Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Mid-Spring Edition. Happy Beltane!

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

V for Vendetta (2005) directed by James McTeigue

In a dystopian London controlled by a fascist regime, a mysterious anarchist known by the name of V (Hugo Weaving) sets off a revolution with the aid from Evey (Natalie Portman), a girl caught up in his revolution. V for Vendetta was a formative film for many in my generation when it came out, however I did not watch it when I was at an impressionable age and instead I’m watching it 16 years after it was released and I’m sorry to report that just not very good. Everything about it is just cheesy as hell, from the dialogue to the action and the characters. It looks like and feels like a TV movie and I don’t really understand why some hold this in high acclaim. I guess you had to have seen it in 2005. It’s full of just complete stilted and unnatural performances and dialogue that tries to articulate a deeper meaning as a "smart blockbuster film" than what it actually represents. Not trying to restart The Great Pretentiousness Debate but this is an example of a pretentious film in that it uses a wealth of very shallow literary and artistic references to try to convey some deeper meaning that doesn’t actually exist. A film that’s aiming for gravitas and begging for viewers to say “wow that’s deep, you’re really smart” but it doesn’t really deserve it and comes off as just stupid and goofy unless you’re an impressionable teenager.

Ok, so this is the one. Empty allusions would be pretentious - or is it only empty literary or high art allusions? (Otherwise Tarantino is in for the deep dive)

I'm not that familiar with V for Vendetta, but I doubt a comic book adaptation really had the deep philosophical intentions you try to read into. The Matrix used a Baudrillard allusion to try to add a layer to the film. IMO, L & L Wachowski missed the whole point of the book they were refering to, but blaming the film for what it is against what it could/should have been in light of my own understanding of exterior texts doesn't exactly make it pretentious (it might make me though, especially if I was to pretend that I understood the real - and missed - intention beyond the reference).

The film is what it is. It might be light in regards to its subject, but then again, if its a blockbuster that's in great part aimed at teenagers...

I'd be curious to know what were the references that you felt should have been used more exhaustively (or avoided), and how we should in your opinion evaluate that a reference was relevant or pretentious. I mean, is the Pascal reference in Ma nuit chez Maud used to its full extent? It's pretty central to the whole film, but an allusion works through significant return, so it's in its very mechanic to add something to a work that is not already there otherwise - or, as you say, deeper meaning that doesn't actually exist (within the original work).

 

[kihei]

V for Vendetta (2005) directed by James McTeigue

In a dystopian London controlled by a fascist regime, a mysterious anarchist known by the name of V (Hugo Weaving) sets off a revolution with the aid from Evey (Natalie Portman), a girl caught up in his revolution. V for Vendetta was a formative film for many in my generation when it came out, however I did not watch it when I was at an impressionable age and instead I’m watching it 16 years after it was released and I’m sorry to report that just not very good. Everything about it is just cheesy as hell, from the dialogue to the action and the characters. It looks like and feels like a TV movie and I don’t really understand why some hold this in high acclaim. I guess you had to have seen it in 2005. It’s full of just complete stilted and unnatural performances and dialogue that tries to articulate a deeper meaning as a "smart blockbuster film" than what it actually represents. Not trying to restart The Great Pretentiousness Debate but this is an example of a pretentious film in that it uses a wealth of very shallow literary and artistic references to try to convey some deeper meaning that doesn’t actually exist. A film that’s aiming for gravitas and begging for viewers to say “wow that’s deep, you’re really smart” but it doesn’t really deserve it and comes off as just stupid and goofy unless you’re an impressionable teenager.

I really disliked it when it came out, and pretty much for the reasons that you give.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Just a really dumb film. A film that markets itself as a film for the thinking man, when it is really a film for the man who likes to think he's a thinking man but who actually is not. Such as most teenagers. The cinematic equivalent of the college freshman who grabs the thesaurus to add fancy language to their C+ paper

Lordy do I have a rant bottled up inside me on this. HF's policies on political discourse hold me back so I'll just say I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[kihei]

In the Earth (2021) Directed by Ben Wheatley 6B

In the Earth is a hard movie to judge. It is a hard movie to describe, too, kind of like Annihilation but on really strong acid. Ben Wheatley has always been an edgy, envelope-pushing director (Down Terrace; Kill List; A Field in England; Sightseers), way more so than his countryman Peter Strickland (Berberian Sound Studio; The Duke of Burgundy; In Fabric). Wheatley finds strange ways to bend and twist horror genre tropes, and he is not afraid of pushing his audience into extreme reactions. At his best his movies are unpredictable and tend to opt for the road less travelled.

Same with this one. During a time when a deadly virus has disrupted the world, Martin, a young researcher, and his forest ranger guide Olivia travel through a forbidding forest to get to a colleague who has been working on some hush-hush experiments. It is a long walk, and not without incident. They meet someone who seems to be a hermit along the way, but it turns out he is a little on the crazy side. However, the story doesn't end there. In fact, it gets a lot weirder. I'm not going to reveal what the threat is except to say that it is original and has to do with an approach to science distressingly intermingled with superstition, atavism and the notion that nature itself might be more sentient than we think it is .

Trouble is the first and third acts are wonderful, but the long second act is generic as hell, as Martin and Olivia must contend with Zack, the hermit. There are also a couple of touches of really creative gore along the way. All very nicely shot and edited with a superb electronic score; In the Earth is what one might call a typically accomplished (though flawed), "wtf" Ben Wheatley movie.

TIFF.net

 

[Pink Mist]

Ok, so this is the one. Empty allusions would be pretentious - or is it only empty literary or high art allusions? (Otherwise Tarantino is in for the deep dive)

I'm not that familiar with V for Vendetta, but I doubt a comic book adaptation really had the deep philosophical intentions you try to read into. The Matrix used a Baudrillard allusion to try to add a layer to the film. IMO, L & L Wachowski missed the whole point of the book they were refering to, but blaming the film for what it is against what it could/should have been in light of my own understanding of exterior texts doesn't exactly make it pretentious (it might make me though, especially if I was to pretend that I understood the real - and missed - intention beyond the reference).

The film is what it is. It might be light in regards to its subject, but then again, if its a blockbuster that's in great part aimed at teenagers...

I'd be curious to know what were the references that you felt should have been used more exhaustively (or avoided), and how we should in your opinion evaluate that a reference was relevant or pretentious. I mean, is the Pascal reference in Ma nuit chez Maud used to its full extent? It's pretty central to the whole film, but an allusion works through significant return, so it's in its very mechanic to add something to a work that is not already there otherwise - or, as you say, deeper meaning that doesn't actually exist (within the original work).

Ok, so the film makes frequent allusions to literature which many would consider high art, in particular Faust and Shakespeare's MacBeth to tell the tale of sort of deal with the devil to utilize violent means to achieve vengeance against tyrannical rule. Which would be fine - I have no issues with allusions to other works and they are often effective - however their use in the film dumbs down the themes from Marlowe and Shakespeare's original work and uses the references to tease that there is more to the film than there actually is. It references highly complex thematic works to aid a film's story which is actually very uncomplicated - V for Vendetta is a straightforward revenge/vengeance blockbuster flick in which a clear good guy takes down a tyrannical government, there's no shades of grey or much more complexity than that. But by referencing these works of literature it tries to give the impression of the film possessing greater meaning and intelligence. What this means is that when the film uses these references and themes from those works it comes off as heavy handed and hackish and engages with it in a shallow way - kind of like the writers and directors are saying to the viewer "Hey look at all these books I've read, films I've watched etc, aren't I clever?" when their work actually lacks depth (and by virtue also make the viewer seem more intelligent by enjoying a film with so many high art references being namedropped).

I used earlier as kind of a joke the example of a student using highfalutin language and references in what is actually a C+ level paper to hide their shallow analysis by making it seem like their paper is a lot cleverer and complex than it is, it is the same idea for this film.

I do agree that the word "pretentious" gets thrown around too much when people talk about some films, usually art house films, as a misused synonym for a film being "too sophisticated" or "ambitious" or "something I don't get", but I do think the word can absolutely describe effectively films that are shallow and display forms of unnecessary or unearned self-importance. Pretentiousness, to me at least, involves trying to hide lack of depth or thematic complexity through deception to seem like they're actually more important or hold more meaning than they actually do.

And in terms of how should we evaluate if a film's references and allusions are relevant versus pretentious, I think that has to do with how the film engages with the reference. I can't speak to Rohmer's Ma nuit chez Maud because I haven't actually seen it, but in general I would ask myself 1) is it sincere or insincere in its use of the reference, as in does the reference actually add to the film or is it just used as a shorthand to signal depth or importance (that doesn't really exist); 2) do they actually understand the reference they are using, as in does it's placement make sense in the film? and 3) how does it try to build on or critique these references?

I don't know if that makes sense to you but that's my take on pretentiousness. And this isn't to say things NEED to have depth, it's a critique with the dishonesty and laziness of the work

 

[kihei]

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Ok, so the film makes frequent allusions to literature which many would consider high art, in particular Faust and Shakespeare's MacBeth to tell the tale of sort of deal with the devil to utilize violent means to achieve vengeance against tyrannical rule. Which would be fine - I have no issues with allusions to other works and they are often effective - however their use in the film dumbs down the themes from Marlowe and Shakespeare's original work and uses the references to tease that there is more to the film than there actually is. It references highly complex thematic works to aid a film's story which is actually very uncomplicated - V for Vendetta is a straightforward revenge/vengeance blockbuster flick in which a clear good guy takes down a tyrannical government, there's no shades of grey or much more complexity than that. But by referencing these works of literature it tries to give the impression of the film possessing greater meaning and intelligence. What this means is that when the film uses these references and themes from those works it comes off as heavy handed and hackish and engages with it in a shallow way - kind of like the writers and directors are saying to the viewer "Hey look at all these books I've read, films I've watched etc, aren't I clever?" when their work actually lacks depth (and by virtue also make the viewer seem more intelligent by enjoying a film with so many high art references being namedropped).

I used earlier as kind of a joke the example of a student using highfalutin language and references in what is actually a C+ level paper to hide their shallow analysis by making it seem like their paper is a lot cleverer and complex than it is, it is the same idea for this film.

I do agree that the word "pretentious" gets thrown around too much when people talk about some films, usually art house films, as a misused synonym for a film being "too sophisticated" or "ambitious" or "something I don't get", but I do think the word can absolutely describe effectively films that are shallow and display forms of unnecessary or unearned self-importance. Pretentiousness, to me at least, involves trying to hide lack of depth or thematic complexity through deception to seem like they're actually more important or hold more meaning than they actually do.

And in terms of how should we evaluate if a film's references and allusions are relevant versus pretentious, I think that has to do with how the film engages with the reference. I can't speak to Rohmer's Ma nuit chez Maud because I haven't actually seen it, but in general I would ask myself 1) is it sincere or insincere in its use of the reference, as in does the reference actually add to the film or is it just used as a shorthand to signal depth or importance (that doesn't really exist); 2) do they actually understand the reference they are using, as in does it's placement make sense in the film? and 3) how does it try to build on or critique these references?

I don't know if that makes sense to you but that's my take on pretentiousness. And this isn't to say things NEED to have depth, it's a critique with the dishonesty and laziness of the work

Great post and I have something to add something about references - that may somewhat disagree vaguely with yours - because I think references can also be used in a different way not alluded to here but I've got some work to do. But I'm excited lol.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Ok, so the film makes frequent allusions to literature which many would consider high art, in particular Faust and Shakespeare's MacBeth to tell the tale of sort of deal with the devil to utilize violent means to achieve vengeance against tyrannical rule. Which would be fine - I have no issues with allusions to other works and they are often effective - however their use in the film dumbs down the themes from Marlowe and Shakespeare's original work and uses the references to tease that there is more to the film than there actually is. It references highly complex thematic works to aid a film's story which is actually very uncomplicated - V for Vendetta is a straightforward revenge/vengeance blockbuster flick in which a clear good guy takes down a tyrannical government, there's no shades of grey or much more complexity than that. But by referencing these works of literature it tries to give the impression of the film possessing greater meaning and intelligence. What this means is that when the film uses these references and themes from those works it comes off as heavy handed and hackish and engages with it in a shallow way - kind of like the writers and directors are saying to the viewer "Hey look at all these books I've read, films I've watched etc, aren't I clever?" when their work actually lacks depth (and by virtue also make the viewer seem more intelligent by enjoying a film with so many high art references being namedropped).

I used earlier as kind of a joke the example of a student using highfalutin language and references in what is actually a C+ level paper to hide their shallow analysis by making it seem like their paper is a lot cleverer and complex than it is, it is the same idea for this film.

I do agree that the word "pretentious" gets thrown around too much when people talk about some films, usually art house films, as a misused synonym for a film being "too sophisticated" or "ambitious" or "something I don't get", but I do think the word can absolutely describe effectively films that are shallow and display forms of unnecessary or unearned self-importance. Pretentiousness, to me at least, involves trying to hide lack of depth or thematic complexity through deception to seem like they're actually more important or hold more meaning than they actually do.

And in terms of how should we evaluate if a film's references and allusions are relevant versus pretentious, I think that has to do with how the film engages with the reference. I can't speak to Rohmer's Ma nuit chez Maud because I haven't actually seen it, but in general I would ask myself 1) is it sincere or insincere in its use of the reference, as in does the reference actually add to the film or is it just used as a shorthand to signal depth or importance (that doesn't really exist); 2) do they actually understand the reference they are using, as in does it's placement make sense in the film? and 3) how does it try to build on or critique these references?

I don't know if that makes sense to you but that's my take on pretentiousness. And this isn't to say things NEED to have depth, it's a critique with the dishonesty and laziness of the work

Thanks a lot for the time you put into this and, yes it makes perfect sense, in fact I agree with everything you wrote, except with the use of the terms "pretentious film", which still carry the idea of an intention that the film itself cannot have. In fact, you said it best: it's "kind of like the writers and directors are saying to the viewer "Hey look at all these books I've read, films I've watched etc, aren't I clever?" when their work actually lacks depth". It is the filmmakers you really accuse of being pretentious, the film itself is a finite object with no intention of looking better than it actually is, but it can absolutely lack depth, especially if you consider it in light of themes it reached out to through intertextual links. Lacking depth is not being pretentious.

The Matrix checks every box you proposed with its Baudrillard allusion that leaves you wishing for more. It is still not a pretentious film, it's a fun film that lacks the depth it should have had regarding simulacra and simulation.

 

[Pink Mist]

Thanks a lot for the time you put into this and, yes it makes perfect sense, in fact I agree with everything you wrote, except with the use of the terms "pretentious film", which still carry the idea of an intention that the film itself cannot have. In fact, you said it best: it's "kind of like the writers and directors are saying to the viewer "Hey look at all these books I've read, films I've watched etc, aren't I clever?" when their work actually lacks depth". It is the filmmakers you really accuse of being pretentious, the film itself is a finite object with no intention of looking better than it actually is, but it can absolutely lack depth, especially if you consider it in light of themes it reached out to through intertextual links. Lacking depth is not being pretentious.

The Matrix checks every box you proposed with its Baudrillard allusion that leaves you wishing for more. It is still not a pretentious film, it's a fun film that lacks the depth it should have had regarding simulacra and simulation.

Oh yeah absolutely, when I'm calling a film pretentious it's in terms as an extension of the filmmaker's artistic vision - it's more or less me calling the filmmaker pretentious in the case of the particular film.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Empire State (Montiel, 2013) - It's no wonder I never heard of this absolutely forgetable minor movie. It has a somewhat complex relation to reality, but it really doesn't use it in any interesting way (it's limited to a "comical" (?) quick intervention of the real life criminal who coproduced the film about his own heist). It ain't as painful as the Snyder zombie catastrophe, but it ain't good enough to go above its 3/10.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Clear and Present Danger (1994) - 6.5/10

While Harrison Ford is a better Jack Ryan than Alec Baldwin....this film is not in the same league as Hunt For Red October. The suspense buildup only comes at the end in a ridiculous over the top action boat scene Cape Fear style. The film's best part is the spy stuff, it's a fantastic film when it's doing its whole CIA and British intelligence thing but that part is just spread so thin over the rest. Couple that in with a really weak villain here, Sean Bean portrays a lame IRA assassin in basically a poorly done revenge plot and you've got a film missing out on its potential.

 

[nameless1]

Clear and Present Danger (1994) - 6.5/10

While Harrison Ford is a better Jack Ryan than Alec Baldwin....this film is not in the same league as Hunt For Red October. The suspense buildup only comes at the end in a ridiculous over the top action boat scene Cape Fear style. The film's best part is the spy stuff, it's a fantastic film when it's doing its whole CIA and British intelligence thing but that part is just spread so thin over the rest. Couple that in with a really weak villain here, Sean Bean portrays a lame IRA assassin in basically a poorly done revenge plot and you've got a film missing out on its potential.

I watched the first 4 adaptations recently, and indeed The Hunt for Red October is the best of them all. That said, I prefer Baldwin's version myself. He has the right blend of youth and experience, while Ford's portrayal tips too far on the experience side.

I actually dislike the 2nd one, because it is no longer a spy movie, but a revenge one, which is a big departure from the first movie. Worst of all, the whole premise takes too much of a suspension of disbelief, and as a result, it feels utterly dumb. I do like the remote operation scene though, as it seems to be a prelude to the drone warfare prominent in modern military now, so there is a sense of realism there. Ryan's discomfort with the video game nature of the operation is also a nice touch, since that is indeed an issue critics point at nowadays too.

Personally, I have it at a 6. It is passable, but I will only recommend it for fans of Jack Ryan.

For me, the grades of the other 3 would be:
The Hunt for Red October 7.25/10
Clear and Present Danger 6.5/10
The Sum of All Fears 5/10

 

[nameless1]

V for Vendetta (2005) directed by James McTeigue

In a dystopian London controlled by a fascist regime, a mysterious anarchist known by the name of V (Hugo Weaving) sets off a revolution with the aid from Evey (Natalie Portman), a girl caught up in his revolution. V for Vendetta was a formative film for many in my generation when it came out, however I did not watch it when I was at an impressionable age and instead I’m watching it 16 years after it was released and I’m sorry to report that just not very good. Everything about it is just cheesy as hell, from the dialogue to the action and the characters. It looks like and feels like a TV movie and I don’t really understand why some hold this in high acclaim. I guess you had to have seen it in 2005. It’s full of just complete stilted and unnatural performances and dialogue that tries to articulate a deeper meaning as a "smart blockbuster film" than what it actually represents. Not trying to restart The Great Pretentiousness Debate but this is an example of a pretentious film in that it uses a wealth of very shallow literary and artistic references to try to convey some deeper meaning that doesn’t actually exist. A film that’s aiming for gravitas and begging for viewers to say “wow that’s deep, you’re really smart” but it doesn’t really deserve it and comes off as just stupid and goofy unless you’re an impressionable teenager.

When I first watched it, I did not hate it, but I also am not that enthused by it either. The reviews were excellent though, so I actually put it on my favourite and recommended list for a while.


Aging often sucks, but at least there is one benefit. One can actually spot bullcrap from a mile away now, and will not be afraid to call out the emperor's new clothes.


To be fair, I do not think the movie is all that bad, and I did not regret that I watched it, but at least it is nowhere on my recommended list now.

 

[Osprey]

Clear and Present Danger (1994) - 6.5/10

While Harrison Ford is a better Jack Ryan than Alec Baldwin....this film is not in the same league as Hunt For Red October. The suspense buildup only comes at the end in a ridiculous over the top action boat scene Cape Fear style. The film's best part is the spy stuff, it's a fantastic film when it's doing its whole CIA and British intelligence thing but that part is just spread so thin over the rest. Couple that in with a really weak villain here, Sean Bean portrays a lame IRA assassin in basically a poorly done revenge plot and you've got a film missing out on its potential.

Patriot Games (1992) is the one with Sean Bean and the boat scene at the end. It seems like you watched that and mislabeled your review, which is understandable, since it's very easy to mix the two up.

 

[kihei]

Patriot Games (1992) is the one with Sean Bean and the boat scene at the end. It seems like you watched that and mislabeled your review, which is understandable, since it's very easy to mix the two up.

Good point. I know in my case I couldn't differentiate one from the other if my life depended on it.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Patriot Games (1992) is the one with Sean Bean and the boat scene at the end. It seems like you watched that and mislabeled your review, which is understandable, since it's very easy to mix the two up.

Yep it was Patriot Games I watched, it was on Tubitv which works in 720p with no ads if you watch on a laptop with an adblocker.

Clear and Present Danger was gonna be one of my next watches cos it's on Amazon Prime. Air Force One (I know it's not a Jack Ryan film) is on the CTV website in 720p in Canada.

They definitely went for the more upfront approach with these ones, the battle of wits works far better in Hunt For Red October. I really just could not buy the whole IRA terrorists in America premise though and I usually can suspend my disbelief harder than the DoPS with anything Kadri-related.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

but in general I would ask myself 1) is it sincere or insincere in its use of the reference, as in does the reference actually add to the film or is it just used as a shorthand to signal depth or importance (that doesn't really exist); 2) do they actually understand the reference they are using, as in does it's placement make sense in the film? and 3) how does it try to build on or critique these references?

I don't know if that makes sense to you but that's my take on pretentiousness. And this isn't to say things NEED to have depth, it's a critique with the dishonesty and laziness of the work

To start, anything I say does not relate to V for Vendetta at all. I think your criticism is on point and relates to a ton, if not most, films out there. But!

I think it's important for an artist to amuse himself before anybody else, so in that vein...

1) Is it so bad if the film adds nothing to the viewer but is simply a way for the practitioner to amuse himself, maybe even wink at himself? For example, if we take Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson, the characters are named after two philosophers. Apparently, this was done as a tip of the hat to his old alma mater. Now, whether that's true or not is of little importance to me. The only thing that gives me pause is whether that reference thus becomes shallow and superficial and whether or not Watterson's expertise of their work should have stopped him from using the names? I tend to lean towards no in both instances and still think he was justified, whether my hypotheticals hold or not. I know you didn't go down that road, but I think it's an important one to consider: self-amusement whether or not the artist has good understanding of what they're referencing and whether or not the reference actually adds anything else but self-amusement in a work of art.

2) What if X reference is strictly referenced as a nod to the original spark? For example, if one were to read an academic paper relating to media theory which provided a spark for a screenplay or a literary work, is it unworthy of him to craft a work of art through its influence even if it doesn't build on or critique these references? Even if he only understands them partially (which at this point, I'd argue that the artist better not make it its central plot, but I don't think a tasteful reference, whether recognized by the viewer or not, is a flaw).

 

[Pink Mist]

To start, anything I say does not relate to V for Vendetta at all. I think your criticism is on point and relates to a ton, if not most, films out there. But!

I think it's important for an artist to amuse himself before anybody else, so in that vein...

1) Is it so bad if the film adds nothing to the viewer but is simply a way for the practitioner to amuse himself, maybe even wink at himself? For example, if we take Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson, the characters are named after two philosophers. Apparently, this was done as a tip of the hat to his old alma mater. Now, whether that's true or not is of little importance to me. The only thing that gives me pause is whether that reference thus becomes shallow and superficial and whether or not Watterson's expertise of their work should have stopped him from using the names? I tend to lean towards no in both instances and still think he was justified, whether my hypotheticals hold or not. I know you didn't go down that road, but I think it's an important one to consider: self-amusement whether or not the artist has good understanding of what they're referencing and whether or not the reference actually adds anything else but self-amusement in a work of art.

2) What if X reference is strictly referenced as a nod to the original spark? For example, if one were to read an academic paper relating to media theory which provided a spark for a screenplay or a literary work, is it unworthy of him to craft a work of art through its influence even if it doesn't build on or critique these references? Even if he only understands them partially (which at this point, I'd argue that the artist better not make it its central plot, but I don't think a tasteful reference, whether recognized by the viewer or not, is a flaw).

Agreed, those are good points

 

[kihei]

I think self-amusement is important for many artists, and for good reason. It gives their work personality and distinctiveness. It is one of the things that made early French New Wave film so attractive to me; the playfulness and insouciance of Truffaut and Godard, especially early on in their careers, is one thing that made New Wave seems so fresh and appealing. A lot of that can be chalked up to self-amusement, I believe. But it also seems to me that there is a very slippery slope between self-amusement and self-indulgence and too many directors, not as gifted as Godard and Truffaut, can too readily slide into such excess.

 

[heatnikki]

Nightcrawler (2014)

Second time I've seen this now after watching it on its original release. Jake Gyllenhaal absolutely nails his performance and is totally convincing as Louis Bloom.

Well worth a watch if you haven't seen it.

9/10

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Self-amusement removes it from the realm of pretentious for me because I think that sort of creator doesn't really care about reception and, at least to me, a key factor in being pretentious is the creator's obvious need to be told they're smart/clever/whatever.

Godard definitely comes to mind. David Lynch would be another.

They're not just constantly entertaining themselves, I don't think either would give a damn whether you think they're smart/clever/whatever. They'll just flitter off to the next thing that intrigues them, like demented little butterflies, your thoughts be damned.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Self-amusement removes it from the realm of pretentious for me because I think that sort of creator doesn't really care about reception and, at least to me, a key factor in being pretentious is the creator's obvious need to be told they're smart/clever/whatever.

Godard definitely comes to mind. David Lynch would be another.

They're not just constantly entertaining themselves, I don't think either would give a damn whether you think they're smart/clever/whatever. They'll just flitter off to the next thing that intrigues them, like demented little butterflies, your thoughts be damned.

I think social media has absolutely influenced a lot of public service art in the worst way towards that direction. At least the American/Hollywood stuff.

 

[kihei]

Self-amusement removes it from the realm of pretentious for me because I think that sort of creator doesn't really care about reception and, at least to me, a key factor in being pretentious is the creator's obvious need to be told they're smart/clever/whatever.

Godard definitely comes to mind. David Lynch would be another.

They're not just constantly entertaining themselves, I don't think either would give a damn whether you think they're smart/clever/whatever. They'll just flitter off to the next thing that intrigues them, like demented little butterflies, your thoughts be damned.

You just called my all-time #2 a "demented little butterfly." Godard has been called many things but I doubt he has ever been called that before.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

You just called my all-time #2 a "demented little butterfly." Godard has been called many things but I doubt he has ever been called that before.

Maybe a little more applicable to Lynch. But I stand by it!

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Self-amusement removes it from the realm of pretentious for me because I think that sort of creator doesn't really care about reception and, at least to me, a key factor in being pretentious is the creator's obvious need to be told they're smart/clever/whatever.

Godard definitely comes to mind. David Lynch would be another.

They're not just constantly entertaining themselves, I don't think either would give a damn whether you think they're smart/clever/whatever. They'll just flitter off to the next thing that intrigues them, like demented little butterflies, your thoughts be damned.

Lynch is a great example. I don't know that his short What did Jack do? can be given a plot/thematic substance rating that isn't ?!. For subject's sake, I recall kihei having the question mark rating.