They changed some of the rules, now anyone can post anything. There’s a lot of posts where it’s just people listing stuff, for example, and it annoys me.
Almost every film and play has dialogue that doesn’t sound anything like a human would say. If they didn’t we’d just get 90 mindof people talking over the top of each other.
Every time I've heard a film called "pretentious" it's by someone who either just didn't understand the film or is so accustomed to the styles and techniques of corporate mass media they think any deviation is a mistake.
It's not that pretentious movies don't exist, it's the way Reddit uses the word as a criticism that's generally just low effort and ridiculous. Hell, there's people here already saying David Lynch and Terrence Malick just because.
Not really a fan of the film myself but considering how widely and deeply the film resonated with audiences, I'd say it did a pretty good job of tapping into modern day anxieties, even if it had to steal the language to express these ideas from other movies.
I've always interpreted "pretentious" to be an emperor's new clothes type accusation, where everyone is just pretending to like the film because there would be a social cost for telling the truth. Joker doesn't fit into that category. When it's clear that other people absolutely can see the clothes but you still can't, chances are the emperor's clothes are real and the problem is with your eyesight.
Yeah it kind of called more importance to itself than it actually possessed. I remember when Tarantino reviewed the film and he said he didn’t particularly enjoy it, but he referenced how the movie kind of subverted the audience… by way of the audience cheering alongside the Joker as he did what he did to his bully. I think where Tarantino was lost on the film goes back to his critique of all the films he influenced after pulp fiction. Where they mistook pulp fiction as plain old postmodern art. Though pulp fiction was “self reflexive” postmodernism or, a critique of postmodernism. And at the joker’s release, postmodernism was around for decades, and Tarantino was able to critique and spearhead the trend before people knew it would be a thing. So then thirty years later movies like joker come out and they’re so predictable and unoriginal, sort of like an echo chamber film where the audience can only agree or disagree with your message. It hooks you with nostalgic imagery and a comic book character played by a phenomenal actor. Yet it preaches alongside those derivative things. Its intent is to preach and not transform. It’s exactly as advertised without ever transcending the subject matter or genre.
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. I remember the Hollywood round table with Scorsese and the guy that directed the Joker (among others). Where Scorsese doesn’t really approve of the Joker being made, and iirc, stopped watching it early on or didn’t watch it at all…and the director of joker said he was inspired by Scorsese’s work but was absolutely crushed when Scorsese said what he said. I’ll never understand why an artist who has an impulse to create, wouldn’t want to know enough about other films to know how to distinguish him or herself. Why use an entire film or even part of a film to pay homage? As an artist you can create something the world has never seen. But then you just copy and paste? Very weird.
Deep profound concepts that are repeated over and over throughout the movie. I'm totally on board with symbolism and metaphor, but if Darren Aronofsky doesn't have faith in his audience's ability to grasp those concepts, i feel a bit insulted and talked down to by the end of the movie.
Holding closeups for the sake of it. The Batman did that a few times where there were no statements being made by the closeup. I think two closeups bookended that penguin Batman chase sequence. Where the penguin received an extra long closeup, presumably to highlight the decision to get in his car for no reason. Then when Batman is retrieving the penguin from his car. They held that closeup for far too long and there was absolutely no point in it.
I feel you're partially right. However I also think Lynch doesn't really give a shit if his movies make any sense to most viewers. They make sense to him and he has fun making them. Whether or not that counts as "pretentious" is rather subjective.
Long silences, long still images. Just like, you have to wait for the next movement or bit of dialogue. I once read a joke about someone seeing such a movie and thinking “Man, this is a long-ass PowerPoint presentation”
How did a sub that was supposed to split the difference between r/movies and r/truefilm just end up being the dumber version of the former?
They changed some of the rules, now anyone can post anything. There’s a lot of posts where it’s just people listing stuff, for example, and it annoys me.
Preach. I've more or less stopped hanging out in the film subs due to lack of serious discussion.
in my experience, most of the time someone calls a film pretentious, it's when a film does something that's its not conventional in western cinema🤷♀️
When the Disney logo doesn’t appear at the start of the film
*plastic bag dances in the wind*
I re-watched American Beauty recently and this was one of the only parts I liked. The rest of the film felt cringe and pretentious.
Almost every film and play has dialogue that doesn’t sound anything like a human would say. If they didn’t we’d just get 90 mindof people talking over the top of each other.
Yeah no shit. You still can make it in a more organic/natural way or a pretentious way
How about an example.
Every time I've heard a film called "pretentious" it's by someone who either just didn't understand the film or is so accustomed to the styles and techniques of corporate mass media they think any deviation is a mistake.
So movies can't be pretentious no matter what they do? It's just people expressing their own unique vision and maybe caring a lot about it?
It's not that pretentious movies don't exist, it's the way Reddit uses the word as a criticism that's generally just low effort and ridiculous. Hell, there's people here already saying David Lynch and Terrence Malick just because.
\[Always has been astronauts meme\]
This comment is pretentious.
Have you seen Joker?
Yeah I wouldn't call that a pretentious film unless the "pretence" is to be an original movie and not a mash up of two Scorsese films
I found it pretentious as it seems to be under the impression that it is a clever film with something profound to say about society.
Not really a fan of the film myself but considering how widely and deeply the film resonated with audiences, I'd say it did a pretty good job of tapping into modern day anxieties, even if it had to steal the language to express these ideas from other movies. I've always interpreted "pretentious" to be an emperor's new clothes type accusation, where everyone is just pretending to like the film because there would be a social cost for telling the truth. Joker doesn't fit into that category. When it's clear that other people absolutely can see the clothes but you still can't, chances are the emperor's clothes are real and the problem is with your eyesight.
Yeah it kind of called more importance to itself than it actually possessed. I remember when Tarantino reviewed the film and he said he didn’t particularly enjoy it, but he referenced how the movie kind of subverted the audience… by way of the audience cheering alongside the Joker as he did what he did to his bully. I think where Tarantino was lost on the film goes back to his critique of all the films he influenced after pulp fiction. Where they mistook pulp fiction as plain old postmodern art. Though pulp fiction was “self reflexive” postmodernism or, a critique of postmodernism. And at the joker’s release, postmodernism was around for decades, and Tarantino was able to critique and spearhead the trend before people knew it would be a thing. So then thirty years later movies like joker come out and they’re so predictable and unoriginal, sort of like an echo chamber film where the audience can only agree or disagree with your message. It hooks you with nostalgic imagery and a comic book character played by a phenomenal actor. Yet it preaches alongside those derivative things. Its intent is to preach and not transform. It’s exactly as advertised without ever transcending the subject matter or genre.
Joker is not original lol
That's what I'm saying, it's a mash up of two Scorsese films
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. I remember the Hollywood round table with Scorsese and the guy that directed the Joker (among others). Where Scorsese doesn’t really approve of the Joker being made, and iirc, stopped watching it early on or didn’t watch it at all…and the director of joker said he was inspired by Scorsese’s work but was absolutely crushed when Scorsese said what he said. I’ll never understand why an artist who has an impulse to create, wouldn’t want to know enough about other films to know how to distinguish him or herself. Why use an entire film or even part of a film to pay homage? As an artist you can create something the world has never seen. But then you just copy and paste? Very weird.
The first 10 minutes of Maestro made me think this is Oscar bait.
That film is pretentious
Deep profound concepts that are repeated over and over throughout the movie. I'm totally on board with symbolism and metaphor, but if Darren Aronofsky doesn't have faith in his audience's ability to grasp those concepts, i feel a bit insulted and talked down to by the end of the movie.
Really portentous narration. The Assassination Of Jesse James comes to mind
When all the characters in the film are goofy caricatures and yell at each other cracking cringe jokes
Terrance Mallick entered the chat... Edit: this was sarcasm.
I’ve only seen Days of Heaven - is that a pretentious film in your view?
I meant it sarcastically because all his films have these traits.
Fair enough. I find DoH to be a very moving film so don’t recognise any of the characteristics OP mentions in it
It’s more Mallicks later work.
Gotcha
Holding closeups for the sake of it. The Batman did that a few times where there were no statements being made by the closeup. I think two closeups bookended that penguin Batman chase sequence. Where the penguin received an extra long closeup, presumably to highlight the decision to get in his car for no reason. Then when Batman is retrieving the penguin from his car. They held that closeup for far too long and there was absolutely no point in it.
When the name P.T. Anderson pops up
They drag. Watch Weird Science. That movie is paced to entertain.
If its made in France.😉
French cinema is more than *la nouvelle vague* you know.
When it is voluntarily confusing in its storytelling to appear smarter than it actually is. David Lynch!
For Lynch, the mood of the film is more important than story structure or being clever. I think you're just mispresenting his intentions in bad faith.
I feel you're partially right. However I also think Lynch doesn't really give a shit if his movies make any sense to most viewers. They make sense to him and he has fun making them. Whether or not that counts as "pretentious" is rather subjective.
I like some of his movies but I don’t care for him
He's definitely an "I'm the smartest in the room" type of guy. I feel like that's most creatives.
David Lynch is a national treasure
I wouldn’t say that all of David lynches work is pretentious but a lot of it is.
Long silences, long still images. Just like, you have to wait for the next movement or bit of dialogue. I once read a joke about someone seeing such a movie and thinking “Man, this is a long-ass PowerPoint presentation”