Posts by Matthew Anderson4

So, some movies I still haven't gotten around to: Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Goodfellas, Scarface, Predator...

Walter Grant5 said:Whatever. People can say whatever they want, just like I do. I’m just calling it like I see it with these "must-watch" lists flying around. I don't listen to them even 2% of the time. Doesn't mean I won't check out a movie eventually, obviously. But when a group gets all worked up over some title and you feel like an idiot just because you haven't seen it yet... it's like watching toddlers brag about some new toy. Guidelines are fine and all, but they don't mean squat when people start getting aggressive about it. It's basically just a way to talk trash.

Fair point. But does that actually change the impact—you know, the only thing that really matters—of a movie? Does some little clique of hipsters making fun of people for missing certain flicks actually affect cinema as an art form? Honestly, if some random guy can ruin everything just by mentioning it, then I don't know, chill out with the pointless rebellion. Meditate on it. Who cares. Next time you're stuck in that spot, just say you haven't seen The Godfather and watch them scramble to try and outsmart you.

Walter Grant5 said:What I was actually getting at is this stupid phenomenon where people constantly point at "must-sees." You follow all these guides and realize they're useless because everyone just points at their own favorites until the list is bloated and meaningless. For one person, *The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari* is essential; for another, it's *The Dark Knight*. If everything is a "must," then nothing is, and the whole concept falls apart. And no, it’s not like knowing the capital cities of major countries.

If you listen to every random person, what's the point? Personally, I don't think "must-see" should be based on someone's taste. It should be about impact. Since *The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari* is nearly a century old, its narrative structure makes it an easy "must-see." Whether I personally love it or not shouldn't matter—and if it does, you probably shouldn't be taking my advice anyway.

But that’s if we’re talking about art. We shouldn't even be going there. A person should just say what they're into. If they dig zombies, then Romero's original is a must-see, not because it's "cool" to me, but because it defined the genre. Doesn't mean they have to watch it right this second, though; just put it on a list. If they're into long shots and cinematography, then Tarkovsky is a must-see. See how those guidelines fall apart? If the issue is the word must, we could easily just come up with a new term 🤷

Walter Grant5 said:Fair point. Still a pretty extreme analogy, though. Comparing a literature professor to someone who just likes movies—it's a stretch.

And "must-read" or "must-see" is basically just some sacred cow. Like, "you're a loser if you haven't seen this..." Well, newsflash, maybe I haven't. So what if I haven't seen The Shawshank Redemption? No big deal.

It wasn't meant to be one big analogy, just a pile of examples of things you "have" to do. Some hit closer to the mark than others—like the professor or the bard. It’s like saying a lemon is a better example of yellow than a banana; they're both yellow, regardless. Anyway, for anyone even slightly curious about cinema as an art form, there are definitely essentials. You really should see *Citizen Kane*. Not like, right this second, but eventually. That's what a "must see" means.

Look, I already said there’s no such thing as a "must-do" in general. But things change when you get into the weeds. Terms like "must-do" or "must-see" are pretty abstract anyway—if they weren't, skipping them would literally kill you, which isn't how language works. They're just colloquialisms. Take an English professor, for example. You could totally be one without ever touching Shakespeare. It's doable. But for a professor of English lit, Shakespeare is still a must-read, even if that specific guy never actually cracked the book. He didn't drop dead from it, so it's still a must-read.

I was following her lead. When someone claimed there aren't any "must-dos" besides death itself, I tried throwing out a few examples where they actually exist. Causality got stretched way further by the guy, though—he jumped from one super specific point straight to some broad generalization about the state of the world.

And honestly? There really aren't any must-dos. Even death isn't exactly a requirement, if life isn't either.

Could’ve started from the jump, but I was just reacting to a prompt so vague it basically invited the whole "might as well just die" argument.
The movies were just my way of framing it; honestly, you could've swapped them out for anything else.

Walter Grant5 said:doesn't work for modern movies.

A: I like watching movies.
B: Then you have to watch The Godfather.
A: I like watching movies, not necessarily the ones everyone else tells me I have to watch.

It's the same thing with music. People say they love music, but they aren't listening to Rachmaninoff or Mussorgsky, and they aren't even listening to Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, the Velvet Underground, the Stooges, or Pink Floyd—none of the stuff those specific circles consider "relevant" or "good." It just is what it is.

Him wanting to direct movies or deal with film in some capacity—whatever way he wants—is a totally different story. Professional training would handle the requirements for him.

Walter Grant5 said:Basically, the whole thing boils down to that crappy "you like movies, so you want to be a literature professor" logic.

It doesn't work for (modern) film. It applies to the individual (missed the point and the theme of my post).
I said "film as an art form," because "must-see" movies only exist if you actually care about film as art. Everyone likes watching movies. If someone just likes watching movies, sure, there aren't any "must-sees" for them. They can watch whatever keeps them entertained. But if you care about film as an art form, then yes, there are must-sees. My point wasn't really about movies; it was about the concept of "must-do" things in general. In specific fields, there are certain things you just have to do.

The analogy works if you quote me right (it's film as art, not just movies). Look, if you care about film as art, you have to watch the French New Wave. If you care about literature as art, you have to read Shakespeare. Period. If you don't, then you don't actually care about the art itself.

So here's the deal: we're left with the nail, the bloom, and the trumpet—the trio. But the trumpet? She's definitely the biggest of the bunch.

ae

Michelle Palmer6 said:The only thing you really need to do is blow that trumpet!

And with those fish? You don't *have* to, but you probably should.

Jessica Gonzalez said:I think I’m on the same page as Walter Grant5. Must do is probably just silly, if you ask me. I guess there isn't really anything you *have* to do besides eventually passing away. It feels a bit much when people insist you absolutely have to watch certain movies, listen to specific music, or read certain books. Humans lived in the wilderness for tens of thousands of years—actually, hundreds of thousands—without even knowing what writing was until just a few millennia ago, and yet now someone claims you "must" experience something. For countless generations, people just wandered the earth without any clue about the world, let alone having to watch something like *The Wire* about life in Baltimore.

At the end of the day, you just need to find food and survive until you die. That's pretty much all there is to it, I suppose.

Sure, looking at life as a whole, there are no "must-dos," but you can't take that logic and apply it to tiny little subsets of modern existence. If you care about cinema, there are definitely must-see movies. If you want to be an English professor, yeah, you probably need to read Shakespeare. If you're aiming to be a jazz saxophonist, you've gotta listen to Coltrane. Whatever.

"I'm interested in British literature."
"Cool."
"I guess I have to read Shakespeare."
"Nothing is mandatory except death."

See? Using that logic in a specific conversation just makes you look like a hipster.

Amanda Evans2 said:Apparently, people claim Vikings really hits its stride after the first season, but honestly, I barely made it through that initial stretch. We'll see if it actually improves or if it's just wishful thinking...

In terms of anything Kim has ever produced, this is easily his best work—nothing else even comes close. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0456912/?ref_=tt_rec_tt

yeah, whatever 🙏🙏

James Anderson5 said:So true, I actually rewatched Seven Samurai just a few months ago...

You wouldn't think it, but Iranian cinema produces some absolutely stunning, visually gorgeous films too...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0997246/

And the Swedish directors aren't bad either...

Just brushed up on some calculus recently.👍

Korean movies are just incredible. Here’s one mainstream pick for people who usually dodge anything not in English. And after that, everyone starts obsessing over this director.

Out of those three you mentioned, Pulp Fiction is the only real must-see—and even then, only if you haven't seen Reservoir Dogs yet. You could throw in Forrest Gump or Memento. Good flicks, sure, but nobody actually *needs* to watch them. Honestly, it’s such a facepalm when someone calls themselves a cinephile but hasn't even touched Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, Bergman, or Godard. For anyone who actually loves movies, those are the real essentials.

man, why you making me flip through 35 photos?

~~~~~~

we were playing the same numbers back then 👋

Amanda Evans2 said:I'm telling you, I'm going to win. Honestly, you should just keep your money in your pocket...
I had a dream

we're gonna split it👍

Lottery running tomorrow or should I just head straight to the convenience store and grab some Powerball tickets?