How to become a total film snob

Kevin Lopez43 said:silentpuma7 👍 I was actually pretty hyped for Mirror right after finishing Stalker, and you just laid out all the best parts of it. Now I'm really looking forward to watching it.

😉 Let me know what you think once you do, I'm curious... I've been meaning to write an essay or some kind of deep dive on it for a while now, but honestly, I'm being lazy, so it's just a plan for now. Maybe I'll get around to it eventually...

I can't even begin to explain this one.
🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮:r igo:🤮

silentpuma7 said:Okay, let me backtrack—when I said "a couple," I really meant a handful, just to be clear...

Tarkovsky and Parajanov aren't the same thing... even if they’re close... But one is definitely superior because, take his movie >, for example—he uses this totally groundbreaking cinematic language that hadn't been seen before. He leans into non-linear storytelling where the main guy is physically absent for almost the entire film. Then you've got him mixing in documentary footage, switching between black-and-white, sepia, and color shots, using a narrator, having the lead actress play double roles, reciting poetry... he even films the wind by tracking the camera in whatever direction it's blowing! And all of this is done just to tell a personal story—this raw, autobiographical reconstruction of his own life. It actually started because he imagined making a film that was basically a series of hidden-camera interviews with his mother, and that evolved into >. So, we're talking about a deeply clever, unique film that reconstructs what *actually* happened (well, mostly), acting like a fictional documentary woven out of reconstructed reality. The director isn't trying to make stuff up... some people might call it an "experimental" film, though I personally hate those kinds of rigid categories, because in this movie, the *way* it's told—the style—is everything. Tarkovsky reaches for every tool necessary to rebuild lost time; his lens pierces right through into the memory of a life already lived...

That's my quick version of why it stands above the rest... it's all about that cinematic expression and style. Personally, I find Hitchcock pretty meh, except for maybe two or three of his flicks, though I still respect the man. As for Godard, I haven't watched much of his stuff, so I can't really weigh in...

Even with all this idol worship going on, I can see there's some total, heartfelt devotion here. I'm not trying to call you a snob, though... 😁
But a real snob would be singing praises to Griffith, obsessing over Vert, and declaring > and the Beast the greatest movie ever made. You just have a very specific, niche taste in film. That said, claiming those two (and who else, Bresson?) are the only truly "authentic" works of cinematic art is bordering on pure arrogance.
From its very inception, film has always been an incredibly self-aware, analytical medium, with countless directors working hard to create an autonomous cinematic syntax—basically just trying to prove they're more than just a weird hybrid of technology. Look, it hurts to watch lazy filmmaking that relies on outdated theatrical or literary tropes, even today, but saying that is like saying Balzac is garbage just because Joyce came after him. Besides, no matter how much film production—especially the commercial stuff—has borrowed from the theater, Tarkovsky and Parajanov draw just as much from painting and poetry. It's no more "authentic" than that, and honestly, it can be pretty static (though, yeah, I'll give you that > is Tarkovsky's best and most illustrative work).
And I hope you realize that about three-quarters of what you wrote about > could easily be swapped into a description of >.

Nancy Barnes33 said:Despite all that worship, I still see total sincerity here. I’m just trying to call you out for being a snob. 😁
A real snob would be singing praises to Griffith, obsessing over Vertov, and claiming Beauty and the Beast is the greatest movie ever made. You just have a specific, picky taste. Though, acting like those two (and who else, Bresson?) are the only "pure" works of cinema is getting pretty close to arrogance.
The whole point of film from the start was to be self-aware and analytical, with countless directors working hard to build an autonomous cinematic language—basically just proving they were more than just a tech hybrid. It sucks seeing lazy filmmaking based on outdated theater and literary tropes, even today, but saying that is like saying Balzac is trash just because Joyce came after him. Besides, as much as most movies—even the commercial ones—draw from theater, Tarkovsky and Parajanov draw from painting and poetry. It’s not any more "authentic," and honestly, it can be pretty static (though, yeah, I agree with you that Mirror is Tarkovsky's best, most illustrative work).
And I hope you realize you could fit three-quarters of what you wrote about Mirror into a description of Citizen Kane.

"Mirror" is kind of (following Borges' idea of the book and anti-book) a counter-film to "Citizen Kane"... if I were to keep listing those few unique (and authentic) films, Citizen Kane would definitely be on there. Maybe my view of film is so specific because I'm looking for a different cinematic language. And since film is a young art form—not quite "captured" yet, to quote R. Bresson—it feels okay for me to call most modern movies mass-produced (not being arrogant or anything). For me, it’s about how these directors actually used the medium. Take Parajanov, for example; in "Sayat-Nova," he ditches plot entirely, using a static camera to bring a dead poet to life, framing him against passersby to show the permanence of tradition and culture... it works perfectly. Not to mention the way images relate to each other; there isn't a single dynamic shot, maybe not even a pan or a tracking shot.

Anyway, I'm struggling with this right now: when nobody asks, you know what you think, but when someone actually asks, you can't explain it... maybe because I'm buzzed... anyway, I guess I agree with what you wrote.