How to become a total film snob

Richard Hernandez13 said:I mean, weren't tropes and clichés basically the favorite playground for those postmodern 90s filmmakers?

It’s a minor point, sure... but it's the exact reason we got Quentin Tarantino and that endless parade of clones... (fine, I guess Kevin Smith counts too...)

Bringing up an old but interesting topic. How many of you snobs see yourselves in the opening post? My humble opinion in 5 bullet points (accusations 😬 ).

Look, there's a ton of nonsense in there, but you'll find a few nuggets of truth worth noting

btw, I'm still standing by my claim that "Titanic" is an absolute masterpiece

Arthur Garcia59 said:the article is full of nonsense, though there are a few points worth noting

btw, I'm still sticking to my guns: "Titanic" is a masterpiece.

Don't even mention that movie. It isn't worth the breath. 😬

Arthur Garcia59 said:By the way, I’m still sticking to my guns that "Titanic" is a masterpiece.

Are you implying someone actually disagrees?

Interesting 😁

As they say, you can find snobs anywhere, even in the world of cinema.
Personally, I’m a huge movie buff, so my tastes vary wildly—I’ll enjoy anything from a gritty indie project to a massive Hollywood blockbuster.
Cheers to all the lovers of great cinema (that's always been my favorite way to describe us).
I wouldn't call myself a total elitist about quality, but when true craftsmanship shows up on screen, I definitely recognize it and appreciate it. 😉

The other day I found myself scrolling through pretty much this entire subforum—starting from the very last page—and I’m honestly baffled that I didn't stumble upon this incredibly interesting thread sooner.
When I look back at my "old" phase of film obsession, I can see myself reflected in maybe four or five different points here, but nowadays? I barely recognize myself in two. A few solid points were brought up in the opening of this topic, but there's still a massive amount of nuance missing when we start talking about snobbery within the context of cinema. Some people would probably claim my way of expressing myself is snobbish, but frankly, I don't care. I'm certain I'm not imposing my views on anyone (not right now) or causing any harm—whereas most of the points made in the original post actually *do* cause harm to others, specifically to true film enthusiasts. Some might argue that pretentiousness is just another facet of being a snob—an accusation leveled against me by one of the less frequent visitors to this forum who claimed Federico Fellini was one of his favorite directors. So, it stands to reason that sometimes, discussing snobbery and the act of snobbery itself...

Kevin Lopez43 said:Let me dust off an old but gold topic. I want to see how many of you snobs can actually see yourselves in the opening post. Here’s my humble breakdown in five points (indictments 😬):

I spotted you instantly just by reading the thread title.😁

On the other hand, why is it that whenever someone says they aren't into commercial blockbusters and wants to discuss things like framing or motifs of mortality, they're immediately branded a snob? It’s such a lazy argument used by people who don't know any better—accusing someone of being elitist just because they actually possess some knowledge and have no desire to descend to your level of ignorance.

(

Look, I’ll admit it—I’m such a snob that I honestly think 99.9% of today's movies are total garbage. It feels like ages since I’ve sat down for a genuinely high-quality new release, so lately, I’ve just been retreating into the classics—spending my time revisiting those old-school British mystery and horror films from the 40s and 50s. Call me a snob if you want, but that's just how I roll. 🙏

When you watch a movie, you don't cry. You aren't allowed to show any of those emotions typical of the common masses. When you watch a film, you analyze it meticulously.

This feels like a paraphrased version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle:
if you want to avoid being a snob, you have to mindlessly consume whatever is
served up to you, but if you actually care about deep analysis and
deciphering the subtext encoded in a film, you’re automatically labeled a snob.

It's impossible to be both a non-snob and a meticulous analyst at the same time.

Fascinating, really..

Saw IV - $32,110,000 - rotten 15%
Dan in Real Life - $12,081,000 - fresh 63%
30 Days of Night - $6,700,000 - rotten 50%
The Game Plan - $6,257,000 - rotten 28%
Tyler Perry’s Why Did I Get Married? - $5,740,000 - rotten 48%
Michael Clayton - $5,030,000 - fresh 91%
Gone Baby Gone - $3,900,000 - fresh 92%
The Comebacks - $3,450,000 - rotten 8%
We Own the Night - $3,400,000 - rotten 52%
Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas - $3,347,000 - N/A

^ Here are the top 10 hits from the American box office this past weekend, along with their critical scores over at RT.

Brought to you by PETA. (C)

Daniel Young said:Saw IV - $32,110,000 - rotten 15%
Real Life - $12,081,000 - fresh 63%
30 Days of Night - $6,700,000 - rotten 50%
The Game Plan - $6,257,000 - rotten 28%
Tyler Perry’s Why Did I Get Married? - $5,740,000 - rotten 48%
Michael Clayton - $5,030,000 - fresh 91%
Gone Baby Gone - $3,900,000 - fresh 92%
The Comebacks - $3,450,000 - rotten 8%
We Own the Night - $3,400,000 - rotten 52%
Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas - $3,347,000 - N/A

Top 10 at the US box office last weekend along with their RT scores.

Brought to you by PETA. (C)

What the hell does that have to do with film snobbery? 😕

^ I’m circling back to this whole idea of people equating an intellectual superiority complex with just demanding basic standards. Since this thread took such a nonsensical turn halfway through... 😛

Look, I consider myself a total film snob and I’m fine with that... just not the kind described in this thread. That brand of snobbery feels way too much like an "us vs. them" mentality. Honestly, most movies out there—whether they're big blockbusters or supposed "art house" stuff (if you can even call it that)—don't feel like true cinema. They just feel like unoriginal, inauthentic products.

Maybe just a handful of films actually feel authentic to me. I always point to Andrei Tarkovsky’s masterpiece, Mirror, as the ultimate example of real filmmaking.

Wait, which other movie are we talking about?

Nancy Barnes33 said:What’s the other movie?

It's not just about the two... but since you asked... I guess it would be... maybe "The Color of Pomegranates," also known as "Sayat Nova" or whatever by Sergej Paradžanov (Sarkis Paradzhanian)

So you used the word "a few" 🤷

But honestly—Andrei Tarkovsky and Sergej Paradžanov... they’re kind of cut from the same cloth, right? I mean, I can't quite wrap my head around why people claim they're somehow superior to guys like Alfred Hitchcock or Jean-Luc Godard. What's the deal there?

Nancy Barnes33 said:Well, you did say "a couple"... 🤷

I mean, Andrei Tarkovsky and Sergei Parajanov are pretty similar, right? Not sure why they'd be considered better than Alfred Hitchcock or Jean-Luc Godard though.

Okay, I guess when I said "a couple," I actually meant a few... just to clarify...

Tarkovsky and Sergei Parajanov aren't quite the same thing, even if they're close. They're superior because, take Mirror for example—it uses this whole new cinematic language that hadn't been seen before. You've got non-linear storytelling, a protagonist who’s basically a ghost for most of the movie, and this mix of documentary footage, black-and-white, sepia, and color. Then there's the narration, the lead actress playing double roles, poetry being recited, even the way he films the wind by tracking the camera with it. It's all to tell his own story—this deeply personal, autobiographical version of his life. He originally wanted to make a film consisting of hidden camera interviews with his mother, but it evolved into Mirror. So, it's this clever, unique film that reconstructs reality (well, parts of it), acting like a fictional documentary woven from reconstructed truth. The director doesn't really try to invent things... some might call it an experimental film, but I don't really buy those kinds of labels. In this case, it's about the method, the style of storytelling. Tarkovsky uses everything necessary to reconstruct lost time; his lens basically pierces through into the memory of a life already lived...

Anyway, that's my quick take on why it's superior... it's about the cinematic expression and style. I guess Hitchcock is mostly meh to me, except for maybe two or three films, but I respect him. As for Godard, I haven't watched much, so I can't really judge...

silentpuma7 said:Alright, let me clarify—when I said "a few," I meant a handful, just to be precise...

Andrei Tarkovsky and Sergei Parajanov aren't the same thing, even if they’re close. Tarkovsky is superior because, for instance, in his film Mirror, he introduces a cinematic language that had never been seen before. He uses non-linear storytelling where the protagonist is physically absent for almost the entire movie. Then you have him mixing documentary footage, black-and-white, sepia, and color photography; he uses a narrator, gives the lead actress a dual role, incorporates poetry, and even films the wind by tracking the camera in the direction it's blowing. It's all done to tell his own story—an autobiographical, authentic staging of his life. He originally envisioned the film as a series of hidden-camera interviews with his mother, which eventually evolved into Mirror. So, we're talking about an ingenious, singular film that reconstructs what actually happened (if not entirely), functioning like a fictional documentary woven from reconstructed reality. The director doesn't dare to invent... some might call it an "experimental" film, though I don't really care for those kinds of labels. In this case, the way he tells the story is what matters; Tarkovsky reaches for every tool necessary to reconstruct lost time, using his lens to pierce through into the memory of a life already lived.

silentpuma7👍 I was actually hyped to watch Mirror right after finishing Stalker, and you just laid out all the reasons why this film is great. Now I'm even more eager to sit down and watch it.