Stop using these words when talking about movies.
They are not arguments, they're just another way a saying "I didn't like it".
Pretentious means more specifically, "I don't like abstraction in film" or "This film was too difficult for me".
Boring means "I don't have much patience to find out what a film is doing".
The Godfather 1/2
Goodfellas
Casino
Scarface
2001 A Space Odyssey
Taxi Driver
I agree with you about boring but I feel like it's possible for a film to be pretentious.
how about shallow and pedantic?
No it's not, things are what they are and can't hold false pretenses, directors and audiences can be pretentious but movies can't.
>Boring means "I don't have much patience to find out what a film is doing".
You know, sometimes movies are just fucking boring. A piece of dogshit on a sidewalk won't magically get interesting if you look at it for 2 hours
>Boring means "I don't have much patience to find out what a film is doing".
I sure didn't find out what Roland Emmerich was doing for his last couple of movies.
>It's an op doesn't understand basic human emotion episode
What's your opinion on Andy Warhol's 1964 film Empire?
Sounds like you'd love it
Woody Allen flicks pretending they're anything but shallow masturbatory fantasies of a perverted little jew are definitely pretentious.
I don't apply this to some of his earlier work because I can appreciate the introspection, but after 3 movies it loses its luster and layer of irony.
Is something goes on for two hours when the amount of content it has could easily be exposed in 30 minutes of footage then it's boring. If the movie goes on and on without relevant scenes or plot advancement it's boring.
If a movie tries to use symbolism and other tricks and attempts to explore deep concepts, but does it in a very superficial and innfevtive way then it's pretentious
Then Woody Allen would be pretentious, but films are set and are what they are, a film can't pretend to be something that it's not, that's on the filmmaker.
>Snyder pleb justifying
You are pathetic op
Boring is a stupid complaint but pretentious is very valid.
Movies can get bogged down in how deep or moral their message is and it's irritating to watch. Worse yet are films that are just an arbitrary collection of scenes with only a vague story holding them together. Films that use red herrings to obscure their point or that are opaque from the beginning are also pretentious.
Pretentious has a specific meaning which is that something thinks it is more important than it actually is. This is obviously subject to widely disparate personal tastes and essentially comes out as meaningless when people use the word to describe things as disparate as The Dark Knight and Satantango.
Sometimes movies want to produce all kinds of reactions. Many directors have used boredom (or rather long periods with no action) to make a point in a film.
Films that have done this include L'Avventua, Cache, and Solaris
Those movies are not bad because they are "boring". They are bad because they lack any internal logic, any non-cliched plot points, believable acting, believable circumstances and any number of other reasons.
movie is pretentious 6/10 at best.
If movies can neither be boring nor pretentious, how do you explain shit like God's Not Dead?
found the fedora tipping autist who likes shit pretentious flicks
I'd consider that a valid point if Woody didn't also write most of his material. These are most definitely his ideas. Separating a work from it's author can only go so far.
The two sisters don't make movies, they foretell prophesy.
Restricting the terms someone can use to criticize a film is how "patricians" defend steaming piles of turd just because they're esoteric.
NO. FUCK YOU.
So a pretentious filmmaker can make pretentious movies? Fair enough, I'll reconsider my stance on the issue.
>Scarface
What sort of mental illness do you have in order to consider Scarface boring AND pretentious?
>pacing
>plot holes
>pretentious
i call them the 3 p's of bullshit. always uttered by someone with absolutely nothing intelligent to add to criticism
reminder that nigs will inherit the earth
...
>they are not arguments
who do you think you are to decide what is and what isn't an argument?
>the 3 p's of 'turn your brain off!'
It's an experimental film made to be projected in an art museum as a long term display piece.
I have absolutely no problem with the work. I don't particularly like it because I don't think it is doing anything interesting but the film clear accomplishes what it meant to.
You need to learn to meet films on their own terms and evaluate them based on these criteria.
A film does not need to have the goals that you set for it. Not every film is meant to be concise, paced for entertainment, or even meant to be entertaining.
>Movies can get bogged down in how deep or moral their message is and it's irritating to watch.
Some movies desire to be irritating to specific audiences.
>Worse yet are films that are just an arbitrary collection of scenes with only a vague story holding them together.
Often movies that are described this way are not actually arbitrary. This is an excuse used so that you don't have to watch a movie again in order to form an opinion of it.
If you don't like abstraction, that's fine but you need to say that instead of pretending that you understand a film when likely you haven't put the work in.
Another thing pseuds do is talk about how great the cinematography is. You never have to explain it, because no one knows what the hell great cinematography actually is.
hint: it's not just that the movie "looks beautiful," and even then no one is able to explain why something looks beautiful anyway.
I believe your opinion is shallow and pedantic
>They are not arguments
Not an argument
>Sometimes movies want to produce all kinds of reactions. Many directors have used boredom (or rather long periods with no action) to make a point in a film.
You're saying it as if every movie is trying to accomplish something of the sort. Movies like The Ridiculous Six, Roland Emmerich movies, Transformers, etc. can be and in my book definitely are boring. There's absolutely nothing interesting going on for long stretches and even the whole movie in some of those cases, and boredom is a very valid emotion to feel throughout.
I haven't seen it and I don't plan to.
That's just didactic and poorly constructed. Boring and Pretentious are crutch arguments even here.
More like I'm seeking to limit the words that can be used by the lazy to dismiss movies they don't want to take the time to honestly evaluate.
There are probably legitimate criticisms that you aren't making for all the movies that you don't like because you are lacking the intellectual vigor and knowledge of film to adequately articulate yourself.
Pacing has a specific technical meaning though people often do not understand whether the pacing is intended.
Plot holes are a valid criticism for things that are reliant on plot and do not intend to have them.
I am definitely the person with the best understanding of film on this website.
>Some movies desire to be irritating to specific audiences.
And many don't. I can't seem to understand why people are so willing to believe that every director is a genius and that everything they do is intentional.
>Often movies that are described this way are not actually arbitrary.
I think they are. In fact, I think directors revel in the imprecision of the point they're trying to get across by making scenes so random. A film being arbitrary removes complaints about the plot by making it impossible to understand what the plot even is.
>This is an excuse used so that you don't have to watch a movie again
In movies like this, I'm sure there is a level of leeway and synchronicity with some of the scenes, but it's never neat and the correlation isn't very strong.
I agree it could be boring for someone, but pretentious? Movie is one of the most straight forward crime story I have seen
>Many directors have used boredom (or rather long periods with no action) to make a point in a film
Just because they made it boring on purpose it doesn't mean it's good.
I concur, especially with "pretentious". It's code word for "I don't like something and want to sound smart about my contempt".
I use the term sparingly. If you want an example of someone I consider pretentious, look up Titanic Sinclair. He's the poster child for it.
>limit the words that can be used by the lazy
People tend to end their review/criticism with a conclusion that summarizes their thoughts. It's like me dispelling your use of 'bullshit' as unintelligent because you didn't detail a paragraph of your thoughts beforehand.
>There are probably legitimate criticisms that you aren't making
Plot holes are a major criticism yet feature on your list. Most films endeavor to contain a logical and easily followed story, if that logic breaks then it should be criticized.
>they're just another way a saying "I didn't like it"
Roughly all the words used to praise a movie are just another way of saying "I liked it."
>You're saying it as if every movie is trying to accomplish something of the sort.
Incorrect. I am saying that you must evaluate a film on its own terms and that some (as in, not all) filmmakers are purposefully challenging their audiences.
Most of the time when someone feels bored throughout a movie it is because they have factually not understood what is going on. All the movies I mentioned do this.
Thanks for being detail.
There was this Spanish movie I saw a while ago I thought was 'pretentious.
It was about a really old and ugly married guy trying to bang a pretty young girl.
My problems with the movie was it trying to portray his quest of trying to get laid as a deep and profound thing and that the movie try to make the old guy seem smart and wise by just having him randomly quote from literature throughout the movie.
>you must evaluate a film on its own terms and that some (as in, not all) filmmakers are purposefully challenging their audiences.
So when a movie is constructed in such a way as the director clearly feels the subject matter is much more challenging than it actually is, like, for instance, a twist that's obvious in the first five seconds yet the movie keeps dropping "subtle" hints to it, like the director is just so sure you'll never guess it until the reveal, that is not a case of a movie ascribing to itself a higher worth than it actually has?
You say you need to judge things on their own terms, but in a lot of cases, a work will set it's own terms then fail to live up to them. Which is, by definition, pretentious.
You're really just arguing in a roundabout way for "death of the author," except somehow applied to the work as well.
I don't like abstraction in film. It sometimes has its place, but not very often.
What do you call films that are trying to make the point that they're very 'clever' at the expense of storytelling?
No, boring can mean a plethora of shit, captain projection.
If you have the diction and eloquence to describe why cinematography is good, then there's no reason you shouldn't be able to. Otherwise, you're right, fuck off.
For example, "the cinematography in No Country for Old Men is masterful because it's gritty and saturated, binding the setting and themes together in a crisp manner." Something like that, it's just an example. You can't just say "the cinematography in No Country is good because it's beautiful" because clearly you aren't aware of the elements which compose good cinematography.
*Otherwise, you're right, [they should] fuck off.
>you must evaluate a film on its own terms and that some (as in, not all) filmmakers are purposefully challenging their audiences.
What do you call it when they think they're being 'challenging', but what's really happening is the filmmaker is overestimating their own intelligence?
I'm hoping your issue is primarily people who will say the same thing multiple times, differently worded, as if each repeated utterance is the justification for the other utterances.
In L'Avventura thirty minutes into the movie, the main character disappears and no one knows why. They spend about 30 minutes looking for her before the movie resumes where it left off by taking a tertiary character and making them the primary.
The first watch of this movie is no doubt boring for the audience but this is not a valid criticism because the audience does not understand what is coming. If someone walks out 30 minutes in, they will never understand what happened in the movie and they can use "boring and pretentious" as an vague out instead of taking the time to understand why this was done.
And here's the key. You can legitimately talk about this technique and disagree with it for any number of reasons but simply calling something boring or pretentious does no one any good.
>I think directors revel in the imprecision of the point they're trying to get across by making scenes so random.
Name some films that do this. Almost certainly you did not understand the intentions of the director. Very few actually do what you are implying but many have used nonlinear editing techniques t great effect.
>In movies like this, I'm sure there is a level of leeway and synchronicity with some of the scenes, but it's never neat and the correlation isn't very strong.
Muriel or the time of return and Last Year at Marienbad use this technique and are meticulously constructed. There is much evidence of this fact if you look at production materials. There are other examples as well.
>People tend to end their review/criticism with a conclusion that summarizes their thoughts.
No, and especially not on here. A responsible critic might, but there are very few on here or on youtube.
>Plot holes are a major criticism yet feature on your list.
Plot holes are not on my list of things as invalid criticism. I stated here >Plot holes are a valid criticism for things that are reliant on plot and do not intend to have them.
I'm a pleb, do you mind going more into detail of whats good cinematography?
>I am definitely the person with the best understanding of film on this website.
Christmas dinner with the family is coming up. You ever wondered why everybody gets really quiet when you say anything?
Boring: something that isn't interesting or creative
Pretentious: something boring that conducts itself as if it is not
What do you mean? Like if someone were to say "'X' has great cinematography because it's beautiful, and it really shows how pretty the landscape is, and the camera work reveals this prettiness, yadda yadda yadda ad infinitum"? Because yeah, those people don't know what they're talk about and/or lack articulation.
Or something as simple as "i enjoyed it because it was fun."
Some people watch films for entertainment. Entertainment shouldn't be boring.
not him but see I was trying too hard with that description, but that's generally the gist of it. It greatly depends on the composition of the rest of the movie. Like why would you have fast cuts in a drama movie, etc. etc.
You don't have to go to film school to know this kind of shit, it's very basic. Watch Kubrick films. He's entry-level as fuck but his shit, particularly The Shining I'd say, delves deep into what great cinematography is comprised of.
it's almost like you chose these movies just to trigger me
I'm sorry but I can't comment on a film if I don't know what it is.
>So when a movie is constructed in such a way as the director clearly feels the subject matter is much more challenging than it actually is, like, for instance, a twist that's obvious in the first five seconds yet the movie keeps dropping "subtle" hints to it, like the director is just so sure you'll never guess it until the reveal, that is not a case of a movie ascribing to itself a higher worth than it actually has?
No, Stephen Gaghan, a filmmaker that I really like has a movie that does this very thing called Abandon. In evaluating this film all I ask is that you consider it as a thriller. Gaghan intended the movie to be like Polanski's Repulsion but is so heavy handed with the foreshadowing that it makes the film predictable. He fails utterly at his stated goal.
What I ask is merely that you don't judge a movie like La Dolce Vita because it isn't tightly plotted with a driving central conflict.
I appreciate the honesty in this post.
>What do you call films that are trying to make the point that they're very 'clever' at the expense of storytelling?
I don't believe that there are many movies that are attempting to do this specifically. Godard might in some. In general there is no need to find one word to describe it. You can simply explain what you just said and it will be much more useful for discussion than if you just call it pretentious.
>What do you call it when they think they're being 'challenging', but what's really happening is the filmmaker is overestimating their own intelligence?
Similar to what I say just above this section of this post. If you honestly believe that this is what the filmmaker is doing, you should state specifically that so that you actually make a statement that can be proven or disproven rather than hiding behind a single word that is much less descriptive and can't be argued with.
If you find the film boring because of that then it's a valid criticism.
>But it was supposed to be boring!
That's not a valid argument for why the film is good.
Every Western posted here by beta hipster faggots who are trying to model their fathers and be "alpha" like them.
Oh, and most movies before the 90s too. Even the modern capeshit is quite unironically better than that dated trash that everyone posts here to pretend that he has unusual taste (as observed on Sup Forums as well).
While boring and pretentious aren't "arguments", they are valid criticisms.
And, no, just because you dislike the criticism doesn't make it an invalid criticism.
Thanks i'll check it out Kubrick films.
Also I guess I really the cinematography of all of Glazer's film. I like that Birth feels like a fairy tale story with the way its shot.
So judge movies on their own terms, unless they fail to deliver upon them.
That's swell.
That was my fault but i guess i'm trying to say I think its possible for a film to try to be deeper then it really is.
*like
>Name some films that do this
Eraserhead - David Lynch loves giving nothing away and I think his words in regards to this film indicate that he's a man with nothing he can give away, because even he doesn't know what he has made. Most scenes relate to the paternity of the protagonist and that's a well established point, but the gritty, dilapidated landscape, the strange overgrowth of plant matter in his apartment, and the scene where he becomes the titular Eraserhead are all loosely bound to the central plot if at all.
In interviews Lynch has stated his love for all the different ways someone can receive a movie and I think most of his films endeavor to represent that, through not only obscure and arbitrary scenes, but needlessly complex narratives as well.
Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom - This film is cited as exploring (among other things): political corruption, abuse of power, and fascism. In reality, it's just a sadistic piece that offers nothing but cruelty and masks itself under this guise of depth that doesn't really exist. The abusers, both men and women, are almost humorous in how nonsensical each of their actions are.
When one of the ladies was recounting a story from her youth about how she shit in the mouth of a dying politician, I thought there was going to be some correlation between the sickening acts she was 'forced' to do and those she makes the children do - but there isn't. It's just a tale about her defecating into someone's open mouth as a way to emphasize the obsession with shit the movie has.
You have to dig so deep to find even the faintest trail of a point in this movie that isn't about repulsing the audience. There's no tie-in to fascism or political abuse, it's just illogical cruelty. They could have made it some Nihilist look on life but didn't even go that far.
Antichrist - To a lesser extent it suffers from the same adherence to nonsensical cruelty as Salo but at least has the decency to mix in some visual elements.
not an argument
I rarely call something pretentious unless it's in fact, pretentious.
But fuck you if boring is not criticism. If a movie's boring, it's boring. Fuck this meme that movies aren't supposed to be entertaining.
Haha, I'm not an autist. I don't go around stating that to actual people or conducting myself as a self styled intellectual at family dinners.
>Some people watch films for entertainment. Entertainment shouldn't be boring.
Some films aren't made to be entertainment. Judging them as such is asinine. There are plenty for people that want entertainment, they can politely fuck off if they're upset that not all movies conform to a commercial standard.
>But it was supposed to be boring!
>That's not a valid argument for why the film is good.
That is not the argument for being good. That is the reason why it is not a valid argument as to why it is bad.
You can't dismiss a film because you think it was boring. That isn't the same as saying that all these movies are good, just that you much honestly evaluate them.
>And, no, just because you dislike the criticism doesn't make it an invalid criticism.
The core difference between what you are implying I said and what I actually said are the posts that I've made since the OP elucidating my point. Maybe you should read them?
>That is the reason why it is not a valid argument as to why it is bad.
But it is a valid argument for why it's bad. Just because it was done intentionally doesn't mean it can't be bad.
>Pretentious means more specifically, "I don't like abstraction in film" or "This film was too difficult for me".
incorrect.
Abstraction and difficulty can be used well or poorly. Sometimes it is there to explain something deep or interesting, and sometimes it is used to hide something shallow and uninteresting. The latter is called pretension.
>You can't dismiss a film because you think it was boring
If a film is designed to be entertaining and gripping, then whether or not it's boring is a prime concern. Your argument is what, exactly? Some films use boredom as an asset? Okay, great. But that's a very tiny minority of productions, banning the word 'boring' for their sake is idiotic.
Even then, films that try to be boring might not use the emotion well. And that's another reason they can be criticized.
> "I don't go around stating that to actual people or conducting myself as a self styled intellectual at family dinners."
True, people who have to sit at the kid's table usually don't get that opportunity
>So judge movies on their own terms, unless they fail to deliver upon them.
You really fail to understand. When a director sets out to produce a movie, he often has goals in mind for the production. You can find out what those are a number of ways. If you think you know what was intended, you can evaluate the final work in relation to those goals.
Key here though is stating both what you think the goals are, and how the movie fails at them. This is how discussion happens as people are then able to consider whether your reading and argument against the films are correct.
It is possible. But you need to actually state that instead of thinking you are implying that by using a much more vague word.
>Eraserhead
This certainly isn't my favorite movie but are you just upset that it isn't more tightly plotted? The movie is clearly a tone piece. I don't think it's meant to be incredibly deep.
>Salo
I have not seen this so I can't really comment on it. I've never had much interest in Pasolini though as a filmmaker.
>Antichrist
So Lars von Trier I have some specific conceptions and arguments about him and his filmmaking style. He seems to wish for his films to be considered in the same realm as classic european cinema. Evidence for this is in references that his films make to other, more respected filmmakers like Tarkovsky, but he doesn't engage with the core ideas in any of the films he's referencing in any of the films in which they're referenced.
Most of the time the points of his movies are very literal and often just about how ugly he thinks human nature is. I don't find anything he does interesting and I think the only of his movies that I've seen that has worth is Dogville mainly because I think his gimmick of using a minimal set is mildly interesting.
It's important though that I gave a real honest evaluation of his work rather than dismissing it with a single word what does nothing for discussion.
You have a problem with the logic of argument.
You state something (Boring is bad)
I disagree and state that there is an exception (Some things intend to be boring, and therefore cannot be dismissed as bad until being considered in that context)
But you think I'm stating that I'm stating (Boring is good)
>If a film is designed to be entertaining and gripping, then whether or not it's boring is a prime concern.
That could be true but there are reasons why you think something is "boring" and instead of using one word, you should just state those reasons. It's a lazy shorthand.
>are you just upset that it isn't more tightly plotted
More so that some scenes stand out as being irrelevant or even there to be purposefully derail any sense of a plot. I understand how most of it fits together with the controller at the start, the baby, the seductress, etc. but then there are these absurd additions that ruin any form of plot comprehension.
>Most of the time the points of his movies are very literal and often just about how ugly he thinks human nature is.
I'll take your word for it, but Antichrist seems to feature a heavy psychological element, which is why I think I consider it partly pretentious.
I've heard some of your recommendations in this thread and I'll check them out. Maybe the "deep" films I've seen have just not resonated with me.
Something boring is bad. Even if it was supposed to be boring, it's still bad.
What did you think of Dancer in the Darker?
*Dark
I agree completely what you're saying about pretentious. But a film doesn't have to advance the plot to be interesting, or even have much of a plot in the first place
>(Some things intend to be boring, and therefore cannot be dismissed as bad until being considered in that context)
I'm jumping into this argument without reading everything, but I really don't think this is true. Things can intend to be slow, but nothing intends to be boring. Slow things can still be very interesting and engaging. Somebody brought up Last Year at Marienbad. I don't think that anybody could reasonably argue that movie is boring because, while it's slow and the hints towards the plot and the movie's point come out slowly, there is enough to ponder during the film that, unless you lose the thread, it's still interesting.
When it comes to art film, boredom is a result of the viewer either not asking enough questions (or the right questions) while watching the film OR the film not offering enough information for the viewer to ponder over. When somebody says a film was boring, it means one of these two things, and OP, for example, seems to think that it can only mean the first one.
>More so that some scenes stand out as being irrelevant or even there to be purposefully derail any sense of a plot. I understand how most of it fits together with the controller at the start, the baby, the seductress, etc. but then there are these absurd additions that ruin any form of plot comprehension.
It could be a matter of personal taste. That is something that cannot really be argued with but a lot of the time people like to assert their personal tastes as objective reality. That's the primary reason for this post to begin with.
>I've heard some of your recommendations in this thread and I'll check them out. Maybe the "deep" films I've seen have just not resonated with me.
I will tell you that every single first watch of a Michelangeo Antonioni movie I almost actively despised them. Then on subsequent viewings nearly all of them from the early 60s I consider masterpieces. L'Eclisse in particular I found very confounding until the third watch (which I only did because I liked his other movies so much at that point) when I realized what the ending actually was.
If you can't get through some of these movies I've stated or if you watch them and think they are bad, I won't blame you. I simply ask that instead of dismissing them you try to articulate the reasons why you didn't connect with them. If everyone did this on Sup Forums, we might actually have a decent community and discussions.
I disagree. I think a period of boredom in film can be used to great effect.
I have stated examples. You can attempt to disprove them if you like. If not, then we have nothing further to discuss.
I have not seen dancer in the dark. The Lars von Trier movies I have seen by him are Nymphomaniac, Melancholia, Dogville, and Antichrist
>Things can intend to be slow, but nothing intends to be boring.
True, I was using his wording for convenience. I completely agree with you.
I think the post your responding to meant, instead of plot advancement, more like "idea advancement." A film which doesn't advance its ideas, either through character, plot, or some other means, at a reasonable pace is a boring film.
You should give it a watch. It's probably his most creative film in my own opinion though I have mixed feelings on it personally.
Okay, add it to my list.
Haha I don't know if you saying you have to most film knowledge is a joke, but I'm worried people will dismiss your points because of your arrogance
>There are probably legitimate criticisms that you aren't making for all the movies that you don't like because you are lacking the knowledge of film to adequately articulate yourself
This is so incredibly true. And what's worse is people are so sure that they're right, directors must be purposefully masking their films vague or something and people must only be pretending to enjoy them.
I can't say I've seen all that many films but I do try my best to articulate why I did or didn't enjoy it, on my own terms. For example, I'm not new to more arthouse films, but I watched The Double Life of Veronique recently and it was my first Kieslowski. I really appreciate the craftsmanship of the film but I didn't find that I particularly like the film. I understand it's implications of cosmic connection, or unexplainable attraction or actions, and I get that the best way to express those things is without much plot or explanation. I get that the film had to work purely with emotions and expression and I'm not saying it needed a plot or anything else going. I recognize however that the emotions this film was trying to elicit were ineffective with me. Now usually when this is the case, I'll break down the film, see what flaw cause it to be ineffective. But I can't do that with this film, there was nothing really wrong with it. I can't say I was bored at all, and it was a pretty film, but I never felt swept up by those emotions and ended up unaatisfied and failed to take much away from it. I know that's nothing I can fault the film for, and I know I'll rewatch it down the line sometime, but I will say it's not a film I really liked, and hopefully I explained validly why. You're very eloquent and versed in film, what are your thoughts on the movie?
Are you serious? Not all movies are supposed to be entertaining. If it's goal is entertainment and it fails, then sure, criticize away. But some films work to express or elicit emotion etc. I'm not saying films shouldn't be enjoyable. But they certainly do not have to be exciting or entertain, the medium of cinema as an art is so much broader than that
>Haha I don't know if you saying you have to most film knowledge is a joke
It was.
>The Double life of Veronique
It isn't my favorite Kieslowski but I've only seen it once so I don't think I can adequately judge it. I think the Tri Color trilogy and Dekalog are his masterpieces. Veronique did not connect with me immediately in the way that those two anthologies did. I think this may be because the movie is more subtle than I was aware on my initial watch of it but I am reserving judgment until later.
Now I can agree with advancement of ideas and it's importance to keeping interest. I think "reasonable pace" is highly debatable and dependent on personal taste. But while we're on it, do you think a film could express an idea and then not advance it but be good? It seems there could be something interesting and well done with a purposeful use of stagnance. This doesn't have to mean nothing happens. Perhaps the point though could be that there is no advancement or progression, and if little to nothing does happen, the focus could be on how things could happen but they don't. If you think about it, the act of nothingness is something in and of itself. Do you think a film that expressed this by embodying the stillness or stagnance would be boring?
its pretty obvious that you're caught in a mental trap where intent excuses failure. In addition to a misconception that because a movie isn't a sentient entity, it can make no claims, therefore cannot fail to deliver on claims it made. Which leads into a contention where if something can make no claims, it cannot fail to deliver upon those claims, thus can only be judged upon what it did.
you also seem to hinge all your arguments upon movies you know no one has seen, therefore claims made upon them cannot be argued effectively.
The reality is any work is an extension of the creator and the creator's high opinion of themselves can and will bleed into the work. Themes and concepts can be presented as higher/better than they actually are. Therefore pretentious can be a valid criticism.
I just realized stagnance is not a word, I suppose I mean stagnancy
OP is boring and pretentious
I guess I should let OP defend himself. But he's not saying pretentious can't ever be valid, just that it applies to far far less films than people think. Also, as explained in his elaborations, it's not that a film can't have aspects that make it boring or pretentious, but simply throwing out the one word offers nothing of an argument or criticism. Rather than take the word as a shortcut, one needs to expand and say what they actually disliked about the movie. Why were they bored?
Also, are you implying that because he's using Anonioni's films in his arguments that he's purposefully choosing obscure films? That's the most cinematically illiterate thing I've heard. He's a staple of Italian cinema an in fact many many people have seen his films. OP use of them and other films he's mentioned serve the purpose of fitting his points and strengthening his argument, not preventing others from discussing.
Well, life isn't debate club. People don't have to do anything.
It's hard to theorize about a potential movie.
Maybe I misunderstand you, but it seems like such a film would still be developing an idea. By showing stillness, either in different storylines or just in images, the film could come to mean something abstract about stillness. If a pattern can be developed out of the various images or scenes, the film would still have a point and would still advance its ideas, and it would not be boring.
I guess he's saying in the context of film discussion, those things are necessary. If people are writing there own reviews, they can say whatever they want. But if you're looking for discussion and to express your opinions accurately and articulately, you can't just throw those two words around. I believe his point is also that people hide behind them. They're too afraid of taking a stance and being argued against, so they make non points, and in the context of film discussion, these things are impossible to work with.
There you go, you're right. I do think the first poster meant that advancement of a plot is necessary to not be boring, and I hold that is untrue. However I think you're explanation of ideas being advanced is very good, and if someone wished to express why they were bored, all they have to look at is the progression of ideas. I have to agree, a truly stagnant film that says nothing would be a boring. The great thing about film is that there are so many way to express ideas and let them develope and either preogress or expand. That's where personal taste can come in, which more of advancement does someone prefer. And I think once this is realized, it's very easy to discuss and articulate what was good or bad in a film, at least from a specific viewer's perspective