Cinephilia!

[flyonthewall2983]

This probably is not related, but I always try (specifically with more recent films) to see if there are actors from both Saving Private Ryan and Malick's The Thin Red Line in the same movie. Don't know if anyone does this, but it's been somewhat impulsive for awhile now.

[Mr Sausage]

I decided to move this back to the Old Films section because, after reading the article, there's no reason why this cannot generate good discussion. Specifically, this caught my attention:

[Literature and classical music enthusiasts] love their art, I suspect, because of its great accomplishments. Who with literary or musical taste would embrace the subpar novel or the apprentice toccata? But cinephiles will watch damn near anything looking for a moment’s worth of magic. Perhaps this puts cinephiles closer to theatre buffs. They too wait hopefully for the sublime instant that flickers out of amateur performances of Our Town and Man and Superman.

Is this true? I know I enjoy watching subpar (usually genre) movies far more than I do reading subpar books or poems, so this kind of strikes at something I've wondered about--and when I first read it I felt immediately like it was somehow true, or at least likely. Yet when I think on it, I know of people with the highest taste in literature (William Empson; G.K. Chesterton) who nevertheless loved reading as much detective fiction, or as many penny dreadfuls, as they could find. Is this a part of their love for literature as much as my love for stuff like The Deadly Mantis is a part of my 'cinephilia'?

[domino harvey]

Bordwell's distinction between cinemania and cinephilia reminded me of how Langlois would differentiate between film lovers and film nerds, in that the later were obsessed with the compartmentalization of film and had notebooks with facts written down &c-- but they still didn't and couldn't love movies like the film lovers.

[Murdoch]

I know I enjoy watching subpar (usually genre) movies far more than I do reading subpar books or poems, so this kind of strikes at something I've wondered about--and when I first read it I felt immediately like it was somehow true, or at least likely. Yet when I think on it, I know of people with the highest taste in literature (William Empson; G.K. Chesterton) who nevertheless loved reading as much detective fiction, or as many penny dreadfuls, as they can find. Is this a part of their love for literature as much as my love for stuff like The Deadly Mantis is a part of my 'cinephilia'?

I think Bordwell is generalizing too much here as a way to better separate film from other artistic media. I have friends who read Bukowski and Joyce, but still are addicted to John Grisham and novelizations of TV shows, so I think it's safe to say that novels or music are a very similar endeavor to film for many people who may pride themselves on their taste. Perhaps its attributable to devotion to one medium because, while I try to read good books and listen to good music, it becomes difficult - for me at least - to keep track of the best of books and music when I'm so busy trying to expose myself to as much cinema as possible. I feel like you have to stick with one medium in order to learn as much as you want about it, so when you venture into other areas it seems pointless to read a sub-par book or listen to fluffy pop music when you want to just cut right to the bone and find the best, yet in that niche medium you've allowed yourself to be consumed by you look more for certain particular satisfying elements (cinematography in an otherwise mediocre film for example) than just what's the best overall film or book or song. But, then again, I'm pretty lazy so maybe this just applies to me.

[colinr0380]

What really does tickle me in Bordwell's piece is the one upmanship many of us fall into and the levels of percieved knowledge-status etc, thus:

"Well you havent seen a Technicolor IB print", or "the Droessler version of Lola Montez is superior because the last tracking shot isn't interupted by a dissolve" etc etc. This stuff had me on the floor. (And if you don't laugh at yourself, somebody else always will!)

That's nothing! We were talking about this stuff long before Bordwell!

I suppose it is also important to vary your criteria for assessment. Just as there is no point comparing every novel to Dostoyevsky - not every other novel may be able to match the scope and achievement but at the same time not every novel is trying to put itself in competition with every other book ever written.

Once we get past the canonical works and established classics and have simply read or seen a wide range of work I'd suggest that the question becomes less about whether something is 'better' than another than whether a particular piece of work adds something to the field or the culture rather than just recycling ideas borrowed from other works.

We're also talking about the interaction between the quantifiable and definable physical artifcact of the words in a book or the images of a film and the effect they have on their audience. Someone could see an absolute classic by critical standards and be left cold by just not connecting with it - on the other hand someone could be touched by the art in what has been dismissed by everyone else as a trashy B-movie.

A lot of what is exciting about art in general, obviously including films, is that we can come to a general consensus but what is far more exciting is developing your own tastes and more importantly constantly challenging and trying to develop your knowledge and interest. Your point of view is just as valid as anyone else's (something which Bordwell's article suggests some cinephiles miss in their need to prove themselves 'better' than others rather than recognising that we can all contribute different perspectives, and recognising that rather than trying to close your experience off from discussion can enrich everyone's experience of cinema), you might catch a different facet of a film or find some worth in a film many consider worthless. In the end if you were touched by a piece of work, or emotionally or intellectually moved, then it has served some purpose (and even failures or terrible films can play an important part in helping us try to understand why it failed - did it fail on a personal level?, i.e. it just didn't connect with you as a viewer, in which case it is always worth another viewing after a break just to see whether your reaction will be the same; or were its failures on a more fundamental structural or story level? If so, what were they as you would define them?)

Interestingly on the subject of searching through ostensible trash in order to find the 'gems' - the moments of beautiful photography, of great individual performances, of sequences in which a clunky movie catches a spark of momentum - I was reminded of Manny Farber and his idea of termite art. The way that poorly regarded pulp novels would capture a sense of realism or the way a cheaply made B-movie would have a sense of verisimilitude through having to film on location with less 'movie star' looking actors partly because they just didn't have the funds to build elaborate sets and hire the sex bombs of the day.

Moments of films may gain in great significance that were not originally intended. For example I love seeing real, rather than studio created, street scenes in old films - brief flashes of documentary in the middle of fictional films that provide the images of life at that point in time, while the fictional elements themselves provide a heightened example of the way of the intellectual and emotional attitude to life at that time.

Bordwell's distinction between cinemania and cinephilia reminded me of how Langlois would differentiate between film lovers and film nerds, in that the later were obsessed with the compartmentalization of film and had notebooks with facts written down &c-- but they still didn't and couldn't love movies like the film lovers.

Sometimes I wonder if this has not evolved into technophilia. As much as I very much appreciate being kept up to date on the latest developments and having DVD Beaver there to cast a microscopic eye over aspect ratios and bit and compression rates of different discs, sometimes I'm left wondering whether people lose sight of the main purpose of wanting the best possible quality - to see the film closer to the way it was intended. I sometimes get the impression that technophiles would much rather have a pristine Blu-Ray copy of Scary Movie 6 than ever consider viewing a VHS copy of, just because it is on my mind at the moment, A Brighter Summer Day. I'd much rather watch a great film on video than a crap film on Blu-Ray (but of course in a perfect world we'd be watching the great films on the greatest format!)

Quality of image seems to be taking precedence while focus on the quality of content slips, and I sometimes feel that people should move far enough away from the screen so that they see what the picture is trying to represent rather than making sure every pixel is present and correct.

I personally feel nerdiness helps with dissecting and discussing films, along with the technophilia but they should always be in service of the main, unchanging goal - to view, understand, be moved or entertained by film and try to convey what you found interesting to others. Anyone can be involved in that, it is just that the more background you have and the more technical you are the better you can place films in their proper context.

[HerrSchreck]

Although I believe in the idea of "good" cinema (or "great" cinema... or perhaps more apropriately the idea of the Masterpiece) and "bad cinema", to me the most applicable guidelines is "engaging" cinema, vs "boring" cinema.

To me the worst sin a film can commit is being boring. Many films which bear the hallmarks that academy would define as elements of "bad" filmmaking, to me, are absolutely compelling and I cannot take my eyes off of them. And conversely of course-- in, for example, what I consider the worst of Bresson, i e Mouchette and Joan-- films which academy deem absolute masterpieces are for me the most ponderous experiences in the world.

I'm a strong believer in the idea of Entertainment.. that regardless of the (supposed) High or Low nature of an artwork in terms of technique and aesthetics, they all ultimately succeed or fail in terms of their ability to draw me in via the strength of their charms. And often times disorganization, bad acting all mixed with wonderful 1930's location shooting (in some 1930's exploiteer) can win out over films endlessly labored over, filled with artifice, etc-- in terms of keeping me engaged.

In terms of the dif for literature/penny-dreadfuls, and cinema, and the difference in the ability to stomach bad cinema vs bad lit-- may have something to do with the passivity involved in watching a film. Your mind is not as heavily engaged and put to work participating in the construction of the schlocko world to be conjured... whereas with a book you go to work visualizing and contributing to the world on the written page. I just think your mind is more resistant to putting in that kind of work for something it deems unworthy. A book is a bit more of a "project" for the mind than a film.

Just a quick supposition of the top of the head, though its probably more complicated than that.

[tryavna]

In terms of the dif for literature/penny-dreadfuls, and cinema, and the difference in the ability to stomach bad cinema vs bad lit-- may have something to do with the passivity involved in watching a film. Your mind is not as heavily engaged and put to work participating in the construction of the schlocko world to be conjured... whereas with a book you go to work visualizing and contributing to the world on the written page. I just think your mind is more resistant to putting in that kind of work for something it deems unworthy. A book is a bit more of a "project" for the mind than a film.

Up to a point, I definitely agree with Schreck here. Generally speaking, it takes more of an investment of time to read a novel than watch a movie. So you can watch a 90-minute potboiler just before bedtime, when you might only make it through 25% of, let's say, an Agatha Christie novel in the same amount of time. If you went with the book instead of the film, you'd still need another 4 or 5 hours to finish the novel.

On the other hand, I really agree with Sausage's points that Bordwell has made too sweeping a generalization. Just speaking from personal experience, I am currently reading a spy novel (a personal guilty pleasure) before returning to some late-19th-century American psychological realism. And I'm sure I'm not the only completists who listens to the apprenticeship music of his favorite composers, either.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Thanks for posting that link, David. I really loved the section called "Cooperative Games" because that's what I see all the time. His quote - "The real crux, I think, is this. The cinephile loves the idea of film." - really stuck with me though because that's how I'd define my obsession with cinema and my frustration with how bad current films can be. I think that's why many of us are here.

[Perkins Cobb]

Who with literary or musical taste would embrace the subpar novel or the apprentice toccata? But cinephiles will watch damn near anything looking for a moment’s worth of magic.

I took this as a reference to (or at least I related to it in terms of) Pauline Kael's argument that if you don't appreciate bad movies, you don't have any business calling yourself a movie buff. In other words, film is a popular art, and to take a high-culture attitude and limit yourself only to respectable/canonical/safe masterworks is to miss the point. Digging around in the trenches of schlock is not evidence of a lack of discernment, it's just requisite behavior for savvy movie buffs.

[Felix]

Perhaps its attributable to devotion to one medium because, while I try to read good books and listen to good music, it becomes difficult - for me at least - to keep track of the best of books and music when I'm so busy trying to expose myself to as much cinema as possible. I feel like you have to stick with one medium in order to learn as much as you want about it

I am very obsessive when I get my teeth into something but love different arts, music, literature, poetry, not to mention history, Buddhism, skills I use for my work, and more, and the only way I have found to manage it is to focus on one area for months, or years, and saturate myself, and then move on and do the same somewhere else. I do this with movies in particular, a couple of years, five, more, and then long periods out. I have been out for 12 months prior to late Spring for example; now I think of little else but the buzz will pass and the next thing will come into the cross hairs.

Interestingly my wife is like this with her art, periods of intense manic activity, and then nada, just like that, sometimes in the course of 48 hours after months of frentic activity. We share the mindset if not the gifts.

Sometimes I wonder if this has not evolved into technophilia. As much as I very much appreciate being kept up to date on the latest developments and having DVD Beaver there to cast a microscopic eye over aspect ratios and bit and compression rates of different discs, sometimes I'm left wondering whether people lose sight of the main purpose of wanting the best possible quality - to see the film closer to the way it was intended. I sometimes get the impression that technophiles would much rather have a pristine Blu-Ray copy of Scary Movie 6 than ever consider viewing a VHS copy of, just because it is on my mind at the moment, A Brighter Summer Day. I'd much rather watch a great film on video than a crap film on Blu-Ray (but of course in a perfect world we'd be watching the great films on the greatest format!)

Quality of image seems to be taking precedence while focus on the quality of content slips, and I sometimes feel that people should move far enough away from the screen so that they see what the picture is trying to represent rather than making sure every pixel is present and correct.

Oh spot on, that man. I have been thinking a lot about this one as the more I read here, and the more connections I make (one theme I have even forgotten how I got onto a week or two ago, got me to Borzage, then the Cinema Epoch Chinese films, and Ruan Lingyu and then Amazon...), the more I become conscious of all the movies I still have to see. There are exceptions but I am now kinda minded to say no more upgrades until I have picked up all those films I have still never seen.

I see the analogy with Hi Fi where I used to know so people with systems worth thousands, and I am going back 20 years, and hardly any records to play on them. Madness. These guys would not buy a record unless it was well produced and asked WTF I wanted a Linn to listen to Punk. Nowadays people laugh at me playing Silent movies on DVD. Ho ho, they laugh, Dolby Sound for Silent movies...

[MichaelB]

I see the analogy with Hi Fi where I used to know so people with systems worth thousands, and I am going back 20 years, and hardly any records to play on them. Madness. These guys would not buy a record unless it was well produced and asked WTF I wanted a Linn to listen to Punk. Nowadays people laugh at me playing Silent movies on DVD. Ho ho, they laugh, Dolby Sound for Silent movies...

There's a very funny story in Charles Shaar Murray's biography of John Lee Hooker where he and a neighbour would get together to play each other records, and the neighbour was a hardcore jazz aficionado for whom production and instrumental virtuosity were far more important than anything else.

Not too surprisingly, there was a terminal rift when Murray brought out a much-loved John Lee Hooker record, only for it to be dismissed with a curt "Why are you playing me this? This man can barely play the guitar".

[sonofkinski]

There's a very funny story in Charles Shaar Murray's biography of John Lee Hooker where he and a neighbour would get together to play each other records, and the neighbour was a hardcore jazz aficionado for whom production and instrumental virtuosity were far more important than anything else.

Makes me think of just one thing... The Jazz Trance.

[Tommaso]

Generally speaking, it takes more of an investment of time to read a novel than watch a movie. So you can watch a 90-minute potboiler just before bedtime, when you might only make it through 25% of, let's say, an Agatha Christie novel in the same amount of time. If you went with the book instead of the film, you'd still need another 4 or 5 hours to finish the novel.

Absolutely true, perhaps this is one of the reasons why I read far less novels these days than I used to, or rather: I tend to re-read those that I have found engaging 20 years ago, but hardly bother to try out new ones (disregarding the occasional Pynchon novelty every ten years or so). But with films, I'm constantly on the lookout for films unknown to me, in the sense described by Bordwell: trying to push my borders, trying to accept styles of filmmaking I wouldn't have touched with a bargepole ten years ago (mostly thanks to this forum), and this can be very rewarding occasionally if I think of my newly developed interest in Ozu. But I don't know: it may well be that I reach a similar point with films as with literature in ten years, i.e. rather constantly revisiting the old favourites than checking out new films. One indication may be that I rarely go to the cinema these days and even if I do so, I'm more often disappointed than not.
As to music, unlike Bordwell I think it's similar to cinema (at least in my case): if I'm really interested in a composer, I tend to check out ALL his works, even if they are early or sub-par ones, simply because they all form a part of that particular composer's 'identity', and shed light onto his masterpieces. Similarly, films like "The devil's Eye" or "All these women" are probably sub-par in Bergman's oeuvre, nevertheless they are absolutely necessary to understand the complexity of that director's art and personality.

[Felix]

Generally speaking, it takes more of an investment of time to read a novel than watch a movie. So you can watch a 90-minute potboiler just before bedtime, when you might only make it through 25% of, let's say, an Agatha Christie novel in the same amount of time. If you went with the book instead of the film, you'd still need another 4 or 5 hours to finish the novel.

Absolutely true,

I don't see this one. If you have five spare minutes are you really going to put a DVD in? But you could well take five minutes to read, especially if you read in that way over lots of five minute spells. Yes, technically, it takes more time, but I would argue there is more time available for the reading, depending on your circumstances of course. I do it all the time on trains and used to do it five minutes here, five minutes there when I worked on the shop floor. It is just a habit that needs cultivated and it doesn't have to be simple reading either.

[swo17]

I think the issue is how much time you have to invest in something. An album might take you 40 minutes, or a film 2 hours, but a book could take you a week or more to finish. I have successfully deluded myself to believe that, if I focus my efforts enough, I can consume every worthwhile film or album ever made within my lifetime. But with books, there’s just not enough time. Which is why I mostly just stick with the classics.

[zedz]

As to music, unlike Bordwell I think it's similar to cinema (at least in my case): if I'm really interested in a composer, I tend to check out ALL his works, even if they are early or sub-par ones, simply because they all form a part of that particular composer's 'identity', and shed light onto his masterpieces.

I agree. This is the part of Bordwell's piece that rang false with me. If you're devoted to a particular artist's work (whether that be in music, literature or painting), you generally do seek out as much of their work as you can find, and occasionally you'll be rewarded with improved understanding or the occasional genuine gem. I'm thinking in particular of 'The Great B-Side Hunt' many of us must have participated in.

[poohbear]

I think Bordwell is generalizing too much here

Um...That's Bordwell's entire shtick.

[Mr Sausage]

Generally speaking, it takes more of an investment of time to read a novel than watch a movie. So you can watch a 90-minute potboiler just before bedtime, when you might only make it through 25% of, let's say, an Agatha Christie novel in the same amount of time. If you went with the book instead of the film, you'd still need another 4 or 5 hours to finish the novel.

Absolutely true,

I don't see this one. If you have five spare minutes are you really going to put a DVD in? But you could well take five minutes to read, especially if you read in that way over lots of five minute spells. Yes, technically, it takes more time, but I would argue there is more time available for the reading, depending on your circumstances of course. I do it all the time on trains and used to do it five minutes here, five minutes there when I worked on the shop floor. It is just a habit that needs cultivated and it doesn't have to be simple reading either.

This is fine as long as the novel's good, but if all your spare minutes over a two week period are spent in reading a tedious bore of a novel, a ninety minute boring movie will start to seem like a good prospect. Who really prefers to live with a bad book for two weeks or more over getting through a bad movie in ninety or more minutes?

[Narshty]

On the same note, I wonder how many people, on this thread or elsewhere, feel the need to watch every film right the way through, regardless of how bored or loathsome their reaction may be?

[domino harvey]

On the same note, I wonder how many people, on this thread or elsewhere, feel the need to watch every film right the way through, regardless of how bored or loathsome their reaction may be?

I refuse to not finish any film I start, which leads to some tortuous moviewatching sessions, believe me

[swo17]

I will watch pretty much everything (99.9%) through to the end, though if it is really boring, I may get up and do dishes or something with the movie still on in the other room. I think you need to watch a film all the way through though in order to earn the right to criticize it.

[domino harvey]

I think you need to watch a film all the way through though in order to earn the right to criticize it.

Co-sign. One of my biggest pet peeves is people who bitch about a movie they walked out of-- you have no rights to complain unless you saw the whole thing.

[Highway 61]

I'm firmly in the "stay till the end" camp, and I also feel that films should be watched in one sitting. Both these positions end up screwing me, however, because I mostly watch films late at night, and I often doze off, so I'm forced to restart the film from the beginning the next day. I suppose that makes me a cinemaniac.

[Mr Sausage]

I had to stop watching Stalker sometime past the intermission because I was about to pass out from exhaustion. Still raved about how great it was to everyone in the house after I finally finished it later that night. I also had to pause Inferno to take a two hour nap (and I only woke up from that because a dream suddenly turned very, very ugly, so I figured I'd end things there and wake myself up). I still had a good time watching it, tho' I couldn't figure out what the hell was going on in that movie, which may or may not have had anything to do with my mid-way break. I think I watched Napoleon spread out over two days. So, nothing but good experiences from breaking movies up.

Otherwise, I finish movies I start--something I came to really regret while watching Million Dollar Hotel.

[Michael Kerpan]

I watch films for enjoyment (not for self-improvement) -- so I reserve the right to quit watching any film at any point which it becomes unendurably irksome to me.

I also reserve the right to state that a film so bored (or aggravated) me that I quit watching it. Will I attempt to assess it as a whole, of course not -- but I feel confident that watching more would only have made me like the film less.

Life is too short to watch stuff that is unrewarding -- and there are plenty of other more worthwhile things to see (and do).