Very well posted Turnbull! Took the words right out of my mouth!

Hawks, Ford, Walsh, Preminger, Lubitsch, Lang and lesser known directors were personal artists within that system described by Maltby. They are as much "Hollywood Cinema" as the guns-for-hire.



Not true. There are still powerful producers who shape a film considerably (as much as or sometimes more than the director) - producers like Harvey Weinstein and even in the "indie" world, Christine Vachon.

Not all directors working in Hollywood have final cut power or total power in casting decisions. Some argue that it's still a producer industry. But like back in the day (the time Maltby seems to be focusing on), we have our Tarantinos, Andersons, Soderberghs, etc.

Addendum:

I appreciate the time and effort it took summarize the book.

No problem.

Have you been reading the other posts, too? And has your stance changed at all?

What are your thoughts on my response(s) to that quote, though? The argument has developed quite a bit since that post. I've expanded on several points. Would you like to consider them?

(By no means feel obliged).

Coming back to this; sorry:

Definitely. But let's not forget that some, especially Lang, were well-established directors before they went to America. I was talking about lesser-known directors, though, who are perhaps overlooked because the films they were hired to direct were so conventional or standard.

But there's definitely been a visible change, you'd agree? I'm not talking in absolutes here; it's a trend that film historians have widely noted.

True but Ford, Hawks, Walsh, etc. were all prolific taking on B-assignments from the studios - learning the craft of filmmaking for years before their regarded artistic breakthroughs. So many like Lang were well-established.



No, I don't think much has changed other than the fact that it's a freelance business as opposed to directors, writers, crew, and actors under contract. Some stars sign contracts with studios today, but that is not the norm. Other than that, I know working screenwriters and producers who say the producer is strong now as was then.

One can't help but notice director interviews and dozens of accounts of studio/producer meddling today. One can't help but notice director-cut DVDs today (though no doubt a healthy percentage of that is just to get people to double or triple dip on DVDs).

Per my stance on everyone's favorite two words. No, my stance hasn't changed. My rationale sketched b/w 40 YOV and Bringing is reasonable, methinks. Anyone can disagree, but I'm disappointed some can just outright dismiss it - one can disagree and still understand the other's stance ("Okay, I see. I disagree, fair enough.")

Really, I'm not the only one in the world who thinks that way. Crtics/reviewers often say, "So-and-so has made better ones, but this is my favorite" (not those exact words but the same idea).

Sports fans, too. No doubt fubol fans have a favorite player that isn't the best on the team. I think it's pretty safe to say that Michael Jordan was the best basketball player on the Chicago Bulls, but fans wear Pippen jerseys and cheered for Judd Buechler. Fan favorites get thunderous applause eventhough they're bench warmers and enter the game in the last 2 minutes or so.

Jasmine Trias was many people's favorite on American Idol she moved on while far better singers were eliminated (anyone who is not tone deaf could tell).

And yes, these examples are subjective like movies. I don't see what's the big deal.

I favor some Asian-American films because of their stories and the fact that I'm an ethnic minority so I can relate to the cultural/generational issues, but they have terrible acting, terrible lighting, are didactic, etc. I'm not gonna say they're some of the best movies ever made.

But you're still not addressing the fact that films are catered for different people, are made for different reasons, and that we need to assume and adapt to that catering. A film shouldn't have to be filtered through our pre-defined assumptions and expectations. It's often natural to feel disappointed or pleasantly surprised with a film, but it's dangerous to approach it with an overly concrete and very stubborn opinion as to what it should give in order to be great.

Why is entertainment value or personal pleasure being belittled here, why should greatness overshadow it? Doesn't enjoyment account for anything?

Perhaps your Asian-American films were made in order to be enjoyed by Asian-Americans. If you enjoy them, they have fulfilled their intention, their promise, their potential. Why shouldn't they be critically acclaimed, then? Why should they be critically dismissed for not being something they never intended to be?

I originally replied to the Jordan reference, but frankly, I think peripheral metaphors disguise actual potential for head-on logic.

You're assuming because I have those 3 criteria for a film on a best list that I have those criteria in mind prior to and while watching a film for even the first time. I never ever said that. And, for the record, I don't do that.

Whenever I apply those three criteria (which I have every right to do because it is my way of including thought into my engagement with movies along with emotions and feelings), it is after I have watched the movie or after several viewings.

For one, emotional reaction isn't the only reaction to film. Everyone knows that we also can engage things and people through intelligence and thought, as well.



You're assuming again. I cherish and I value those films I consider favorites far above those that I think are some of the best cinema has to offer.



They can be. I'm not saying they can't.

I don't see what the point is anymore with continuing this discussion. I've layed out my piece. Respectfully I ask, what's your purpose?

There has been an exchange of ideas. I've learned something, you've learned something. I think I've been clear on my stance as have you.

What, these criteria?

1) storytelling/narrative
2) acting
3) art and craft (image/sound) - expression, decoration, pictorialism

Fair enough; but you're not telling me how those three are graded, and how you distinguish by an enjoyable aspect and a great one. To me, I don't see much if any room in your approach for personal connection; you said as much with the Asian-American example. In order to think a film has GREAT "storytelling/narrative" technique, you must be connecting with it somehow. If you're not, tell me the formula by which you're measuring it exclusive from your personal enjoyment.

You're rejecting my assumptions but you're not offering any logical alternative. You're evading my points but disguising any reasoning or rationale in your own.


I am moved by intellect; I think intellectual engagement is an emotive process. Perhaps that is the core of where we differ. I find moving beauty in Eraserhead's sound design, say, and you might merely find "technical excellence" in it. (For example.)

Again, I have trouble differentiating between films that move me and films that intellectually engage me; "technical excellence" stirs me very much. That's why I sigh at reviews that say, "Technically, very good, but with little emotion." Especially since I count emotional drive of a narrative as a "technicality" alongside visual composition... because emotional drive often stems from visual composition, for me.



But say if they were critically acclaimed; why critically acclaimed. Why would that be? Because somebody emotionally (that is personally) connected with their technical excellence. Again, I mean technical excellence to encompass emotional core or drive.

Again, if the Asian-American films are just trying to help Asian-Americans connect with their own background or culture, and they do that with you, haven't they accomplished success on their own terms? How haven't they? And if they have, why shouldn't be classed as good films?

I'll also ask another question that I asked before but nobody answered. If there was a movement formed that consciously wished to make shit films, shit in the form of "technical execution" and there was an ideology about it, would they forever be destined for critical failure?

I emboldened those because I'd like you to answer them.

How tragic. I find the discussion fascinating, often frustration, but never dead.

The recurring conclusion from this post, though, seems to offer a summary of our different approaches: you separate emotional connection from technical excellence. You have one for main meal that keeps you alive, and then a dessert that brings sweetness to your tongue. I, on the other hand, like to devour the whole thing and take pleasure in the thing that keeps me alive.

That might come across as patronising or condescending, but I do not mean it to be. Interpret it as I have intended; adapt to the author's intentions. I think there is some truth in it.

I'll also ask again, since you didn't answer me the first time round, what your lists would be. I am genuinely interested in seeing them, outside of this debate.

I didn't write a definitive essay. Primarily with those criteria, I'm thinking about what I find to be the most exceptional, exciting, whatever, etc. (it's unlimited) - arrived at by assessing my total reaction (mind, body, soul, and whatever encompasses us as human beings). I'm sure you would define a film's narrative differently than I would like how people argue over what is plot and story and if there are, if any, differences. So we'd only be going back-and-forth.



I did say that I engage with a film in more ways than emotional reaction (i.e.; mind, body, soul). They are not mutually exclusive. I never said they were, ever. You ASSUMED. There you go again taking the favorite/best dichotomy to be of a subjective/objective dichotomy (or rather I should say, in the form of a emotional-personal/intellectual dichotomy; or better put - personal/impersonal or attached/cold-distanced dichotomy) - I've already addressed this before. You know, by writing on a virtual message board; not intending for my stance to be communicated as a thorough and definitve essay; and using examples about the "how" of films, I can see why you assumed. I address more further down.



I have no formula. I never did say I had one. And how dare you assume that I don't connect with it somehow. It's my opinion; my mind-body-soul reaction according to me only...not what a critic or filmmaker says. ME...how is that not connecting?



I think I did. I Control-F'd the following words on all three pages of the thread: assume, assumed, assuming. And all the instances in which I used those words, I feel I wrote enough to refute you or backup what I was saying. No logical alternative was needed...I felt.



Thanks for assuming. Again, you think my three criteria is solely an exercise using my intelligence and thought. I already addressed this above. And forgive me for not writing a definitive essay on my three criteria. I do take into account my reaction to the story, the characters, etc. (the what). I can see how what I wrote makes it seem that "the how" only mattered. No, it's not the only thing; I take into account: what, how, when, where, why, etc. (both within the story world and the whole film work).



Again. I don't separate them. Reactions of the mind-body-soul all intermingle.



No, I disagree. Someone can react emotionally to mainly the story (I've had actual people tell me so when discussing a movie; and I've felt that way numerous times, as well - are you gonna tell us we're wrong?). Because they reacted to the story doesn't mean they reacted favorably to how it was lit or staged or cut.



I never said they weren't good films. I said they were favorites, but I don't think they belonged on MY best list. It's possible for someone to think something is good despite some stuff lacking - it's just that: good not the best. M'kay? Gosh, you assume and put words in my mouth constantly.



Honestly, I don't remember that question being broached. Anyway, it possibly can be viewed as a critical failure; I say, "no," on "forever be destined." Godard's political essayistic films have an ideology about them and some people think some of them aren't good works (whatever that means to them; no, don't ask me but what do they mean by, "not a good work"). It's still up to the audience to decide for themselves whether or not they feel something works. And just to be clear, no, I'm not saying:

Godard's political essay films = shit technical execution

Also, I agree with you about meeting a film halfway and/or viewing the film on its own terms. However, still doing so, an individual can still think the work is lacking or whatever. After all, it is their opinion and the audience is a part of the film viewing act. And to think about it, the spectator can only guess or, at best, take the filmmaker's word as honest, on what the filmmaker's intentions were. We can only do our best to meet it halfway or view it on its own terms - our opinion becomes a more informed one by considering filmmakers' intentions. Someone can still think a work is lacking or whatever.



Notice I haven't questioned your stance, if at all, in my last two posts. I'm only answering questions posed by you attacking my stance. I've accepted the fact that you think favorites and best are one and the same; and I don't. Can you?



Again, assuming; putting words in my mouth. I don't separate them. My emotional connection/reaction (because it is a part of the body-mind-soul) to "Bringing Up Baby" plays a significant role in me saying it's the best comedy TO ME.



I don't know what you think my "main meal" and "dessert" are/what they refer to. And, when you say "devour the whole thing," "whole thing" is what? - a meal and dessert?

I honestly see no difference between what I do with lists (i.e., thinking about movies) and what you and your FCM friends do over there - ya know, the thinking about movies (star ratings; yearly top-tens) and directors (ranking their films); ya know, all the discussions, ratings, rankings, rants, philosophizing over at the FCM boards. I know, I lurk.

Honestly, what's wrong with enjoying film and then, in addition, thinking more about the artform (using mind-body-soul)? If what I do is ridiculous, then what Maltby and other historians, scholars, theorists, etc. do (think about movies; ask questions and try to answer them) are ridiculous.

To me, there is a difference between A) film reviewer/critic (more review and evaluation with a pinch of critique) and B) a scholar, historian, theorist, or critic (not reviewer, but critic).

And yes, the roles can/may/do bleed into one another, but some people are decidely more than another in their respective works (i.e., Critic McCritic can write film reviews for a paper and for a book do a critical analysis of Welles' mise-en-scene, and in another book do a fine-scoped history of experimental cinema in New York in the years 1962-1965).

Please don't turn this into another "favorites" and "best" thing - i.e., how can a critic not be a reviewer or a historian not a critic, or a scholar not a reviewer, etc. There are countless discussions between those people in newspapers, magazines, journals, papers, conferences, books, etc.

The majority's approach to movies is mainly "A," IN MY OPINION. Me? I'm a movie fan with interest in both. My "favorite" I think falls in line with "A;" my "best" falls in line with a mixture of "A" & "B" (a mixture; not exclusively B). I also, have lists where it's largely an intellectual/critical enterprise (of which, my "best films" list is not). Film scholars/historians do it - and there are bits of evaluative comments thrown in of course, but through critical/intellectual rigor (an informed opinion with "evidence" or reasons). Yes, I go on my pseudo-scholarly projects for fun and earnest curiosity and passion (to better connect with movies and understand them).

And seriously, if one doesn't see a difference between A & B, then that individual hasn't read an insightful scholarly, academic, historian, or theoretical work yet and has just been exposed to Ebert and Time Out and others in that vein...or...think that the Ebert/Time Out Guide/others in that vein way is THE way to engage with cinema.

And there's nothing wrong with an engagement with movies through intelligence and critical and/or investigative thought irregardless of personal or emotional or physical connection. Film scholars/historians do it. Do you disagree with that? I'd hate to think that a scholarly work on the Occupation-era Japanese cinema (industry, social/political environment, technology, exhibition, distribution, styles, genres, films, filmmakers....and passages on the major,seminal, or influential works in that era) is that scholar's largely personal/emotional connection and reaction.

Such intellectual/critical enterprises can lead to a better connection (of mind-body-soul) to movies or appreciation.



No, I won't (but I will say there are differences and some appear on both) because you said (in fairness, it was said to Vercetti, not to me):



So, you ask for my lists because you've never seen mine, but I highly suspect after seeing my list, you'll only ask me stuff like you asked De Niro:



No, thanks. I'm not interested in spending more time posting, this time, thorough analytical/essays because if I don't then there will be more-and-more questions broached because you'd take issue with something or am curious to how it would stand up to your rigorous questioning. I highly respect that, but this is not an academic conference. I don't have the time nor interest to push this further.

And my whole critic/reviewer/scholar/historian/theorist thing is not a definitive essay. So, I'm not interested in pursuing it any further (I don't have the time nor the energy). But, I think the gist is clear.

Again, I think my stance is pretty clear and I have a right to keep it because I think it's highly reasonable to go by a reasonable source (a criteria/parameter-setter, if you will), a dictionary, to back up my stance that I think: favorites and best are different concepts. I don't think that's nonsensical.

And I am using a dictionary to define the words, "favorite" and "best." I'm not using the dictionary to define cinema or a specific film. The dictionary does not have an entry that says, "Best film - ........" I decided on my criteria and I decided on what qualities I use to inform my opinion via my body-mind-soul reaction and connection.

In closing, I believe favorites and best are different concepts. You don't. I am a movie fan who watches movies, enjoys them, and also, to further connection and understanding with and of movies, plays the role of reviewer/critic/scholar/historian (taking aspects of each and melding them together from time to time) for fun and out of an earnest appreciation of movies.

I lost interest with the "M'kay". Perhaps that was a sign of your having lost interest as well.

I find it mildly amusing that you talk about wanting to meet an author's intent halfway and then assume that I am not genuinely interested in seeing your list.

What, by the way, was the point in that last paragraph? All big font and emboldened and stuff. And the content of it... Your background shouldn't add any weight to your argument at all. I'm not going to read the words "reviewer, scholar, historian, critic" and think any more or less of you. It's irrelevant to me. We're just two people who happen to be on a message board.

Never mind. End of discussion.

You should post over at FCM. Lurking can get boring after a while.

This is the problem with virtual message boards - can't hear tone of voice and facial expression. M'kay was not a smart-ass response from me. I'm sorry you took it that way. People use it so sometimes, but I wasn't.

And to stop reading because of that is a cop-out and you know it because you want to avoid addressing my examples of how film scholars and historians approach cinema. You know how I know that you're copping out and avoiding my points?...

Becaues my FCM comments came much much later in my post after, "M'kay." So you didn't stop reading. You're avoiding.



I quote what I "said":



As you can see I was talking about meeting a film halfway not all authors.



Indeed. I'm done.

YAY!!!!!!!

Hey, my meeting a film halfway sentiment comes much much later in my post after, "M'kay."

Exhibit B.

And I highly doubt that you read my post backwards or piecemeal jumping back and forth and skipping/reading some. So unlikely that that would be another instance of Capo copping-out. I should say, "Capo-out."

THE END.

Don't blame me, Capo, brought up the subject again when he asked me if my stance had changed.

I said I'd lost interest; I didn't say I'd stopped reading. I'd refer to my dictionary for a definition of the two, but shan't; yours seems comprehensive enough.

On a conclusive side-note, I happen to think that my decisions regarding favourites and best both come under your "B" category. I don't enjoy anything less than excellence.

You might have missed my edit to the last post, though:

What, by the way, was the point in that last paragraph? All big font and emboldened and stuff. And the content of it... Your background shouldn't add any weight to your argument at all. I'm not going to read the words "reviewer, scholar, historian, critic" and think any more or less of you. It's irrelevant to me. We're just two people who happen to be on a message board.

"Again, assuming."

Touche. I admit a mistake on that. I'm an ass on that one, but still "losing interest" is Capo-ing-out (ducking on the issues I brought up later).



Same reason why some directors use close-ups or lighting or whatever to emphasize a point.



I brought them up because you don't think it's possible to engage cinema largely by an intellectual/critical approach with less of an emotional/personal connection. There are people like that. And I also brought them up to point out where some of my approaches come from. That's all.



So what was the point of me trying to back up and explain where I'm coming from if you just take what I write as irrelevant. Then this whole exchange has been pointless and irrelevant (which includes you constantly asking questions).

Literally, I will not write another word *addendum* (in this thread, that is, I should've specified.)

Your credentials outside the fact we are film fans. That's irrelevant. What you have to say is of much worth. I'm not interested in what you class yourself as in regard to this debate. It shouldn't make a difference. If an argument is persuasive enough, I don't even need to know who wrote it.

You don't really want to drop out of the thread, though, do you? Not really. If you did, you wouldn't be posting shit like "Capo-ing out".

"Literally"...? "I will not write another word" is just a disguised form of taking some kind of moral high ground. It's a way of covering up so that next time we "end" the discussion you can say, "Hey, don't blame me, Capo brought it up again when..."

Why am I even getting a bitter vibe, here? Is it just me? From both parties, perhaps. We seem to be dragging each other down into something unnecessary. We're discussing Cinema. Not names. "Capo[-out]" shouldn't even come into it.

Apocalypse Now Redux
The Godfather Part I
Raging Bull
Cidade de Deus
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
The Usual Suspects
The Blair Witch Project
The Godfather Part II
Schindler's List
The Matrix
The Virgin Suicides

Enzo, looks like we have similar tastes in movies

Man i hate Matrix,its just so overrated for ME,i not in to it at all.But some good film on the list

Enzo, any particular reason why you chose "Redux" over the original?

And if you had to knock one off to make your list ten, which would it be?

I never saw the original, so I can't judge it.

I made a top eleven on purpose because I believe they all should be in there. Obviously I rank some of them higher than others (Apocalypse Now Redux) but none of them is less good than all of them.

Also notice that this list can vary. My mood and the certain aspects of one film I coincidentally 're-feel'/remember at a certain moment, determine my view on this top 11. Tomorrow three films in the list might be replaced by other ones.
A constant factor though, is that none of the films will ever dissapoint me, at least not in the near future.

Yeah, I'm the same.

Films come in and out of my life, but the medium itself is here to stay.