Cinephilia!

[Belmondo]

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.

Agree completely. Enjoyment can become not not exactly "self improvement", but, at least a highly enjoyable internal discussion in which you demonstrate to yourself all you have learned, and think you're smart enough to do better.

[zedz]

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.

Oh, snap. It does lead to some excruciating viewing experiences. I still haven't been forgiven for forcing my partner to watch Kusturica's Underground to the bitter end on these grounds, even though we were both loathing it. Perversely, it was a film I hated so much I wanted to have the right to complain about it afterwards!

The films I've actually actively started and actively stopped watching can be counted on the fingers of one maimed hand (obviously not counting unpromising channel-surfing experiences), but I number these among the never seen and don't feel I can criticise them.

[myrnaloyisdope]

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.

My greatest lesson was watching Gummo and giving up about an hour in, I was bored and annoyed. I watched the rest about a week later and it changed my opinion of the film(sometimes a Satchel Paige reference is all it takes). I went from being annoyed by the self-indulgent wankery of Harmony Korine, to being entirely compelled by the self-indulgent wankery of Harmony Korine.

I should also not my appreciation for the distinction between "cinephile" and cinemaniac". Having seen the excesses of the people documented in Cinemania, I can't imagine ever being that way. I simply don't care about the technical aspects of what I watch. Hell I am trying to work my way through all of the Joan Blondell and Myrna Loy pre-codes, so I don't care about print quality, simply the content. I'm just thankful to find some of this stuff, let alone give a shit if it's a good print or not.

[flyonthewall2983]

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

I agree with this wholeheartedly. This brings up a question; has a critic (other than Gene Shalit, who did so mid-way Clerks 2) ever reviewed a film he walked out of? I have in mind the incident with Maxim magazine earlier this year, when one of their (most likely esteemed in his industry...right) critics blasted the latest Black Crowes album after hearing a couple of tracks and before it even came out.

[nsps]

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!)

One thing I've noticed in DVD reviews is an ignorance of intent. Blown-out highlights? Oh no! Grainy stock? Say it ain't so! The reviews often lack an acknowledgment that the cinematic lens is a filtration of reality, and the directors, cinematographers, etc. didn't necessarily intend for everything to look like a nature video or televised sporting event. I'm still amazed by the number of people who comment that an HD transfer looks good for an old film, or are even puzzled as to how an older movie could exist in HD, completely oblivious to 35-mm. Oh well.

The best part of the piece is definitely the dialogues at the end. I can admit guilt to participating in most of those scenarios.

[Felix]

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?

I don't reckon on it taking two weeks to read a novel, but whereas I will, like most others here, persevere with a film, I am less likely to with a novel. There is a story of a British publisher or someone in the book trade who was sitting in a railway carriage with a woman reading. She kept putting the book down, sighing, and so on. He asked, is there is a problem? She said, it's this book, I just can't seem to make any headway with it. He asked for a look at it, turned it over in his hands and threw it out the window, there, that's better isn't it? he said.

I think one's attitutde will change with age, when you are young you may be more likely to persist, at my age, no. On the other hand I don't think the whole argument should come down to length of time taken to read a book versus the length of time it takes to watch a movie. When the novel is very good I slow down in order to savour every word.

[Mr Sausage]

On the other hand I don't think the whole argument should come down to length of time taken to read a book versus the length of time it takes to watch a movie. When the novel is very good I slow down in order to savour every word.

I believe the argument is about the length of time taken to read a bad book versus the same for a bad movie. As I said, stealing minutes here and there and spreading the thing out is great if the novel's a good one.

[MichaelB]

This brings up a question; has a critic (other than Gene Shalit, who did so mid-way Clerks 2) ever reviewed a film he walked out of? I have in mind the incident with Maxim magazine earlier this year, when one of their (most likely esteemed in his industry...right) critics blasted the latest Black Crowes album after hearing a couple of tracks and before it even came out.

Michael Parkinson, standing in for Barry Norman on the BBC's flagship review programme Film 86, began a review by saying "Now, I was going to review a film called Flesh and Blood, but I walked out of it after about 45 minutes, and I'm going to tell you why." Needless to say, I rushed to see it as soon as it opened, and I certainly wasn't the only one!

I myself have never walked out of a film that I'm formally reviewing (and nor would I), though I there was one case recently when the checkdisc froze halfway through, and it couldn't be replaced before the deadline - so I simply mentioned this in the piece and reviewed the first half.

One thing I've noticed in DVD reviews is an ignorance of intent. Blown-out highlights? Oh no! Grainy stock? Say it ain't so! The reviews often lack an acknowledgment that the cinematic lens is a filtration of reality, and the directors, cinematographers, etc. didn't necessarily intend for everything to look like a nature video or televised sporting event. I'm still amazed by the number of people who comment that an HD transfer looks good for an old film, or are even puzzled as to how an older movie could exist in HD, completely oblivious to 35-mm. Oh well.

It's not just reviewers but also - far more damagingly - DVD producers. There's a huge row going on about excessive DNR on high-definition transfers in a completely misguided attempt at removing grain, and even Criterion isn't immune from criticism, as they notoriously "corrected" the deliberately desaturated colours in Melville's Le Cercle Rouge.

As a result, we're getting a whole generation of people who might not know how the film was intended to look, but are gulled into assuming that because it's Blu-Ray, or a DVD from a reputable label, they're getting the genuine article. (People old enough to remember when pan-and-scan VHS was the norm certainly weren't under any illusions that they were getting much more than a pale cropped photocopy of the original).

The bottom line of it - how much does the music suck you into a personal "feel' for the movie and then how much does it become an element in something much larger?

This is slightly tangential, but a major problem I've always had with Krzysztof Kieslowski's Three Colours: Blue is that the music was recycled from his earlier No End. I suspect this may have been because the entire trilogy was made on an insanely tight schedule and it was easier to pull something off the shelf (given that the music is actually performed on-screen, so it would have to have been composed in advance, and I appreciate the logistical difficulties), but I found it really jarring to be asked to accept that this music was being composed by one of the film's characters when I was already familiar with it.

[swo17]

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

I'm going to one up this and say that, if a film is generally well regarded (and it doesn't matter by whom), it's not enough to just finish it. You should also read up a little on why it's so well regarded, and possibly even watch the film again to see if you identify with those reasons. Not that you have to eventually agree with all critical consensus, or love every movie that other people love. But before you start bashing on, say, Citizen Kane, you should at least have a basic understanding of why it's considered to be so important.

All this being said, I do have to admit that, back in my reviewing days, I did once give a 4-star review to a Christina Applegate time travel movie (whose name escapes me at the moment) of which I had only watched a few minutes. This was an April fools' day joke. Of course, my parents still assume that I was pulling reviews out of my ass the whole time now.

[Felix]

I'm going to one up this and say that, if a film is generally well regarded (and it doesn't matter by whom), it's not enough to just finish it. You should also read up a little on why it's so well regarded, and possibly even watch the film again to see if you identify with those reasons. Not that you have to eventually agree with all critical consensus, or love every movie that other people love. But before you start bashing on, say, Citizen Kane, you should at least have a basic understanding of why it's considered to be so important.

Pretty much with you on this one. There are directors I do not like at all but people whose views I respect, here and elsewhere, do, and for that reason I keep them in mind and am always prepared to go back to them to see if I have changed and am now receptive to them.

Those I have volte faced on include Ozu and Bergman, and very glad I did too. Sometimes it can be the slightest comment that turns the key in the lock.

I still hope that one day I will get Bresson and Renoir and will retry them periodically though I continue to struggle to get anything about the former. But there are others that I know I will never take to and on those I have given up. I prefer in those circumstances to just leave the director and his fans to get on with it.

[cdnchris]

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

I agree with this wholeheartedly. This brings up a question; has a critic (other than Gene Shalit, who did so mid-way Clerks 2) ever reviewed a film he walked out of?

I remember Gene Siskel walked out of that Chris Farley movie Black Sheep, though in all fairness he didn't really give it a full review. Mentioned how terrible it was so far and just left, hoping no other critics at the screening would notice. He just couldn't take it anymore.

[tryavna]

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?

Sausage's point was really what I was getting at. To finish a book certainly takes more of a time-investment than to finish the average-length movie. But I think that what Felix is actually describing is a totally different kind of reading from the kind I engage in. I really can't break up my reading into miniscule five-minute segments, unless it's extremely fluffy light reading. I like to find a rhythm, and that usually means a minimum of 20 minutes or so for me. True, if I only have a spare five or ten minutes, I'm not likely to start up a DVD, but I'd be far morely likely to listen two or three songs on a CD or my MP3 player. At least there you get a sense of completion.

[flyonthewall2983]

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

I agree with this wholeheartedly. This brings up a question; has a critic (other than Gene Shalit, who did so mid-way Clerks 2) ever reviewed a film he walked out of?

I remember Gene Siskel walked out of that Chris Farley movie Black Sheep, though in all fairness he didn't really give it a full review. Mentioned how terrible it was so far and just left, hoping no other critics at the screening would notice. He just couldn't take it anymore.

If they own up to it, that's fine. What wouldn't be cool if he did a full review of it and made a brief mention of walking out towards the end or not saying it at all, only to be called out on it later who said they saw them leave.

[Perkins Cobb]

Pauline Kael used to get some funny paragraphs out of movies she'd walked out on (although some of them are actually pretty good, so arguably the joke was on her). I think it's a perfectly valid aesthetic response, although I only walk out (or, usually, shut off) a movie if it's deeply offensive or insulting to my intelligence.

[Felix]

Sausage's point was really what I was getting at. To finish a book certainly takes more of a time-investment than to finish the average-length movie. But I think that what Felix is actually describing is a totally different kind of reading from the kind I engage in. I really can't break up my reading into miniscule five-minute segments, unless it's extremely fluffy light reading. I like to find a rhythm, and that usually means a minimum of 20 minutes or so for me.

Yes, it is what I am trying to say, though the five minutes is an extreme example and I also chose horses for courses, so I would not read the same books at work as at home. Science fiction was great for work, Graham Greene, Biographies, quality page turning and fine in 5 minute chunks.

Nowadays, I can't read at my work, so a lot of it is 20 minutes over breakfast, sometimes 15 at lunch, 30 in the evening; it soon adds up. Sometimes I find it easier doing this with "harder" non-fiction books, simply because the mood is not so important. And when my focus shifts to reading then it all goes into overdrive.

I am wary of a stark cost benefit analysis in terms of time. For example poetry can take an age to read, study, understand and finally enjoy but can be so rewarding when it all pans out. And yes, sometimes one wastes time on bad books, but how often do we give an author the same second chance we would give a director? I don't and the book does go out the window if I am not getting something from it after giving it a fair shot. And when you have been at anything for long enough I think you get an idea of whether you will like something from the description of it (I remember doing this with music in the 80's, first time out was Death and The Maiden by The Verlaines and with a name like that and a title like that I knew 100% I would love it and I did... I loved German Expressionism years before I ever saw any of the films)

But... this is a film forum and I am not about to win this one so I think I will bow out gracefully or I'll be here all night (instead of reading or watching a film...)

[Doctor Sunshine]

Yeah, I think he's got us about down.

Another thing about music and bibliophiles by comparison, music and books are not collaborative mediums to the same extent as film, they're much less expensive to produce and they've been around for much, much longer, so there's just a lot more of it. There are still more films than any of us could watch in a lifetime but it's possible to sample almost every type and movement from any time in film history and anywhere in the world. Back when I frequented a music forum I got curious about world music and the only name they produced was Edith Piaf. In mediums as huge as literature and music it's easier to settle into a niche and ignore the rest.

In that we're more willing to sit through a bad movie--bad as in something we're not enjoying, as opposed to guilty pleasures--I do this. Not so much in the hopes that it'll get good, which it never does, but probably in search of those "magic" moments Bordwell was talking about. I used to go by the adage that you can learn as much from a bad movie as a good one but I think I've already learned more from bad movies than I needed. But as you get older your time gets more valuable and just in the last year or so I've shut down movies (or fallen asleep and not bothered a repeat attempt) for the first time. The Terror of Tiny Town may sound intriguing but, really... I was going to say the first 10 minutes but the phrase "all midget Western" was more than enough. But the prospect of something that transcends the rest movie is still compelling, be it gynecologist scene in Teeth (didn't really like the movie overall), the break dancing in Ocean's Twelve (enjoyed the film), or the greatest scene in cinema history in the otherwise just regular great Treasure of Sierra Madre: Walter Huston's crazy old prospector dance. Bad novels and music send me running.

I have no problem disparaging movies I haven't seen at all, let alone part of, but I do value the added ammunition seeing things like Titanic, Paparazzi and Passion of the Christ gave me. I never would have paid money to see the latter two though (library copies) and only paid a dollar to see the former. I endorse that rule for others though.

[nsps]

All this being said, I do have to admit that, back in my reviewing days, I did once give a 4-star review to a Christina Applegate time travel movie (whose name escapes me at the moment) of which I had only watched a few minutes. This was an April fools' day joke. Of course, my parents still assume that I was pulling reviews out of my ass the whole time now.

So does your editor.

ZING!

[swo17]

Um, yeah...I will have to be more careful before confessing anything else on this forum.