r/TrueFilm • u/frightenedbabiespoo • 2d ago
One extreme example of a divisive arthouse film raises a question from me: Why accept a film is achieving "greatness" when broad appeal is the culprit for said "greatness"?
There's nothing wrong with a film having mass appeal. Especially when it's also Good. I like good films.
But I'm a cynic. And I like reading about films that aren't afraid of a cynical point of view. Even films I love, I'll trudge through negative reviews. And I'll come back and read them again because I enjoy that cynicism. And I might whine a little. But so be it.
I'm cynical of arthouse-y films that are popular. Sometimes I'm more defensive of mainstream films that have an edge I like, than of arthouse films I should/would/could enjoy. Whatever!
And the people I follow on Letterboxd are routinely delivering the cynicism which fuels me! Not that we've always got matching tastes, but I love that a contingent of people with #greattaste are not afraid of speaking their mind on the not-actually-so-good indie movie of the week. I'm not naming any specific films.
My issue is not that most people have differing tastes and understandings of cinema. I also don't really care about that a film is "extremely" overrated/underrated, as an average rating and its histogram can immediately speak more about a film than words. I enjoy the latter aspect almost too much as you will see.
And there's no shortage of films that I find interesting. I don't think there's a group of people keeping great films hidden from me.
But there's one egregious instance that strikes me more than any other.
Most popular reviews of a particular film are as follows:
- no rating, extremely negative. walked out and got a ticket for another film at the festival
- 4 stars, paragraph review. has useful critique
- 4 stars, longer, same as above
- 1/2 star, four words
- 1 star. sad that actress couldn't save the movie
- 1 star. short remark comparing the skill of two random people in the crew to young children
- 1 star. mocks the attempt of imitating a director popular in the 60s
- 2 stars. actual funny joke about above director
- 4 stars. paragraph review, thoughtful
- 4.5 stars. paragraph review, thoughtful
- 4.5 stars. paragraph review, thoughtful
- 1.5 stars. one word
- 4 stars. paragraph review, thoughtful
- 3.5 stars. paragraph review, thoughtful
- 2.5 stars. paragraph remarks, just didn't much care for it. was dubious of the film since it popped up on television without a real release
- 1/2 star. hats off to actress for being in a garbage film
- 1 star. lots of silly remarks, mentions the film is objectively bad
- 3 stars. long thoughtful review
- no rating. sweet several paragraph positive review
- 4 stars. paragraph review, thoughtful
OK, you get the picture. let's be extremely terribly generous to the haters and say the average rating of "useful" reviews here in this sample is 3.25. Okay, not terrible. But that would still be 0.5 points higher than the actual average LB rating of this thing.
What film is it? Find it yourself, there's other things to watch. There are plenty of things to watch with a higher rating than 2.7.
Why accept a film is achieving "greatness" when broad appeal is the culprit?
Movie lovers that attended Cannes (hint, hint!) failed this film, why should I trust the general reception for the "arthouse-film-of-the-month"? Obviously I shouldn't. and I don't.
[Redacted Film] 2024
★★
Watched 15 Jun 2024
[Redacted user]’s review published on Letterboxd:
Sometimes our love for an actor leads us down the wrong path. [Redacted Actress], I did this for you.
Like review 839 likes 2024
this is embarrasing, this is the most liked review for a different film. I googled to see if redacted actress liked this film she was in. She does!
We suck
12
u/TofuLordSeitan666 2d ago
My previous comment was deleted due to it being short. And I’m trying to parse through what you are getting at.
But I really need to repeat the comment that was deleted. My previous comment was
“wtf film prompted this rant”.
Deleted due to the rules of this sub understandably.
If we knew what film is motivating you to feel this way then we can have a more constructive conversation.
On top of that “Arthouse Film” is a poorly defined colloquial term with a lot of grey in its definition. For instance many well budgeted studio films are termed “Arthouse”. Is an Arthouse film Arthouse due to intention, budget, audience?
I also think you can sum up your ideas way more succinctly.
Or maybe I’m just out of the loop and I accept that as well.
-5
11
u/NancyInFantasyLand 2d ago
What film is it? Find it yourself, there's other things to watch. There are plenty of things to watch with a higher rating than 2.7
Aren't you perpetuating the problem you think exists here, then? Personally, I don't give a crap bout what rating a movie has on x website... If it's something that sounds or looks interesting to me then I'll watch it.
And if I then enjoy it, I'll talk to anyone about it who might listen to me and I won't do it while complaining that other randos online may have given it mixed reviews.
-3
7
u/AnTasaShi 1d ago
I've tried reading this post several times and I'm going to be honest: I dont get it. Like, I dont even get what the point is. Maybe asking the question: "Is a film's worth tied directly to its popularity?" Which, as a question, I think is trite.
I also agree with the other posters in thinking this rant is entirely less about film, and more about how you define yourself through how others see you. Like its strange to me that people get so anxious about Letterboxd. Like who cares? Its a fucking app. I have a patron account and use it regularly, but its still just an app. Other accounts have no effect on my usage.
Now, if your question is why are people only ever talking about whats on the top 250 and why do people get weirdly defensive when you talk about movies that arent on a top 250; thats an entirely separate argument and one you made a poor attempt at explaining. Thats a talk I think thats worth having, even if I think it will be a short talk.
0
u/frightenedbabiespoo 1d ago
I fucked up a bit in the OP. I should have made it clear that this is more an observation than a grievance. I'm less anxious about LB but rather more "obsessed". I wish I understood that's it more an app for general use, rather than how I see it. A place to find movies to watch! If movies aren't being represented well, how are other people (and myself) supposed to find more of what they want?
1
u/AnTasaShi 1d ago
What do you mean "represented well"? A movie is a movie is a movie. If you want similar movie types do research. Use google. Stop being lazy.
0
u/frightenedbabiespoo 1d ago
Are reviews and ratings not part of how a movie is represented?
Will it be just as easy for someone to find this movie in a google search? I think people often turn away when they see a very poor rating, although I understand it works both ways.
I don't want to gatekeep Cannes festival goers from seeing movies they're not attuned for, but the tedious reactions they send out into the black void of social media turn into their own form of gatekeeping, at least that's how I see it.
1
u/Senescences 11h ago
I find criticker to be much better at movies recommendation because they normalize every users' ratings and then they match you with those who have similar taste to you. They try to predict how you'll rate the movie.
1
u/frightenedbabiespoo 11h ago
I'm familiar with it and actually a member but I don't use it. The film actually only has 6 ratings (vs 1600 on LB) on the site so far so not enough data for a probable score.
3
u/YetAgain67 1d ago
I don't even know what the hell you're even trying to say?
Are you saying films with less broad appeal that get praise are praised simply for being slightly niche? Are you saying that people rail against more mainstream stuff by virtue of it being mainstream?
Conversation around certain films chokes out conversation around other films?
You also seem to have a bone to pick with the way people engage how they assess films on online platforms.
Your ideas here are poorly structured and kinda, well, up their own ass. Just be straight forward. Present your thoughts in a straight forward way.
I have my own issues with how people at large engage in film discussion - be it mainstream stuff or more niche stuff.
But until I actually get a handle on what the fuck it is you're actually trying to say I can't engage in the discussion.
4
u/ImpactNext1283 2d ago
It’s impossible to speak to your point without knowing the film. But I’ll bite, even though if you were straightforward, I would likely agree with you.
Film is an accidental art. Its primary purpose is to make money. Individual players in the system are making art, sure. But they’re feeding the money making machine primarily. That’s what keeps the studios sending movies to the festivals for distribution afterward.
So you’re assessing a commercial product as art, and judging it as a failure. But it’s a product first and foremost.
And people use movies for all sorts of things. To pass a couple hours. To get a few kicks. To see some art. But also to see an ‘important story’. Or see something totally unique. Or just to signify to others that they care about the subject of the film.
For me, CATS is a 5 star experience. Is it great art? Absolutely not. But it’s hilarious and terrifying, and totally unique. 5 stars. People go to movies for all kinds of reasons.
0
u/frightenedbabiespoo 1d ago
PMed you the film
0
u/ImpactNext1283 1d ago
I have never heard of it! I assumed you meant the - similar seeming - Emilia Perez. Which confounded me and has been hated by the critics but remains fairly popular w the public.
3
u/dowtownQuatro 2d ago
I love the movie Knight of Cups by Terrance Mallick. The other 3 people I saw it with not only didn't like it but didn't even want to give it a single thought because of its abstract nature. Art house movies can be bad and pretentious but for true movie lovers they offer something experimental that the average person either isn't expecting or not interested in. Once I came to this conclusion of subjective enjoyment for enjoyment's sake I realized I could no longer use Letterbox'd. Not because it's not a cool site, but because the questions you have are the questions that I had and they drove me crazy. You can't widdle down your experience with cinema to a simplistic star rating. That's for the normal folks who don't give it too much thought and aren't driven mad by the process.
TLDR: Quit letterbox'd and free yourself. Do it for your own sanity like I did.
-3
u/frightenedbabiespoo 2d ago
I'm making this post to request others to free their minds
My sanity is long gone.
9
u/MacaroonFormal6817 2d ago
I'm making this post to request others to free their minds
Why do other people's minds matter? Maybe their minds aren't built that way. Maybe they're not as smart as you. Telling someone "just be smarter than me" isn't a directive anyone can obey.
And to make that request on /r/TrueFilm where everyone is a movie nerd/snob/fan/lover/liver/kidney?
2
u/dowtownQuatro 2d ago
I know, bro hahaha. I know. Just cuddle up on the couch and watch Solaris and write your review in a notebook and stuff it in your desk. Letterbox'd is cursed
35
u/MacaroonFormal6817 2d ago
This is entirely a most about social media and people's opinions, and your edgelord (sorry!) penchant... and it has nothing to do with film or cinema.
That has nothing to do with the film, and everything to do with people who had zero part in making the film.
If social media didn't exist—back when social media didn't exist—the film is the film. It still is the film. People would have their opinions but you just wouldn't know those opinions. The films aren't different now, your extracurricular activities are. It's just the "greatness" was only decided by either (a) the moviegoer, or (b) the critic, e.g. Roger Ebert, Pauline Kael.
This makes no sense. Culprit? A film is either great (to you or to me) or it is not. Popularity makes no difference.
You're entirely obsessed with other people, not cinema. Sorry. Zero percent of your post is about movies, film, or cinema. 💩