Hey /tv/, I recently had a discussion with a buddy of mine about 2001. He thought it was pretentious, and I was trying to explain to him that pretentious isn't a valid criticism - but I couldn't quite figure out why.
I know pretentious isn't a valid criticism of a movie, but why exactly not?
>>67069109
It is a valid criticism though.
Its one of the most pretentious films of all time
>>67069129
In general? It sounds stupid to say that a movie is pretentious. Gives off the impression that the viewer didn't understand it.
>>67069143
I'm talking in general.
thinking pretentious isn't a valid criticism is literally pretentious, you colossal fucking retard
>>67069109
because it's relative, a dumb person would say everything above idocracy is pretentious. To accept it you have to know and accept what that person considers just below pretentious.
It can be valid, a lot of the time you can judge things as insignificant for the approach taken. A lot of womanshit is just hours of meaningful stares and affairs. How the fuck can any man watch that?
>>67069109
Because pretension has to do with the audience and people behind the work not the work itself.
Same reason hipster isn't a legitimate complaint.
Like okay it's pretentious now ask your friend to explain why that's bad.
>>67069179
Explain to me why then you piece of shit nigger.
>>67069162
It doesn't give that impression at all, maybe you're just stupid and can't critically think about the information presented
Since I'm a nice guy, I'll tell you what the films about
It's about the characters realizing they are in a film. The monolith is the cinema screen set at 90 degrees. In a nutshell, 2001 is about the existential nature of humanity and the mysteries we've still yet to discover
>>67069194
>>67069198
Alright, I understand now. Thanks fellas.
>>67069243
I know what 2001 is about. We're not talking about 2001. My friend is an idiot. I was talking about film criticism.
>>67069243
sounds pretentious
>>67069243
Wow you're so smart anon. Figuring out something nobody has ever figured out, all by yourself. I wish I was as smart as you.
Pretentious is a valid criticism.
2001 is not pretentious though. It's just incredibly slow. Normies with attention problems find it boring and call it pretentious.
Pretentious is something that tries very hard to be grand and intelligent but in reality isn't. Nolan's filmography is an example.
>>67069179
You're precocious. That's a valid fact.
By definition alone, it is entirely subjective. So naturally the vast majority of people that use it as a tool for "critiquing" are basically just saying "I think it's bad because I don't like it."
>>67069444
Would you say Malick is pretentious? I'd say no myself, but I know he's a polarizing filmmaker.
>>67069444
>makes best post
>gets trips
out fucking skilled
>>67069109
>but why exactly not?
According to Google, pretencious is "attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed." To call something pretencious is to speculate on the thoughts of the author and says nothing about the quality of the work itself.
If I knew something was pretencious, that would not actually even imply that it's bad; it could simply mean that it's a 9/10 while the author believes it's a 10/10.
>>67069109
2001 is pretentious. There is nothing to understand. The themes in 2001 like all artsy fartys things vacillates between incredibly obvious and indecipherable. That is because movies like these are made almost entirely for their visuals. Chances are you are a very visually oriented person and enjoyed the movie while your friend is not and thus did not enjoy it.
>>67069583
I don't think 2001 is pretentious, I just think it's a great looking movie with some nice thematic elements. The following behind the movie is stupid, but that's just imo. I agree with you for the most part though.
My friend's favorite movie is The Dark Knight.
>>67069694
I say it's pretentious because most of the movie is these incredibly long shots of nothing but admiration of the frame. It feels like Kubrick is just saying LOOK HOW GOOD THIS SHOT IS LOOK HOW GOOD THIS SHOW IS over and over. That thing doesn't appeal to some people.
>My friend's favorite movie is The Dark Knight.
Well I guess he just has shit taste.
"Pretentious" is the word used to mask intellectual insecurity. Most people cannot bear to hear a very simple, matter of fact analysis of art without their eyes glazing over. It's quite sad really and shows they have spent little or no time reading academic art/music/literary criticism.
It is also a deceleration of superiority. When someone uses the word "pretentious" they claim to know what the film is trying to express and that it has been executed in an overblown, try-hard way. If both are true, perhaps ask your fiend how the film could be shot more subtly and intelligently?
I can understand someone not understanding the story thinking that it's pretentious, but once you do understand what's going on, it's just a regular movie.
>>67069129
Fuck off no it isn't. It says nothing interesting at all to call something solely pretentious. What's infinitely more interesting is discussing why that person thinks it is pretentious, because that gets down to the nitty gritty details and headway can get done.
>>67069496
Malick is actually smart, though. Rhodes Scholar, MIT professor, translates German and French into English.
It's a deconstruction of the pretentious genre.
>>67069444
>Nolan's filmography is an example.
Haha beat me to it.
>>67069129
this.
the term "pretentious" has become a bit of a buzzword though with how often it's thrown around, and as a consequence has lost a bit of it's meaning
it's a criticism of the film directing (the way visual info is presented to the audience) and maybe of the writing.
>>67069780
See, I feel like Kubrick just thought his shots were cool. The way people went apeshit over small symbolism everywhere is the fault of the audience I think. Kube is just a dude.
>>67069996
Interesting. I think I just found my go-to retort.
>>67070174
He thought it was pretentious because of the 3rd act and its length.
>>67070202
That's what I'm fucking saying. The man's studied philosophy for years, so I trust that his work holds artistic merit. A lot of people think his work is just comprised of "muh random shots and voiceover"
>>67069109
I like to view a work as "pretentious" if it tries to take on higher themes and throw out imagery it doesn't understand, or just puts in there to give a false sense of depth or importance. I know people say that the creator's intent should be separate from what you think, blah blah, but I have a lot of trouble buying into that. If the creator's just bumbling about throwing shit in his movie to make it look deep or complicated when it's really not, it's pretentious to me. Easy examples I guess would be striking but irrelevant imagery, like those of religious symbols that bear no real relevance to what's going on. Or things like referencing philosophy and science without exploring it or just having it tie in in the loosest way.
It's hard for me to write off a work as pretentious unless it's really obvious. Usually you can tell the author is going for something even if you don't understand it. Enemy with the spiders and the women I didn't understand at first, and I don't think I still fully understand, but I can definitely see how it's all connecting and how it's suggesting and leading to certain ideas that I can explain with what was given in the movie, but is purposely left open enough for alternate interpretations. This post is turning full autism so I'll stop here. I think it's valid criticism though but people throw the word around way too often
>>67069109
it's 100% pretentious, porbably kubrick's most pretentious movie.
And yes it is a valid criticism is calling out when something tries to pretend to have depth and meaning but it's actually just a facade. 2001 still is a good movie though
>>67070382
I can see how pretentious would be used as a calid criticism in that regard. Thanks family member.
>>67069109
It's a valid criticism.
>muh movie is so deep and well written that will change everything!
>i will make layer over layer of convoluted shit to try to make this more sophisticated!
>only smart people will understand this!
>ill drop some religion or philosophy here and there for no reason!
and yet the faggot that writes or directs the movie can't deliver because he is an idiot or for lack of experience.
i am not talking about 2001 because i didn't saw that movie (yet) but it is a valid criticism.
Sucker punch is a pretentious piece of shit for example.
>2deep4u
>>67069444
Nail on the head.
Pretentious is as valid as any other criticism, it's just hardly ever used correctly. Snyder in particular is a hollywood director who deserves the pretentious tag but avoids it due to his films content. The method of execution (being slow and thoughtful like 2001 or flash bang music video like Suckerpunch) is secondary to the thematic message of the film, which is where pretentiousness is often found.
>>67069496
Malick is pretty much the opposite of pretentious. He often has his characters literally state his films motivations, intentions and themes through voice over. Whether you think his imagery conveys those ideas is another matter but he is very explicit in what he is attempting to say, there's no pretence of some greater meaning.
>>67070174
look pal, the "christ" angle in the new superman movie is the perfect definition of pretentious, don't be a retard.
it's a valid criticism.
>>67069444
>Nolan's filmography is an example.
Correct
>>67069444
Nolan's film don't attempt to be smart and fail except from interstellar. The 3 batman movies make no such attempts and memento, prestige and inception kinda deliver
>>67069496
having good visuals is not being pretentious you fucking normies /pol/ or /v/ or whatever you faggots are you all need to leave
>friend said he likes ___ because it's fun
>"can you elaborate?"
>"YOU JUST HATE EVERYTHING ANON JEEZ"
>dislike an "art" film
>tell friend I didn't like it
>"you didn't watch it the right way"
>>67069444
>>67070789
I'm going to disagree here and say he was fine until after TDK and all the praise he got from it. Inception you could tell he was flirting with the idea he was some master of complex deep moviemaking but it was still well within his league. TDKR was garbage but Interstellar was his full tell that he had gone off the deep end. I don't know if he was reaching for 2001 or what, but it was plain as day he was trying for something he simply could not do.
>>67070869
But everyone knows 'art' films are better watched at 1.5x speed in a browser window that covers half of your 13" laptop screen while facebook and youtube are open on the other half. Your friend is right.
>>67070889
>this strong butthurt
Hey man, sorry I didn't like your favorite movie. Don't take it personally it's not an attack on you
>>67069109
I'm not sure people even know the definition of pretentious anymore? It's been misused so much that it has lost all meaning.
I think the problem comes from the misuse of the word pretentious in place of actual criticism. Not that pretentious is not a valid criticism, because a film can definitely be pretentious, but a lot of the time it's being used instead of criticism where people are incapable of articulating their thoughts on why they disliked a particular film. And a lot of the time these people don't even know why, they just know they disliked it. it's just easier for them to say it is pretentious than to put any thought into it.
A pretentious film is one that pretends to be more important than it really is. I know people love to throw around names like Nolan, but I guess an example of an almost objectively pretentious film that we can all agree on is Sucker Punch. Sucker Punch is an incredibly shallow film that pretends to be full of substance when clearly it was made without a single substantial thought behind it.
>>67070977
Misreading my post there, I was implying your friend is the multi-tasking, barely watching pleb who liked the movie simply because he was supposed to.
You can like what you like love, it's all just movies.
>>67070217
Nolan's films aren't particularly deep, so to say they are pretentious is completely misrepresenting them. Nolan makes films that are accessible to a large audience that do not try hide anything. If you think his films are pretentious you should reevaluate yourself.
>>67070399
How can someone say that? 2001 is a great movie because of its depth. How can you sit there smugly and say 2001 is pretentious but at the same time a good movie?
>>67069243
You obviously missed the point. 2001 in a nutshell is really all about technology, its birth, the dangers of it, and the progress humanity has/will achieve because of it. I guess any idiot will think any remotely deep film is about existentialism, ironically, because they can't critically think about it on any other level.
>>67071056
that depth and even more could have been accomplished in 90 minutes, he literally recorded like 30 minutes of spaceships docking
>>67069179
Sup Reddit
>>67071122
But how is that pretentious? He just likes footage of spaceships. You're confusing ponderous pacing with pretence.
