Viewing with a purpose

Films or film making??

This is just something I've been pondering for a while. It seems to me that there are two distinct groups of people here. This distinction, I believe tends to dictate how we rate movies. The two groups I am speaking of are those of us which are fans of films and those of us which are fans of film making.

The difference is this: Someone who is more a fan of films in general typically will give higher rating to a film primarily based on it's enjoyability (if that's even a word). The end product and how much fun or how interesting a film was to watch tends to play a larger roll in how we critic it.

The other type tends to fall in love more with the process and art of making a film. When he sees a movie, he will likely be thinking in terms of screenwriting, camera work and other aspects that are tied more into the raw work of the product.

I think that fan of films is generally more prone to give the old "thumbs up" to a movie that had a happy ending, whereas the fan of the process may actually be more critical of the same film for it's predictability. This is just one example but I believe that there are more that could be uncovered simply by studying how one person rates the same movies in contrast to the other.

Having said all of this, I would clearly put myself in the catagory of the latter.

These are not that easy to pin down because they are absolutely not mutually exclusive. That is to say, a fan of films is naturally going to be also a fan of the process and vice versa. But, I do think that if you look at it just right, there are two distinct catagories.

Any thoughts???

Re:Films or film making??

leeroy711:

Having said all of this, I would clearly put myself in the catagory of the latter.

These are not that easy to pin down because they are absolutely not mutually exclusive. That is to say, a fan of films is naturally going to be also a fan of the process and vice versa. But, I do think that if you look at it just right, there are two distinct catagories.

Any thoughts???

Yeah, you're right. I unfortunately find myself in the third distinction where I juggle both schools of thought and have to breakdown (usually) each film I watch. Most of my friends have given up listening to my advice about films because they have seen my movie collection and have said that they can't trust someone that has Requiem for a Dream (the fan of filmmaking side of me) next to Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion (the fan of stupid, fun films side of me) on the shelf.

On the other hand, I consider myself along the lines of Ebert. He has said how he submits to the unconventional side of his film preference (by giving thumbs up to films like Joe vs. the Volcano which is panned by most as a bad film) and others like Silence of the Lambs which is Oscar winning and known for its exceptional story, cinematography, et. al. 

So yeah, I guess for me it's hard to put myself in a single group when I straddle the fence between both sides.

Re:Films or film making??

mercurial:

leeroy711:

Having said all of this, I would clearly put myself in the catagory of the latter.

These are not that easy to pin down because they are absolutely not mutually exclusive. That is to say, a fan of films is naturally going to be also a fan of the process and vice versa. But, I do think that if you look at it just right, there are two distinct catagories.

Any thoughts???

Yeah, you're right. I unfortunately find myself in the third distinction where I juggle both schools of thought and have to breakdown (usually) each film I watch. Most of my friends have given up listening to my advice about films because they have seen my movie collection and have said that they can't trust someone that has Requiem for a Dream (the fan of filmmaking side of me) next to Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion (the fan of stupid, fun films side of me) on the shelf.

On the other hand, I consider myself along the lines of Ebert. He has said how he submits to the unconventional side of his film preference (by giving thumbs up to films like Joe vs. the Volcano which is panned by most as a bad film) and others like Silence of the Lambs which is Oscar winning and known for its exceptional story, cinematography, et. al. 

So yeah, I guess for me it's hard to put myself in a single group when I straddle the fence between both sides.

Well put, I think most of us are like that. I guess I could have more accurately described the differences in the two schools of thought, not neccessarily groups of people. All film buffs probably have a great deal of both intertwined into thier collection.  For me it's Schindler's List vs Friday. Possible the most interesting observation would be that although there is no question which of these movies is the better film, I couldn't even begin to calculate how many more times I've actually sat down to watch Friday as opposed to Schindler's List. Part of what makes a film great to me is the effort demanded in watching it. This is why I will always put the most stock in the great pieces of art while simultaneously spend much more time watching the predictable college pot humor.

It is interesting that you brought up Ebert as well. I've always loved the fact that his reviews come more from the viewpoint of the average audience. He has seen countless works of art but can still give good recomendations based on wether he thinks the normal Joe will feel like he got his $9.50 worth. I think this seperates him from the pack of some of his more pretentious collegues, including his partner Roeper.

Re:Films or film making??

leeroy711:

This is why I will always put the most stock in the great pieces of art while simultaneously spend much more time watching the predictable college pot humor.

It is interesting that you brought up Ebert as well. I've always loved the fact that his reviews come more from the viewpoint of the average audience. He has seen countless works of art but can still give good recomendations based on wether he thinks the normal Joe will feel like he got his $9.50 worth. I think this separates him from the pack of some of his more pretentious collegues, including his partner Roeper.

EXACTLY! Couldn't agree more on both points.

Re:Films or film making??

At times it seems like you two are discussing more the distiction between movies created with a commercial motivation and those created with a creative motivation.  Which is an easier distinction for me to pick apart than being a fan of films or filmmaking which a distiction that I can't really envision.

Re:Films or film making??

Risselada:

At times it seems like you two are discussing more the distiction between movies created with a commercial motivation and those created with a creative motivation.  Which is an easier distinction for me to pick apart than being a fan of films or filmmaking which a distiction that I can't really envision.

I think that's part of it but I'm trying to focus less on any motivation the film makers may or may not have had and more on how an you as an individual would critique that film. It would be harder for me to make the distinction between the motivations of people I don't know. I agree that in many cases the difference is blatent, while I think there are plenty of cases in which something that has great artistic value was greated with commercial motivation such as the indie/foreign gem that was made solely for the purpose of getting it picked up and remade in Hollywood. And there are other times in which a succesfull film was made with purely artistic ventures in mind.

The difference I am trying to describe is how you as the viewer feel about  the individual film. And more specifically how you would rate that film in relation to others. For instance, I laughed out loud at Knocked Up, The 40 Year Old Virgin and Superbad plenty of times and  but none of these films would ever garnish more than a 3 - 3.5 star rating from me. Not because I didn't enjoy the film but because I recognize the amount of talent it took to make them and I was less than impressed. The acting was par, nothing special with the camera work and the overall screenplay was predictable.

Contrast that with a film like The Spirit of the Beehive. I can't say I fell in love with this movie but I would give it a higher rating simply because the imagery was beautiful, the characters were interesting and the story was original and well told.

I guess the best way to put this is that when you rate a film, do you put more stock in how much you enjoyed the film or how much talent  you think the film displayed?

Re:Films or film making??

I find myself rating movies with both views in mind.  I try to go into the film looking for the technical aspects I think it needs to make it a good film, yet I don't let that solely influence my evaluation of it.  I also have to enjoy the film for its entertainment purposes.  If it's flawless in the technical category but just bores me to death, it'll probably get a mediocre to average score.  Some films, like The Godfather, were basically perfect technically, but didn't touch me in a personal way that would justify giving it a perfect 10.  For me, the perfect 10 is a combination of technical genius and high entertainment value.

Re:Films or film making??

leeroy711:

I guess the best way to put this is that when you rate a film, do you put more stock in how much you enjoyed the film or how much talent  you think the film displayed?

I guess if I'd have to pick between those two I'd have to say I rate movies based more on how I enjoyed them.  Sometimes I end up enjoying movies in ways that I wouldn't expect to enjoy them.  Maybe enjoy isn't the perfect word because what I really look for is a movie that affects me in a way that seems truthful.  At least to the truth of my current situation in life.  Sometimes that can be surprising or not really be "enjoyable" but more gut wrenching or sad or a mix of many emotions.

However when you compare that with "how much talent I think the film displayed" if I was somehow able to recognize that the filmmakers were able to display talent but failed to bring something enjoyable, then that seems like a big waste of talent to me.  That should almost deserve a worse rating than a movie that is enjoyable despite a lack of talent.  I guess I'm not sure how I would define talent entirely though.  Again that's a judgement call, just like trying to guess what a film's intentions were regarding being commercial or creative.