There’s
nothing a film fan loves more than engaging in meaningful conversation about their favorite topic. Critiquing,
discussing, analyzing, debating...it’s all good, at least when
the one you’re talking with seems to possess an appreciation comparable to yours, even if you don‘t see everything eye-to-eye (sometimes especially if
you don‘t see everything eye-to-eye).
But
alas, how often do we come across somebody who obviously has no idea
what they’re talking about, yet think you two are on equal
ground simply because you both frequent the cinema more often than
others? The more they speak, the more you realize this person doesn’t
know much about movies at all.
Sure,
part of the problem might be you, whose love of film extends
beyond the multiplex and goes back further than a few decades. You actually read all the credits and know the creative
success of a film is due more to its director or screenwriter than
whether or not it stars Brad Pitt. And when you aren’t watching
movies, you’re reading about them.
If
this applies to you, you’re probably already aware that truly
engaging conversions with another equally-fanatic film lover are few
and far between (especially on the internet). More often than not, we’ve
suffered people like these…
10. Those
Who Think Jaws Is The Name Of The Shark
“Well, this is not a boat accident. And it wasn’t any propeller, or coral reef, and it wasn’t Jack the Ripper…it was Jaws!”
The word jaws isn’t mentioned once in the entire film. But
even today, scores of folks continue referring to the shark as Jaws.
The shark doesn’t have a
name (though the mechanical beast used during production was
nicknamed Bruce), yet how often have we heard people say something
like, “I love the part when Jaws leaps onto the boat”?
At
least in the case of 1931’s Frankenstein, one can sort-of see how
people can incorrectly associate the name with the monster’s iconic
image. But aside from a Bond villain, a few loudmouth sportscasters and the
occasional aquarium fish, nothing has ever been named Jaws.
9. Those Who Declare All Remakes Inferior To The Originals
- We've all heard this kind of stuff: “How dare they remake a classic,” “No way can it top the original,” or the one currently tossed around the most, “Hollywood's run out of ideas.”
The
fallacy with such a blanket statement is that remakes and reboots have been a huge part of the film business since it became a
business. What do such classics as The Ten Commandments, Heat,
Scarface, The Magnificent Seven, A Fistful of Dollars, The Fly,
Heaven Can Wait, The Thing, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, The Maltese
Falcon, The Departed, Ben-Hur and The Wizard of Oz all have in
common? They were remakes of previous films.
Sure,
many remakes (perhaps most) are vastly inferior to the originals, but
the next time someone of a different generation poo-poos the latest
Hollywood remake without having seen it, respectfully remind them
that sometimes first doesn’t always mean best.
8.
Those Who Refer To All Specials Effects As Graphics
To
say a film has good graphics is like saying a newly-built home is
well-hammered. While your hammer is a valuable tool, you still
can’t build the whole damn house with it.
Graphics,
as it applies to film, refers to the use of computer technology to
create certain special effects images. Computer graphics are one special effects tool, but that doesn’t mean all special effects are
graphics. Yet the term has been tossed around as though the two are
synonymous, even before anyone ever heard of CGI.
When
these same folks praise or ridicule a film’s ‘graphics’
(especially those produced prior to Jurassic Park), it’s a sure
sign they don’t know what the hell they are talking about. Unless a
computer is used to create an image, no graphics are involved, so
someone using the word as a blanket term for all special effects is
likely trying to sound more knowledgeable than they really are,
especially those ignorant enough to scoff at the ‘graphics’ of
such groundbreaking older films like King Kong and Forbidden Planet.
Speaking
of which...
7.
Those Who Ridicule The Special Effects Of Older Movies
The
special effects in 1933’s King Kong are nothing less than
spectacular. The same goes for 1927’s Metropolis, 1940’s The
Thief of Bagdad, 1956’s Forbidden Planet, 1975’s Jaws and 1988’s
Willow (one of the first films to utilize CGI). Are they as
convincing to the eye as, say, Jurassic Park or The Lord of the
Rings? Of course not, but that doesn't mean the special effects suck either. It's these old classics that made today's FX extravaganzas possible.
Scores of hapless idiots will still make fun of these films - if
they even bother to watch them - without appreciating how
groundbreaking they really were. In fact, the antiquated special
effects (which they'll inevitably call graphics) impact whether or
not they like the movie at all.
True
cinema lovers don’t laugh their asses off when Kong first picks up
Ann Darrow in his fuzzy paw, because they are in awe of what Merian
Cooper & crew were able to accomplish in 80 years ago with the budget and
resources given to them. Even in this era of anal-retentive
behind-the-scenes making-of documentaries, most of us still don’t
know how some of the effects in the original King Kong were
accomplished.
To
put this in perspective…we live in a culture where our cell phones
can do more than our computers did ten years ago, but do
any of us poke fun at Alexander Graham Bell, who invented the fucking phone
in the first place?
Speaking of which...
6.
Those Who Equate Black & White With Old And Irrelevant
Frank
Darabont wrote and directed The Mist from a novella by Stephen King,
and it's widely considered one of the best mainstream horror movies
of this new century. Darabont
originally wanted the film to be released in black & white
because. While color tends to create a sense of realism for the
viewer, he knows the true artistry of a film isn’t its realism…it’s
the mood created by the images. We were able to put that to the test
ourselves when the original DVD release of The Mist included a stark
black & white version. And indeed, this already-disturbing film
is rendered even darker, more surreal and fatalistic. Ironically,
even the ample use of CGI looks more convincing.
Color
technology has been around for over a century. Sure, in cinema’s
infancy, shooting a film in black & white was usually a financial
decision, as it was far easier (and cheaper) to process. But it
wasn't long before it was just-as-often a creative choice.
Hitchcock knew this; just try to imagine Psycho in color. Then
there’s such modern films as Young Frankenstein, Schindler’s
List, The Artist, Nebraska, Frankenweenie, Sin City, Ed Wood, Clerks,
American History X (flashback scenes, which is over half the film),
Wings Of Desire, Zelig, Raging Bull and The Elephant Man. Does anyone
truly believe those movies would have been better in color?
Those
unable to enjoy a film simply because the real world isn’t black &
white are obviously too ignorant to grasp the artistic intentions of
some of the greatest directors of all time, who sometimes choose
black & white as the most effective way to tell a particular
story.
5.
Those Who Retro-Condemn Older Films
“Gone
With The Wind is racist and justifies rape.”
Yeah,
perhaps Gone With The Wind is guilty on both counts - and remains somewhat overpraised - but what exactly
is the point of reassessing the entire worth of a 76 year old film
with a 21st Century mindset? People obviously thought differently
back then. We can scoff at their overall ignorance, when
political-correctness wasn't even a term, but why do so many folks act
as though a film made by these less enlightened
individuals is a current crime against humanity?
Of course a
lot of older films are going to seem racist, jingoistic and
sexist, but none of us currently living in this Utopia of Tolerance
(which is debatable) are able to travel back in time to set them
straight.
People
need to stop retro-condemning old movies made during a time when
attitudes and values were far different than they are today. It
doesn’t make them any less groundbreaking. If you are unable to
appreciate a movie in the context of when it was made, you sure as
hell have no business judging it.
4.
Those Who Don’t Accept Contrary Opinions
- “You didn't love Man of Steel? What the hell's wrong with you?”
Have
you ever engaged in a conversation where the other individual is
praising a film they love, then you make the mistake of sharing a
different opinion and they get all up-in-arms? You’re not sure why
they're so worked-up, since your view is no reflection on their tastes,
but they act as though you’ve personally insulted them. Or worse
yet, they think you're the idiot.
You
see a lot of this on virtually every movie-related website (including
this one), where an author states their opinion about a particular
film and is then inundated by vicious replies from people obviously angry
that their own assessment of said-film isn’t shared by all,
completely ignorant to the fact that no movie ever made
was universally loved by everybody.
Differences
in opinion is one of the very things which make movie conversations great to begin with, whether you’re
an art-house snob or one who can’t wait for the next Fast And
Furious installment. Your opinion is valid, but so is that of
everyone else. To condemn others because they don’t share your
assessment makes you a troll.
And yes, I hated Man of Steel.
3. Those
Who Hate Subtitles
“I
shouldn’t have to read when I’m watching a movie.”
Is
there anything more ignorant than someone who rejects a film,
regardless of the genre, simply because it was shot in a
different language? A subtitled film doesn’t automatically mean
it’s geared toward the European art-house crowd, though
theatrically, they are usually relegated to such venues.
Folks
who believe this are ignorant boobs and missing out on some great shit from around the world. Even if your personal tastes lean toward explosive action,
English-speaking countries don’t necessarily have a monopoly on the
genre. Indonesia’s The Raid and The Raid 2 are two of the best pure
action films since Die Hard.
A
good foreign language film will make you forget your even reading
subtitles within just a few minutes, as opposed to one dubbed into
English, which is nothing but an annoying distraction.
2.
Those Who Offer Their Opinion On Films They Haven't Actually
Seen
It’s
one thing to say a film doesn’t look like it would be your cup of
tea, but quite another to condemn it sight-unseen. Sure, it’s safe
to say there was always a 95% chance Transformers: Age of Extinction
would suck (especially since the previous three all did), but until
you’ve endured the movie yourself, you have no business debating
its merits with anyone who has.
After all, there's always that 5% chance Michael Bay could surprise
you with a complex, thought-provoking, character-driven epic (hey,
stop laughing).
Speaking
of which, bashing a particular director is a great source of
amusement among more pretentious movie fans, especially on the
internet. But even some of Hollywood’s biggest hacks have knocked
one out of the park on occasion (Bay’s 13 Hours & Paul W.S.
Anderson’s Event Horizon subjectively come to mind). Similarly,
some of our greatest directors have been known to screw the pooch on
more than one occasion. Francis Ford Coppola helmed some of the 70’s
greatest classics, yet we tend to overlook the sad fact most of his
films since have been critical or commercial duds (often both). So to
blindly condemn - or praise - a film you’ve never seen, strictly because of a
director’s reputation, is ridiculous.
1.
Those Who Equate Box Office Performance With Quality
“It
must be good…look how much money it made!”
It
doesn’t help that the media regularly presents weekend box office
reports like sports statistics. But
what's equally sad are the number of moviegoers who view these stats
as gospel, basing their decision whether or not to see a particular
film strictly on its box office performance, as though financial
success or failure is an accurate indication of whether or not it's
any good.
The
ignorance of that logic must mean they'd rank such recent cinema
suppositories as Transformers: Age of Extinction, Teenage Mutant
Ninja Turtles, Grown Ups and the Twilight saga among the greatest
films of 21st Century. Ergo, they must also believe Star Wars Episode I is
the second best film in the series and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom
of the Crystal Skull is better than Raiders of the Lost Ark. And
Eddie Murphy should have been Oscar-nominated in 2006 for his
performance in Norbit, not Dreamgirls.
These
people are mindless sheep who probably don’t realize The Wizard of
Oz was a box-office flop when initially released. So was It's a
Wonderful Life, Blade Runner, The Thing (1982), The Shawshank
Redemption, Bambi, Fight Club and A Christmas Story.
Anyone
citing profit as an indication of a film's greatness isn't worth
talking to.
No comments:
Post a Comment