing for me is something a little more hard to quantify. It might be that the story is a cliche, or the dialog is stock, or the movie does not flow well, or perhaps the story just goes nowhere. Its much more subjective. Some people love Memento for its nonlinear story, others hate it for being to confusing and erratic. Some people love how in Pulp Fiction there are lots of dialogs and monologues that have nothing to do with the core stories.
do you sort of see where I'm coming from?

Yea definitely.

Like I said in my OP. One day I could stick some insane action fest like Desperado or whatever on and enjoy it.

The next day Schindler's List or Blue Velvet.

And when it comes to acting our views are similar. But my main concern is whether I can tell if someone is acting or not. See some people say everything is down to opinion. I disagree when it comes to things like acting. You know what I mean? Good acting is good acting. Bad acting is bad acting.

Like if someone said to me "IMO the acting in Transformers (just for arguments sake) was good". I'd be like "No, it wasn't." That might make me come off as a bit of a prick but I honestly don't think things like that come down to opinion,

 

[Art_of_Crime]

Leaving Ed Wood movies out of this for obvious reasons.
There are some performances that are universally agreed upon to be bad F'ing acting.

I don't think there is anyone out there who is defending Hulk Hogan's performance in Suburban Commando.
Or anyone's performance in Red Sonja.
That does not mean that at times I have been in the mood for a bad movie to laugh at and watched either or both of those, but I really doubt that there is a message border who is going to fight tooth and nail to defend Hogan, siting his performances subtle nuances.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea

There was a discussion about Katie Holmes in Batman Begins in another thread yesterday. Some people were saying she was fine. And that it was their opinion so they couldn't be wrong.

I just can't abide that to be honest. Does that make me a bit of a nob? Yea probably. But I'm not one to ***** foot around the truth.

For instance the scene in her car when Bruce revealed he was gonna kill Chill. It should of been such a powerful and emotional scene. But she ruined it. You could TELL she was acting in a movie.

Or the scene at Arkham when she is talking to Crane about Falcone. It was BLATANTLY rehearsed. It was just terrible.

 

[Evil Twin]

Here's a question. Why the basic assumption that thought/analysis/discussion aren't fun? Isn't that a way to extend the experience of watching a film beyond the running time? Heck, if you can't have fun discussing a movie, why are you on a movie message board?

There isn't anything wrong with a bit of escapism. Things going boom, sexy people, exotic locations, etc. However, isn't it entirely appropriate to find that a movie that functions as escapism plus holds together under deeper analysis is better than one that merely has stuff going boom in it? Or a film that merely has deep thoughts but is dull? I think the movie SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS does the best job of explaining the role of escapism in society, but it also manages to be perfectly entertaining while having a thought in its head. It's not an either/or proposition.

WATCHMEN is probably a bad example. Alan Moore and David Gibbons want you to examine how the story is told through a variety of techniques. It's only natural with a work that pays as much attention to form as WATCHMEN to see if a director can apply that same thought process to the next medium.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Here's a question. Why the basic assumption that thought/analysis/discussion aren't fun? Isn't that a way to extend the experience of watching a film beyond the running time? Heck, if you can't have fun discussing a movie, why are you on a movie message board?

There isn't anything wrong with a bit of escapism. Things going boom, sexy people, exotic locations, etc. However, isn't it entirely appropriate to find that a movie that functions as escapism plus holds together under deeper analysis is better than one that merely has stuff going boom in it? Or a film that merely has deep thoughts but is dull? I think the movie SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS does the best job of explaining the role of escapism in society, but it also manages to be perfectly entertaining while having a thought in its head. It's not an either/or proposition.

WATCHMEN is probably a bad example. Alan Moore and David Gibbons want you to examine how the story is told through a variety of techniques. It's only natural with a work that pays as much attention to form as WATCHMEN to see if a director can apply that same thought process to the next medium.

I love discussing movies. That's why I opened this thread.

You are assuming that I'm saying meticulously analyzing movies is a bad thing. I'm not. I'm asking is it ALWAYS worth it? To some people that is ALL THEY DO.

I'm asking why do some people see a scene and go "Oh that looks really cool/beautiful" and some people go "Yes the lighting and composition there was brilliant". It's the same outcome, both types of people agree the scene was great. But they still look at it in different ways. You know what I mean?

 

[bullets]

I want to know, why are some people so obsessive and meticulous over what I believe are such trivial things? Why do some people think they are more intelligent when talking about what I and others think are such trivial things? Why do we all watch movies and get enjoyment out of them in different ways? More importantly, why do some people watch movies in a certain way if more often than not, it will ruin their enjoyment of a film? Films are their to entertain first and foremost IMO, not study as an art form. The art is a big part, but ENTERTAINMENT is the most important part. And by studying film so meticulously you are missing out on that entertainment more often than not.

I'm the same way when it comes to viewing films, I like the balance.

I think if you know whether the filmaker is striving for art or trying to please everyone and sometimes both that's where you can judge the film.

It's not like we have much of a choice anyway but if the movie is just mindless entertainment I can enjoy it but to dissect it for not being something else is pointless.

 

[bullets]

I disagree when it comes to things like acting. You know what I mean? Good acting is good acting. Bad acting is bad acting.

Well this is true , sometimes the acting can be so bad it kills the movie . I don't expect Shakesperian performances everytime but at least make it somewhat believable.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I'm the same way when it comes to viewing films, I like the balance.

I think if you know whether the filmaker is striving for art or trying to please everyone and sometimes both that's where you can judge the film.

It's not like we have much of a choice anyway but if the movie is just mindless entertainment I can enjoy it but to dissect it for not being something else is pointless.

Completely agreed.

I personally don't see the point in dissecting films TOO much. I'm not saying don't discuss films at all. But I feel some people who have the mentality of dissecting films actually go LOOKING for faults, even subconsciously. And when you go looking for faults you are gonna find them.

Like when I read some movie critic reviews. Sometimes I'm like "Is this guy serious?" They don't know how to balance being a movie critic and a movie fan.

 

[Evil Twin]

Completely agreed.

I personally don't see the point in dissecting films TOO much. I'm not saying don't discuss films at all. But I feel some people who have the mentality of dissecting films actually go LOOKING for faults, even subconsciously. And when you go looking for faults you are gonna find them.

Like when I read some movie critic reviews. Sometimes I'm like "Is this guy serious?" They don't know how to balance being a movie critic and a movie fan.

OTOH, it seems to me that movie fans often get the most defensive when a critic calls out part of a film. Frankly, I was absolutely embarrassed when some of the TDK faithful start taking shots at critics because they gave TDK less than 4 stars, for example. There are plenty of critics that are willing to engage in discussion without resorting to namecalling.

Sometimes "the emperors new clothes" is necessary. And who wants to read a critic that's not knowledgable about film as a medium and its history?

I do agree that when reviewing a movie that doesn't aim high, you should judge it on what it's aiming to do. OTOH, I don't think that necessarily means that a movie should get a pass either. There's little excuse for bad acting and dialogue in any movie. There's little reason for a movie to look flat and drab unless there's a purpose to that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to point out when a horror film relies on jump scares and gore with nothing else. A roller coaster ride isn't necessarily a compliment to a storytelling medium.