Ryan McNeil
Snobs.
Honestly, many of the people who read this space – and certainly the twerp who writes it – are in some small part a movie snob. We all have some sort of movie that we feel is beneath us, something we won’t waste our time on…be it an action flick based on a comic book, or a slow-boiling drama starring no major Hollywood players. Such snobbery is common, and indeed can be overlooked.
However, there’s a certain type of know-it-all that is starting to get on my nerves, and as the year winds down it will only get worse before it gets better. The film geeks that wear on my nerves, are those that feel fit to declare something well outside the box as an under appreciated bit of brilliance, higher than everything the rest of us can consider.
Wordy? You bet. Allow me to clarify…
Movie watchers and movie writers everywhere like to make lists around this time of year. Top tens, top fives, top twenties…you name the number, someone has a top of it. Let’s use the top ten of the year as an example.
When it comes to naming the best ten films of the year, there are usually a collection of twenty or so titles that dominates everyone’s lists. Person to person will shuffle the order, but they keep coming up no matter what. Using 2008 as an example, you have SLUMDOG, BENJAMIN BUTTON, MILK, WRESTLER, WALL-E, DARK KNIGHT, FROST/NIXON, etc. I can promise you, that every single one of those films landed on top of someones best-of list.
Where the snobs drive me nuts, is taking something amazingly far off the grid, and thrusting it to the top. The geek becomes the lone trout swimming upstream, trying to tell the rest of us that only she/he/they see this movie for what it truly is…far superior to the commonality the rest of us are debating.
Example? Last year, when the Toronto Film Critics got together to name their best film of the year, they turned their back on those seven I mentioned, and the rest of 2008’s usual suspects. Forget about what you saw on The Oscars, The Golden Globes, even The Independent Spirit Awards. According to Toronto, WENDY AND LUCY was the best film of the year.
The word you’re looking for is “huh?”.
Another example? With this decade winding down, many of us (guilty!) are naming off the best films of the decade. These lists will of course be even more scattered, but still…there will be a cluster of forty or fifty regulars. If I didn’t know better, I’d think Toronto was part of The UK, since The Times notched CACHÉ top of the list. Higher than any hobbits…mightier than any men on wires…superior to any spotless minds.
It’s a daring choice, but like WENDY AND LUCY, screams “snob”. Let me be clear, CACHÉ is a great film, and one that will be in the conversation…but its legacy is cloudy. In a decade so riddled with brilliant foreign cinema, how does one choose this over PAN’S LABYRINTH? Over THE SEA INSIDE? Over THE SECRET LIVES OF OTHERS? Over TALK TO HER?
I’ll tell you how. By being an unashamed snob. By having the huevos to stand up and say “Nuts to you ya bunch of sheep…I’m the one who really knows the score”. Come on snobs, if that film you’re pontificating is really as mighty as you’d have us believe, it would transcend and indeed be in the debate with all the other usual suspects. Don’t belittle the rest of us by trying to make us believe that we’re asleep at the switch and haven’t been paying attention. Don’t act all superior with your foreign taste and encyclopedic knowledge of dogme.
Don’t be a snob.
I have to admit I don't mind those sort of posts so much. Only on one condition though: they're pure. By that I mean the movie selected by the writer is an honest evaluation, both personal and technical, of the films presented and that's their choice. Now if they're just doing it to appear edgy and artsy (you know the people with funny hats whose favorite movie is always some obscure 50s Russian film only them and 2 other people have seen) then eh, shut up and get a taste for yourself.
My only two real pet peeves (some other things I can ignore alright) when it comes to film are:
1) People who talk in extremes. GREATEST MOVIES EVER!!! WORST MOVIE EVER!!!! etc. Seven Samurai is my favorite movie of all time, is it the greatest movie of all time? meh, probably not, I haven't seen every movie so I can't say :).
2) People who believe that anyone who could like a movie that they don't must be wrong. The Playlist, for all their humor filled posts, do this all the time and it annoys me to no end. I didn't care for Transformers 2, does that mean nobody should care for it? Of course not, that's sort of like saying I dislike eating plums so all people should dislike plums. It's stupid, vain, and as annoying as they come :).
A good, well-written, post and I know exactly what you mean. In my recent post about UK film critics I wrote about the fact that one of them had picked the 'little-seen' Appaloosa as his second favourite film since 2004, I'm now beginning to think that he picked it because it is 'little-seen'. Maybe he asked his assistant to give him a hat with 'little-seen' films in and pick one out. Good argument.
great post Hatter, although if someone really likes a film that is obscure and wants to put it at the top of their list and has no agenda i think thats fine, i pretty much agree with Univarn above, he put it better than i ever could.
i flicked through The Times decade list and like you i thought the choice of Caché was a bit ridiculous, but in a way thats me being a bit snobby too – if it's some dude's favourite movie then i can give him the benefit of the doubt. mind you, that list was done by committee (i think) so putting it top is a bit silly.
although i didnt let myself get too riled by that list when i considered some of the movies that didnt even make the top 100.
when is Blades Of Glory going to get the critical recognition it deserves?
opinions on movies are great things. it means you have to accept that someone else's opinion, even if radically different to yours, should be respected. even if its wrong. and lets face it, it probably is.
@ Univarn… It's not the posts that bug me so much as the curiosity involved. make all the lists you want, just be honest…don't try to be (as you say) the guy with the funny hat, telling the rest of us that this more obscure film is better than everything else we've seen.
@ This Time… APPALOOSA? Really??
@ Ross… I like opinions about movies, so don't get me wrong – I'm not trying to say we all need to agree. What I was trying to say, was that there's usually a collectively-agreed-upon shortlist for these sorts of things. Going off-book smacks of snobbery.
The other thing, is that I'm not trying to argue favorites – I'd never try to get someone to rethink that sort of thing. I'm talking strictly about talk of "Bests".
I actually have to wonder if the guy who ranked CACHÉ #1 of the decade was ranking it as his favorite, rather than the best. If so, it might explain why he had TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE at number four on the same list (yikes!).
Some very good points in this post. I can totally see your point, as you listed 2008 as an example I am sure a few of those movies were in my top 10 list.
I am going to be reading top 10 lists that come about in the up and coming months with close attention now.
I don't know, man, there's no right answer.
Generally I agree with Univarn's points, and I would add that the snobbish lists at least do something to prevent Transformers 2 from being on a Top 10 list. Because truly, if you asked enough people they would tell you it's the best movie of the year. Not snobby bloggers like us, but real people.
It's all relative – the Europeans and Canadians are snobs to us, and we're snobs to the general public.
Incidentally, I wouldn't call Cache the best movie of the decade, but I do think I would put it, just maybe, above the other four you mention… ;-P
"Going off-book smacks of snobbery".
I can't disagree with you more Hatter. Univarn put it best above – "honest evaluation". If someone truly felt moved by "Cache" or felt it touched on issues in society better than any other film of the year or was fascinated by Haneke leaving the conclusion of the film ambiguous, then why is it wrong for them to consider it the Best?
Let's face it, ANY discussion of a film's worth (whether it be framed by Favourite or Best) is subjective. You can look at direction, set design, script, performances, etc., but when it comes down to it, that personal reaction the film delivers is the driver of our justification of that film's worth. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy a good argument about a film's good/bad points, but there's no way that I accept that the "best" of a year must come from a select group – particularly when that group is usually North American centric.
If that honest appreciation of a film is there in the writer's claims that it is the "best" of a time period, I don't understand why that has to be snobbery or why you might consider that to be someone looking down on others for not having seen it. True snobs don't want to share their precious discoveries with others. Many of the reviews that your piece is making me think of are more representative of people who want these smaller or lesser known films to succeed and find an audience. They want others to share the experience they had. They are fans.
My top 2 films of 2007 were "You, The Living" and "A Gentle Breeze In The Village", both films I saw at TIFF and neither of which is even out in Region 1 DVD yet. But I found both of them exceptional – they stirred emotions in me, they had incredible visuals (the former) or had characters I didn't want to leave (the latter). They were simply the two best experiences I had watching film that year. Why would I not want to share that? And why should I not only proclaim them my favourites, but (if I really believe the quality and other attributes are there) also the best films I saw that year?
Don't mean to rant on ya Hatter. I'm not taking it personally or anything. I just don't understand the beef…
Now if you want snobbery, check out some of Ronald Bergan's colums at The Guardian. In particular his thought that colour has ruined the movies.
Oh this is getting fun…
@ CAZ… That's what I mean. Most eras in film (a year, a decade) will spark an argument, but the argument usually comes down to a few usual suspects.
@ Daniel… There's a difference between having good taste and being a snob – but both would disagree with TRANSFORMERS. I'm sure if I asked long enough, I'd find someone that thought G.I. JOE was the best movie they'd ever seen. Doesn't make 'em right…all the same, they aren't reading this space anyway.
I'm talking mostly about the circle of moviegoers who know better. The ones who may not love, but can appreciate a classic movie, a foreign movie, or a black and white movie.
The reason why the same honour role keeps coming up when naming Best-Of's, is because this group can all recognize what makes a great film…and isn't just dazzled by explosions, guns, and low-cut tops.
CACHÉ might be one of the best films of the decade…but there's no way anybody besides this one writer will call it the best.
By the way…I'm Canadian.
@ Bob… OK – you were sitting next to me when James told us about WENDY & LUCY, and you were just as surprised as I was. So get onside here, would ya?
You mention 'honest appreciation'. The writer who tagged CACHÉ as tops also had TEAM AMERICA:WORLD POLICE at number four, CASINO ROYALE at number nine, and BORAT at eleven.
The funny thing is that I find myself agreeing with most of his list. I had a moment or two of thinking something in particular was too high or too low, but didn't have any "Beg Pardon?" moments until he got to the number one slot.
There are many great films that get made that never get seen. So were you to stand up and say "I saw two films at TIFF that were the best thing I've seen all year, but you won't know them because they never got a release"…that has more honesty than to just say "YOU, THE LIVING was the best film of 2007". This may seem like quibbling over details, but these sorts of writings and rankings say something about the writer.
If the writer says it the way you did, the writer is being inclusive. (I saw this amazing movie! Go see it!!). But if the writer leads you through a familiar dance, only to pull the rug out from under you at the end…they're trying to sound smarter than you (I saw this amazing movie. You didn't see it.).
I guess what I'm saying is that there is enough debate about these movies as it stands, why would someone want to seem smarter than the argument and exclude themselves all in one go?
No worries about the rant, I always enjoy debate 😉
"By the way…I'm Canadian."
lol, I know, but I was referring to the Toronto Fellowship of the Film Critics you referenced.
have to agree with Hatter – I much preferred the sequel, Tango and Caché
This is a tricky one; I have already posted my Top Ten of the decade. I did it a month ago on the basis that if there is a film good enough to get into the top ten that comes out in the next couple of months it wouldn’t have enough time for me to see it a couple of times to confirm its status so wouldn’t make the list anyway. I do have four foreign language films in the list but I am probably more in danger of being called a sheep than a snob as they are well known and highly regarded on the most part. My list is:
1 Oldboy (2003)
2 Pan’s Labyrinth (2006)
3 City of God (2002)
4 Million Dollar Baby (2004)
5 Battle Royale (2000)
6 Lost in Translation (2004)
7 Mulholland Drive (2002)
8 Donnie Darko (2001)
9 The Dark Knight (2008)
10 Memento (2000)
You can see the details here: http://fandangogroovers.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/top-ten-movies-of-the-decade/
Untimely I have to agree with Univarn who said “one condition though: they're pure”, that sums it up. I have all the films on my list on DVD and have watched them numerous times.
By the way as for The Times; in my opinion Caché although a good film isn’t even Michael Haneke’s best film of the decade, let alone the THE best film of the decade.
Look out for my top ten of the year that I will post soon, it may contain some of what are last years films for some of you as traditionally we get films in the UK after North America.
Top five websites:
Google
Wikipedia
YouTube
The Dark Of The Matinee
Facebook
@ Daniel… Oh, that's alright then.
@ McG… "Tango and Caché" – brilliant!
@ Fandango… That's a perfectly logical reason for making your decade list now, and truthfully I've more or less settled on mine.
As for your ten, I like it! What you have there are ten films that are not conventional, but are indeed in play. You have a great mix, and it gives the reader a good idea of the types of films that speak to you. Basically, that's the sort of list I think is what writers should be after. It's passionate, honest, and not trying to be pretentious.
@ McD… Now you're just sucking up. (Keep it coming).
The hardest thing with any list isn’t what you include but what you leave out!
"@ Bob… OK – you were sitting next to me when James told us about WENDY & LUCY, and you were just as surprised as I was. So get onside here, would ya?"
Heh, heh, yes I remember that. Indeed I was surprised. I still can't get on board with your complaint though – why would I then assume the Toronto film critics were pruposely being exclusive or simply pretentious? I've seen "Wendy And Lucy" now and though I disagree with the pick (I liked it well enough and Michelle Williams is terrific, but it's not my kind of movie), I can see how some people go to bat for it. It's very personal and sheds light on a person who is completely outside of "normal" society. Why would we assume the critics are turning their noses up at us instead of simply trying to bolster a film they really like? Especially a small film that didn't get wide distribution. That's why we write about films we love – we want to share the experience.
"CACHÉ might be one of the best films of the decade…but there's no way anybody besides this one writer will call it the best."
Well, now you're arguing positioning within a top list – shaky ground sir. It's all a crapshoot once you've picked your top group. And don't be surprised at all if Cache is indeed chosen by some other critics as best of decade (I wouldn't, but I would rank it higher than Pan's or The Lives Of Others).
"You mention 'honest appreciation'. The writer who tagged CACHÉ as tops also had TEAM AMERICA:WORLD POLICE at number four, CASINO ROYALE at number nine, and BORAT at eleven."
So? Not sure that matters at all. Lots of people have wide tastes. I think Team America is bitingly funny, smart and definitely belongs on a list of excellent movies alongside Cache or Hunger or 4 Months 3 Weeks And 2 Days. And you said you were OK with his list up until number 1, so that means you were fine with the mixing of 4 Months and Team America. Given that, I think it's more likely that Cache was number one simply because of personal preference. If the rug is pulled out from under you at the end of this (or other lists), I think at most it's the Wendy And Lucy syndrome of trying to juggle the rankings to give more attention to a film that you love.
If your beef is more that lists without context aren't very useful – I can buy that (I still like them, but would agree they aren't very helpful in really helping me to understand the reasons for inclusion). If that's the case, then you would need to be consistent – you can't give someone a pass on their top 10 list (if it's presented with no reasons) just because you know all the movies in it or agree with it.
"What you have there are ten films that are not conventional, but are indeed in play."
In play? See, you lost me again dude. You've narrowed the field from which we should be picking and I just don't get that.
We have been disagreeing a lot recently haven't we? I'll let you know when we agree again – you know, when you're right. B-)
The full list from the Times (which picked "Cache" as number 1) actually has context for each pick. You can find the description of why they chose "Cache" as number 1 here (it's the final page of their top hundred picks, so you can work backward from there).
I tried to post a comment but I guess I put in the word anti-bot code and didn't notice.
I must say that I thoroughly disagree with the notion that stepping outside of the mainstream constitutes snobbery. Granted, the example you cite, The Times' recent list, is clearly designed, as some are, to generate some pathetically mild form of controversy that will spur readership and site traffic, even if only to bitch. However, many critics honestly enjoy films that others wouldn't pick more so than the stuff that made all the usual lists. Honesty is not pretentious.
Of course, the other reason that someone might make such a list is to bring to attention many films that otherwise wouldn't get any notice in a system that highlights mainstream features and only the foreign films that might apply to that mainstream sensibility. Sure, a guy like Jonathan Rosenbaum might be pretentious, but that's partly due to him being genuinely smarter and far more insightful than most. His opinions are always honest, but if he picks a film as the antithesis to what he perceives to be the homogenization of Hollywood (such as he did with Small Soldiers in response to his hatred of Saving Private Ryan) or highlights a film that might not even get a US release (thus perhaps inspiring enough interest to secure one), I think he's doing a service. It is necessary with all films to have admirers and detractors as it gives balance. How awful would it be if every critic's list really was the same and was definitive? There's not a torture method invented that will make me love Paul Haggis' Crash.
Furthermore, it's a bit odd that you point to The Times list, which ranks its films in accordance to how well they "defined" the decade, as an example of snobbery. If anything, the list is itself too mainstream. For God's sake Slumdog Millionaire made the top ten, and I'm one of the people who really enjoyed that movie.
I do hate for one of my first comments on this wonderful site to be so disagreeable, but let us consider what is the worst that can happen with a list that features obscure films: worst-case scenario: you rent the movie out of curiosity and hate it. But I find that more often than not these recommendations lead me to beautiful, insightful movies that affect me more than most of the "accepted" best films of their respective years.
@ Bob… We're gonna have to agree to disagree, and I mean that with love. You should feel proud – there aren't all that many people who can out-argue me. I usually win, or beat the other side into submission with pure stubbornness.
@ Jake… It's not stepping outside of the mainstream that bothers me – it's stepping that far outside. Despite the large amount of comments this post has sparked, I still believe there is a world of difference between coming up with an original answer, that stays true to ones self…and trying to be the only one at the table to hail so-called underrated genius.
Rosenbaum might well have a point, but to express it by saying "these are the the best" isn't the same as saying "these are brilliant yet underexposed"…or "these are films that you truly MUST see". I'm with you in believing that CRASH ain't all its cracked up to be, but we take for granted the fact that there are many people out there who never saw GARDEN STATE…or MEMENTO…or ADAPTATION…CHILDREN OF MEN…or even PAN'S LABYRINTH. Why not start there? They are indeed, as you hoped for, beautiful insightful titles.
No worries about your comment being negative, if anything I enjoy discussion and debate in this space…and if I get it by poking every proverbial bear in the blogosphere with my virtual stick, so be it.
Well-made point (even if I disagree), and thatnks so much for reading & commenting!
THANK YOU for giving "The Sea Inside" it's due. God knows that was a life-changing movie (for me, anyway) that got overlooked.
@ M. Carter…. I'm beginning to think that SEA INSIDE might well be one of the most underrated films of the decade (and likewise, bardem's performance in it!).
Glad to appease a fellow believer in Amenabar's work.