love

Author Topic: 1990s US Bracket: Verdicts  (Read 712351 times)

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #860 on: August 05, 2008, 06:52:45 PM »
That said, I'm glad you clarified because I couldn't imagine how that outcome could come from anyone but Junior and it makes much more sense now how the mediocre at best JP could take down a much more ambitious film.

I'm sorry I enjoy fun films. And I'm sorry that JP is a shining example of the fun film. And I'm sorry that I'm so awesome.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11205
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #861 on: August 05, 2008, 07:25:52 PM »
That said, I'm glad you clarified because I couldn't imagine how that outcome could come from anyone but Junior and it makes much more sense now how the mediocre at best JP could take down a much more ambitious film.

I'm sorry I enjoy fun films. And I'm sorry that JP is a shining example of the fun film. And I'm sorry that I'm so awesome.

  I have to agree - sometimes it's not the most ambitious, intellectual or serious film that wins but the most entertaining and sometimes entertaining is none of those things. I'm not saying it can't be...
Hey, nice marmot!

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #862 on: August 05, 2008, 07:56:52 PM »
If there is one thing that I feel gets overlooked around these parts it's the entertainment value of film. Yes film is art but it is also a playground. Sometimes the two overlap (Be Kind Rewind is a recent example) and sometimes they are just one or the other. I don't think that one part is more important than the other, although I do tend to lean a little towards the "fun" side.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

pixote

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 34237
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #863 on: August 05, 2008, 11:51:17 PM »
I enjoy fun films, too — Hancock! — but I also find fun in a lot of art.  This is confusing.  Why so serious?

pleasant-but-firm
I've also been called tough but fair.  Not sure I like this repuation I've got going.  I'll think I'll start cultivating a Manic Pixie Dream Girl image instead, so I can maybe make that Top 5.

Very cool that you took the time follow up on your verdict all this time later.  Glad you were rewarded with a new matchup that has everyone else jealous.

pixie
« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 12:01:56 AM by pixote »
Great  |  Near Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Fair  |  Mixed  |  Middling  |  Bad

skjerva

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9448
  • I'm your audience.
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #864 on: August 06, 2008, 12:39:01 AM »
If there is one thing that I feel gets overlooked around these parts it's the entertainment value of film. Yes film is art but it is also a playground. Sometimes the two overlap (Be Kind Rewind is a recent example) and sometimes they are just one or the other. I don't think that one part is more important than the other, although I do tend to lean a little towards the "fun" side.

yeah, this is an interesting stigma on the boards - the idea that folks that critique films don't also enjoy them.  (okay, i'm addressing my issue:) ) or, that in asking questions about why and how we find pleasure in films is somehow a problem.  i would also disagree that the entertainment value gets overlooked, i think this is partly exemplified by responses from raising cultural criticism.  responses seem to tilt in the "it makes no sense to inquire into films in such a way" direction - i think there is a clear preference to "enjoying" film, and there is nothing wrong with that (if that is what we want to call it).  if, however, you mean there is a connoisseur-vibe with folks tending to discuss according to auteur theory, obscure/"art"/"foreign" film, then you prolly have a stronger case, though there is certainly is a lot of discussion on mass market movies.

further, i would say "the two" (art and entertainment) always overlap.
But I wish the public could, in the midst of its pleasures, see how blatantly it is being spoon-fed, and ask for slightly better dreams. 
                        - Iris Barry from "The Public's Pleasure" (1926)

ˇKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26774
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #865 on: August 06, 2008, 12:47:58 AM »
If there is one thing that I feel gets overlooked around these parts it's the entertainment value of film. Yes film is art but it is also a playground. Sometimes the two overlap (Be Kind Rewind is a recent example) and sometimes they are just one or the other. I don't think that one part is more important than the other, although I do tend to lean a little towards the "fun" side.

yeah, this is an interesting stigma on the boards - the idea that folks that critique films don't also enjoy them.  (okay, i'm addressing my issue:) ) or, that in asking questions about why and how we find pleasure in films is somehow a problem.  i would also disagree that the entertainment value gets overlooked, i think this is partly exemplified by responses from raising cultural criticism.  responses seem to tilt in the "it makes no sense to inquire into films in such a way" direction - i think there is a clear preference to "enjoying" film, and there is nothing wrong with that (if that is what we want to call it).  if, however, you mean there is a connoisseur-vibe with folks tending to discuss according to auteur theory, obscure/"art"/"foreign" film, then you prolly have a stronger case, though there is certainly is a lot of discussion on mass market movies.

further, i would say "the two" (art and entertainment) always overlap.

in complete disagreement with that last statement ;)  Irreversible would be my exhibit A.

One can find pleasure in art without finding entertainment but one can also appreciate a negative reaction that is neither pleasurable or entertaining (to the viewer at least - 2 Girls, 1 Cup has shown us that this experience can be both entertaining and pleasurable to those viewing the viewer.

I usually try to blend the art, technical and entertainment aspects into one when writing about a film and if it fails in one way or another I think I try to call said film on it.  I think some of that ability though comes from experience - I noticed in the film a year thread my favorite from childhood were nostalgia picks - films that i just out and out love for what they represent and my rose colored memory of them where as the later years favorite film = best film of the year.

skjerva

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9448
  • I'm your audience.
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #866 on: August 06, 2008, 12:57:15 AM »
If there is one thing that I feel gets overlooked around these parts it's the entertainment value of film. Yes film is art but it is also a playground. Sometimes the two overlap (Be Kind Rewind is a recent example) and sometimes they are just one or the other. I don't think that one part is more important than the other, although I do tend to lean a little towards the "fun" side.

yeah, this is an interesting stigma on the boards - the idea that folks that critique films don't also enjoy them.  (okay, i'm addressing my issue:) ) or, that in asking questions about why and how we find pleasure in films is somehow a problem.  i would also disagree that the entertainment value gets overlooked, i think this is partly exemplified by responses from raising cultural criticism.  responses seem to tilt in the "it makes no sense to inquire into films in such a way" direction - i think there is a clear preference to "enjoying" film, and there is nothing wrong with that (if that is what we want to call it).  if, however, you mean there is a connoisseur-vibe with folks tending to discuss according to auteur theory, obscure/"art"/"foreign" film, then you prolly have a stronger case, though there is certainly is a lot of discussion on mass market movies.

further, i would say "the two" (art and entertainment) always overlap.

in complete disagreement with that last statement ;)  Irreversible would be my exhibit A.

One can find pleasure in art without finding entertainment but one can also appreciate a negative reaction that is neither pleasurable or entertaining (to the viewer at least - 2 Girls, 1 Cup has shown us that this experience can be both entertaining and pleasurable to those viewing the viewer.


i reckon i should clarify the ideas of "art" and "entertainment" do not mean positive value judgments, instead "art" merely means there is an aesthetic component and "entertainment" an engagement with (dis)pleasure.  both imply a set of ways of engaging the film, perhaps thinking of these as operating on something like a spectrum - art/entertainment, how much is there?  how is it there?  these questions, of course, always imply a set of predispositions about what we mean when we engage the ideas.
But I wish the public could, in the midst of its pleasures, see how blatantly it is being spoon-fed, and ask for slightly better dreams. 
                        - Iris Barry from "The Public's Pleasure" (1926)

ˇKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26774
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #867 on: August 06, 2008, 01:27:10 AM »
but entertainment is generally taken as associated with positive connotations, with pleasure minus the (dis) - even if it is "sick" pleasure or pleasure stemming from schadenfreude, based on a morally subjective value judgment.  Displeasure itself can be an emotion brought out by "art" and appreciated on that level but not something that a fully functional (that's loaded, couldn't come up with a better term at 2:20AM) person would want to experience over and over again and thus would not be "entertained." 

skjerva

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9448
  • I'm your audience.
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #868 on: August 06, 2008, 01:38:02 AM »
but entertainment is generally taken as associated with positive connotations, with pleasure minus the (dis) - even if it is "sick" pleasure or pleasure stemming from schadenfreude, based on a morally subjective value judgment.  Displeasure itself can be an emotion brought out by "art" and appreciated on that level but not something that a fully functional (that's loaded, couldn't come up with a better term at 2:20AM) person would want to experience over and over again and thus would not be "entertained." 

to use your description, i'll reply that anything someone finds entertaining also has an aesthetic component.  also, that an aesthetic component is not absent if entertainment is absent.  but i think that is the less interesting claim Junior is making :)
But I wish the public could, in the midst of its pleasures, see how blatantly it is being spoon-fed, and ask for slightly better dreams. 
                        - Iris Barry from "The Public's Pleasure" (1926)

pixote

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 34237
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: 1990s US Bracket commentary
« Reply #869 on: August 06, 2008, 02:55:11 AM »
Junior is awesome :)

Fixed.

Part of the problem, I think, is that sometimes it's easier to critique than to celebrate.  And that's a trap some of us fall into more often than others.  I personally try to counterbalance this in my own posts by using the word awesome at least once in every one of them.  Sometimes twice or three times, because I'm that awesome.

pixote
Great  |  Near Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Fair  |  Mixed  |  Middling  |  Bad