Afro_Vacancy wrote: ↑
2 weeks ago
Do I actually need to watch that video?
I don't think that it's a good example. I wrote that people who have lived in a period will respond differently to a period piece. I think that that's meaningful, certainly a lot more meaningful and differently meaningful than xXxIncelWarrior8472xXx having a religious experience to a generic blockbuster trailer.
And yes some of the people that I discussed IV with knew a lot about film.
A really good piece of art is likely (certain?) to have components that won't equally appeal to everybody.
As an example, I loved Amour, it moved me, but I believe that I would have had a much more tepid response to it had I not recently watched my father (slowly) die. I was seeing my father in Emmanuelle Riva and seeing myself in Jean-Louis Trintignant. In that conparison, the more informed and more relevant viewer is the real me who had experienced parts of the film. Without having lived the process of watched ng a loved one slowly die, I think that i would likely (incorrectly) evaluate Amour as being just another good film.
Rain Man is a classic film that transformed the popular conception of autism in the United States. I think that to people who didn't know an autistic person, it was probably just another good film. But for those who did watching that movie led to a lot of gears clicking in a way that they had not before.
I mean, I'm honestly perplexed by your comment, of course the audience matters.
PS I sighed when you recommended Parasite. I was going to watch that with my movie group but I bailed due to fatigue. Lol, bad choice.
I'd look at the video and skip to the middle just to watch a few seconds, I asked that question specifically because it made me think about it myself due to how extreme the reaction is. Ultimately I don't think someone reacting emotionally to a film means it has any value, stupid or obsessive people can be easily manipulated. By extension the fact that many people do this over a film like The Avengers doesn't make a film valuable or either (aside from commercially).
My point isn't all that perplexing, its largely that in terms of quality people need to distinguish between content/subject matter, and then beyond that the medium and expression itself. You distinguish yourself that audience matters in the sense that people who have someone close that is autistic could potentially find more depth in the Rain Man than someone who doesn't, my point is that personal engagement doesn't make a difference to whether or not a film is good or not, it simply is due to personal bias leading specific people in specific instances to be manipulated more easily for better or worse and someone very knowledgeable about film would know if they are reacting in a biased way for whatever reason. Beyond that, someone who has an arts degree or has studied culture, film analysis etc is better equipped to judge the quality of a film like Rain Man than someone who knows a person with autism because at the end of the day you're not watching a subject matter, you're watching a film. People with more knowledge about the medium and analysing the medium know more effectively how to watch and are more open minded towards reacting to something. Film enthusiasts have different taste biases, but they have the information to make rational judgements when analysing a film and its place in history unlike casual film fans or superhero enthusiasts who largely call things like Amour boring, and avoid them entirely because they lack interest in filmic quality and focus largely on subject matter rather than the broader medium as an artform. I'm not saying you can't enjoy a film or be biased towards it because of subject matter or vague entertainment because I might do the same in some instances, but I am saying that pretending that even the best superhero films are as valuable as top-tier arthouse in terms of artistic worth is delusional and based on a lack of knowledge, and I mean that in an objective sense, they have less experience with cinema in a variety of ways so their judgement is worth less. If I like something that is shit, I'll acknowledge its shit unlike most Marvel addicts. Mubi in my opinion gets as close as anything in terms of getting consensus on film from an educated perspective.
To add to that, I can totally understand film enthusiasts not being into IV, its a very strange film and maybe not even a good one. I can also understand why people who experienced the era might enjoy it a lot more. But for a film enthusiast I can't (and virtually don't) see them not appreciating There Will Be Blood for example because people who know and appreciate film as an artform tend to appreciate similar things and they're less concerned with subject matter.
And you definitely missed out on Parasite. What did your movie group say about it? When I saw it in the cinema the whole audience were squirming and having physical reactions the whole time, you could feel engagement and energy in the room, I haven't had that with anything else to that extent maybe ever.
Added in 3 minutes 21 seconds:
Exodus wrote: ↑
2 weeks ago
@JLBB You seriously think that guy's a retard for emotionally reacting to star wars? You're focused on hating nerds when theres rap and sports and scary movie (the series not the genre) fans out there? Lol. I wonder how much of all you guys' hate is horns effect from nerds being ugly
I don't know for sure, but I think that 95% of scary movie fans probably know it is trashy garbage but they get a mild laugh at it. This guy thinks he is watching high art, that's my issue. If this guy was a chad, I'd still insult him. I think partly this dude feels that immense emotionally reaction because he's such a virgin that anything related to relationships, sex etc is going to be avoided due to a lack of connection to them.
Plenty of good hip hop and rap out there too.