Josh and I have a pretty similar set of guidelines when criticizing films, so we were entirely in agreement throughout this video, but I would really like to hear what every body else thinks.
One of the things Josh said toward the end there made me really think about the difference between people who critique films and those who simply enjoy them. I, like Josh, often leave a movie with a bad taste in my mouth while everyone else rants about how great it was, and I too have had that feeling of superiority because I seem to understand why everyone should hate or love a movie. But is this habit of over analyzing movies really a desirable one? Wouldn't it be better to just to enjoy every movie I watch? I thought about this for a while, but in the end, I still believe that being informed is more desirable.
I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with the occasional fun blockbuster that gets us all riled up and excited to go to the theater; to me these movies have their place but it's purely for entertainment sake. But overall I believe that movies have to power to change people and if we put forth the effort to find the good ones, we will not only be entertained, but also be made better.
I'm not saying that all blockbusters are bad, and only lesser known artsy films are worth anything. I'm not saying that at all. But there certainly is a different feel to a film when it's intent is expression vs. purely financial.
It seems that so many of us support explosions, sex, and poop jokes that those have become the only thing portrayed in mainstream media anymore. But I believe that when we are able to look deeper into the valuable depths of film, we can experience something so much more worthwhile. It's when you find this that you understand that everything else is just mediocre in comparison.
It's completely up to you, but having done it myself, I would simply recommend that you find this meaning in movies; stop feeding the mediocrity machine; and let the media change you for the better. You'll be glad you did.
I have several comments:
ReplyDeleteFirst, I didn't care much for The Croods. I agree that the family theme was nice but it didn't do as good a job of it as, say, The Incredibles. It had some tear-jerking parts and some funny parts and so with the good theme you would think that it would be a winner, but ultimately I went away from it feeling like it was just a branch of the mediocrity machine designed to interest families with small children. I might even go so far as to say that I didn't feel like the movie was made to encourage viewers to be better members of a family, but rather to make money off of the type of people who like family-friendly movies. With that said, I have to admit two things; 1st, we can't reasonably expect that movies ought to be made for any other reason than to make money, and 2nd, it must be really hard to make a "good movie" by my standards.
In disagreeing with Josh about The Croods I think I touch on some interesting points. People genuinely have different tastes in movies, different expectations, and different reasons for watching movies. Like Zach, I wonder if it is right that I think someone (in this case Josh) should dislike a movie just because I have reasons to dislike it.
Reasons for watching movies is something I think deserves more discussion. Do you want to see a movie for a quick laugh, to kill time, to act as a brief diversion from real-life, etc. All these reasons are fine in my book; I echo Zach in saying "these movies have their place but it's purely for entertainment sake". I guess where it starts to bug me is when I hear people rave about a particular movie beyond what I think the movie's role was. So if someone say's a movie is "good", consider the question, "good for what?". Good for a laugh? Good for a 2-hour diversion? Sure!
But then there are GOOD movies. Movies that, like Zach said, allow us to "experience something so much more worthwhile". I would say that these are movies that engage their viewers in a way that really impacts their life, even changes them. Zach and Josh both mentioned examples of this type of movie. I like Jackie Chan movies, I would say they are "good", but I don't like them anywhere near the same way that I like, say, Remember the Titans. Remember the Titans is "GOOD" and, indeed, makes Jackie Chan movies look so mediocre in comparison. Some movies have quality (I could launch into a discussion about what that word means, but I won't).
Lastly, I want to comment about the mediocrity machine (media-ocrity). I would say that we (americans) and even I, myself, feed the mediocrity machine. But the only thing about that that bothers me is that I think we (americans) feed the mediocrity machine while we neglect the quality machine. It should be the other way around, we should most often choose to view quality movies (which Zach and Josh pointed out is not always easy to do) with the occasional mediocre movie that we watch purely for diversion; but it's not that way, sadly.
It seems logical that if every movie falls somewhere on a linear scale from worst to best, that somewhere along that scale you'd draw a line and everything to the left of that line would be considered mediocre. But the problem is that not only would everybody's scale be significantly different, but the placement of that mediocrity line would vastly vary, and in my opinion, it really couldn't even be placed on the same scale. I don't usually classify a movie as mediocre just because I didn't like it. The type of movies I would put in that category are rather the ones that I feel no respectable person would like or even bother seeing (though unfortunately they still do); ones that offer no good reason to enjoy it. Yes, I again realize that this is completely subjective and frankly can't be measured, but when you look at film like Beverly Hills Chihuahua, you just think, "Honestly who wants to watch that?" I don't necessarily put summer blockbusters into the mediocre category. I fully realize that there is a vast group of individuals, many of whom I do respect, that love movies like Iron Man and Hunger Games. They may not be my favorite movies, but I wouldn't call them mediocre, and I really don't lose respect for those people who watch them. If a friend of mine kept ranting about how good a movie like the Hangover was, however, I would most definitely lose respect for that person.
ReplyDeleteI actually enjoyed the Hangover. I like Zach Galafinakis, and even though the whole thing is absurd and over the top, there's a time and a place for that. The jokes weren't paving any new ground, but the story was told in an original way - which is what made it so popular. It's a quick laughs, funny once or twice, kind of movie.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the Hangover Part 2 was awful. Absolutely un-originial, it just copied everything from the first movie (like Josh said). That definitely falls into "feeding the mediocrity machine". Although I wasn't surprised that the sequel was a letdown (the only sequel in recent memory I enjoyed was Iron Man 2), I was disappointed that the director didn't try harder. Despite having a big budget, a big following, and great starpower, he squandered it.