Great essay--whenever I think about the increasing inability of our society and culture to interpret and enjoy anything other than lowest-common-denominator franchise flicks, I’m reminded of this George Jackson quote: “the ruling clique approaches its task with a ‘what to think’ program; the vanguard elements have the much more difficult job of promoting ‘how to think.’”
Also, it seems relevant (and portentous) that the current criticism of Scorsese (his movies are too complex, too boring, too austere, etc.) comes after a moral panic alleging that Scorsese’s films, among other things, do not denounce their protagonists in clear enough terms. I think the fact that the discourse on Scorsese has shifted from first condemning the substance of his films to now condemning the very form his films take points to how deeply our society has embraced content (advanced delivery systems for advertising) and consumption (the only way in which content can be enjoyed).
It’s also striking that morality debates around film mainly focus upon what message the viewer needs to be told, and how best to convey that message to the viewer. Such debates rarely if ever discuss that one solution to fears of misinterpretation could be the creation of a society in which the average viewer has the time and tools necessary to achieve a greater degree of media literacy. That such a prospect is essentially not even considered by those who worry so much about viewers getting the “wrong message” reveals a deep (and very American) contempt for the “masses,” as well as a deep American desire to manage those masses.
I declared that 2023 was the year I would become a "film person" because I decided I was potentially missing out on understanding interesting and important ideas by only reading books. It has certainly helped me watch things that challenge me and enliven my curiousity (instead of just rom coms with friends), and probably more movies than I would otherwise, and this is a good reminder that movies are a lifetime of learning ahead
i am the furthest thing from a ‘film person’ who suddenly decided to be a taking-a-film-class-at-university person this semester so i will be using this essay as a functional bible/prompt series of sorts, thank you for saving my nonexistent reputation as an aspiring intellectual 🙏🏼
i love! especially the parts about rewatching films from inside and outside the dollhouse, and the part about how engaging with a film is so much more than consuming content.
I don’t have time to read this today, but I’ve archived it, because it only took three seconds for me to notice your appealing blend of iconoclastic and thorough.
I often find iconoclastic writers to be lazy and half-assed, just as I find the thorough people to be lazy and conservative. Thanks for reminding us that some writers bring us the best of both worlds, a radicalism that still cares about tradition.
This is my first encounter with this blog, and it seems to be an older article, but I wanted to push back a little bit with some commentary of my own.
In my view, the idea that there are objective measures of the quality of a film and that attending to these values represents the correct or optimal way to watch a film is, to me, a flawed argument. It may well be the case that one gains great enjoyment from considering the craft of the film as the technical embodiment of the film’s intent, but I still question the idea that it is wrong to let a film simply exist or to respond to it without considering the color grading or pace between cuts. The experience of watching movies necessarily centers the person who is watching it and the unknowable factors that shape their perception. Judgment cannot exist absent these subjective factors. This deeply personal experience shouldn’t be intruded upon by film snobbery, it should be celebrated. This article asserts that films are good or bad independently of the viewer, that its quality is determined by standards known to those who work hard and acquire prior knowledge on film analysis. This view cuts one’s personal experience out of the picture, and what else could be more important? In a world where the quality of a film is determined without regarding the experience of a particular person, or where enjoyment doesn’t count if you cannot explain it, what is the point of an audience?
This article attempts to be mindful towards the class dynamics of film analysis, but it doesn't present a very persuasive defence. The perspective articulated is a philosophy built on hierarchy, and all too often philosophies of hierarchy will place the wealthy at the top and the poor at the bottom. This isn’t because the poor are intellectually incapable of “getting with the system”, and certainly not because they are blind subjects to a culture of willing ignorance, but because only the wealthy have the time to come up with and adhere to a system that determined the credibility of one’s opinion based on how many obscure or abstract details you can attribute your feelings to. I do not contend that film snobbery is wrong because working-class individuals are often unable to access it, though this is true, I contend that it is wrong because there are as many ways to enjoy a film as there are people alive, and that none of these ways are better or worse than another. To identify one particular method as superior seems to be a means of justifying one’s scorn of those who do not adhere to this method, and that the selected method appears to be one that working-class individuals are often excluded from is suspect.
Rather than defending film analysis as accessible or otherwise condemning the class system for rendering it otherwise, this article argues that it is not the case that the working class does not have the energy, but instead that a culture of individualism has rendered the working classes unwilling to engage with a film that is sufficiently “complicated.” There seems to be a missed irony in insisting working class people work harder to watch movies right while at the same time insisting that the presented view is somehow progressive or liberating.
brilliant brilliant! often i find myself overly defensive of contemporary cinema and visual arts in general; i think it's stems from many people's unwilingness to acknowledge both the potential faults lying in the works' often elitist form but also something beautiful and sincere that lies at their core. this essay wonderfully articulates this defense but also acknowledges the other point of view which i think is quite difficult to do!
I really enjoyed reading this, and honestly think it will help me to watch films in a more appreciative/attentive/critical manner in the future! You're also addressing the difficulty of convincing people that engaging with seemingly difficult or serious art is important, and it made me wonder whether you have read Dan Fox's book, 'Pretentiousness: Why it Matters'? I only just started reading it but I believe it addresses this exact concern !
I’m a film fanatic, and although my film education is light on highfalutin critical theory-- I’ve read and enjoyed some Paul Schrader and I struggle to process cahier du cinema type criticism-- I have to say, I’ve read a ton of film books and articles and this essay is as fine as anything I’ve ever read.
It’s very encouraging to see a large number of people subscribing to your excellent writing.
Great essay--whenever I think about the increasing inability of our society and culture to interpret and enjoy anything other than lowest-common-denominator franchise flicks, I’m reminded of this George Jackson quote: “the ruling clique approaches its task with a ‘what to think’ program; the vanguard elements have the much more difficult job of promoting ‘how to think.’”
Also, it seems relevant (and portentous) that the current criticism of Scorsese (his movies are too complex, too boring, too austere, etc.) comes after a moral panic alleging that Scorsese’s films, among other things, do not denounce their protagonists in clear enough terms. I think the fact that the discourse on Scorsese has shifted from first condemning the substance of his films to now condemning the very form his films take points to how deeply our society has embraced content (advanced delivery systems for advertising) and consumption (the only way in which content can be enjoyed).
It’s also striking that morality debates around film mainly focus upon what message the viewer needs to be told, and how best to convey that message to the viewer. Such debates rarely if ever discuss that one solution to fears of misinterpretation could be the creation of a society in which the average viewer has the time and tools necessary to achieve a greater degree of media literacy. That such a prospect is essentially not even considered by those who worry so much about viewers getting the “wrong message” reveals a deep (and very American) contempt for the “masses,” as well as a deep American desire to manage those masses.
I declared that 2023 was the year I would become a "film person" because I decided I was potentially missing out on understanding interesting and important ideas by only reading books. It has certainly helped me watch things that challenge me and enliven my curiousity (instead of just rom coms with friends), and probably more movies than I would otherwise, and this is a good reminder that movies are a lifetime of learning ahead
i am the furthest thing from a ‘film person’ who suddenly decided to be a taking-a-film-class-at-university person this semester so i will be using this essay as a functional bible/prompt series of sorts, thank you for saving my nonexistent reputation as an aspiring intellectual 🙏🏼
Your writing always inspires me to engage with the world in a more meaningful way :)
i love! especially the parts about rewatching films from inside and outside the dollhouse, and the part about how engaging with a film is so much more than consuming content.
I don’t have time to read this today, but I’ve archived it, because it only took three seconds for me to notice your appealing blend of iconoclastic and thorough.
I often find iconoclastic writers to be lazy and half-assed, just as I find the thorough people to be lazy and conservative. Thanks for reminding us that some writers bring us the best of both worlds, a radicalism that still cares about tradition.
This is my first encounter with this blog, and it seems to be an older article, but I wanted to push back a little bit with some commentary of my own.
In my view, the idea that there are objective measures of the quality of a film and that attending to these values represents the correct or optimal way to watch a film is, to me, a flawed argument. It may well be the case that one gains great enjoyment from considering the craft of the film as the technical embodiment of the film’s intent, but I still question the idea that it is wrong to let a film simply exist or to respond to it without considering the color grading or pace between cuts. The experience of watching movies necessarily centers the person who is watching it and the unknowable factors that shape their perception. Judgment cannot exist absent these subjective factors. This deeply personal experience shouldn’t be intruded upon by film snobbery, it should be celebrated. This article asserts that films are good or bad independently of the viewer, that its quality is determined by standards known to those who work hard and acquire prior knowledge on film analysis. This view cuts one’s personal experience out of the picture, and what else could be more important? In a world where the quality of a film is determined without regarding the experience of a particular person, or where enjoyment doesn’t count if you cannot explain it, what is the point of an audience?
This article attempts to be mindful towards the class dynamics of film analysis, but it doesn't present a very persuasive defence. The perspective articulated is a philosophy built on hierarchy, and all too often philosophies of hierarchy will place the wealthy at the top and the poor at the bottom. This isn’t because the poor are intellectually incapable of “getting with the system”, and certainly not because they are blind subjects to a culture of willing ignorance, but because only the wealthy have the time to come up with and adhere to a system that determined the credibility of one’s opinion based on how many obscure or abstract details you can attribute your feelings to. I do not contend that film snobbery is wrong because working-class individuals are often unable to access it, though this is true, I contend that it is wrong because there are as many ways to enjoy a film as there are people alive, and that none of these ways are better or worse than another. To identify one particular method as superior seems to be a means of justifying one’s scorn of those who do not adhere to this method, and that the selected method appears to be one that working-class individuals are often excluded from is suspect.
Rather than defending film analysis as accessible or otherwise condemning the class system for rendering it otherwise, this article argues that it is not the case that the working class does not have the energy, but instead that a culture of individualism has rendered the working classes unwilling to engage with a film that is sufficiently “complicated.” There seems to be a missed irony in insisting working class people work harder to watch movies right while at the same time insisting that the presented view is somehow progressive or liberating.
my resolution this year is to watch more movies and actually engage with film as art, so this was the perfect read. thank you for sharing!
brilliant brilliant! often i find myself overly defensive of contemporary cinema and visual arts in general; i think it's stems from many people's unwilingness to acknowledge both the potential faults lying in the works' often elitist form but also something beautiful and sincere that lies at their core. this essay wonderfully articulates this defense but also acknowledges the other point of view which i think is quite difficult to do!
Unfortunately, intermissions are a given here in Europe. Almost all cinema theatres do it to all movies. I hate them.
I really enjoyed reading this, and honestly think it will help me to watch films in a more appreciative/attentive/critical manner in the future! You're also addressing the difficulty of convincing people that engaging with seemingly difficult or serious art is important, and it made me wonder whether you have read Dan Fox's book, 'Pretentiousness: Why it Matters'? I only just started reading it but I believe it addresses this exact concern !
I’m a film fanatic, and although my film education is light on highfalutin critical theory-- I’ve read and enjoyed some Paul Schrader and I struggle to process cahier du cinema type criticism-- I have to say, I’ve read a ton of film books and articles and this essay is as fine as anything I’ve ever read.
It’s very encouraging to see a large number of people subscribing to your excellent writing.