In the last few weeks, I have had the good pleasure of watching There Will Be Blood, I’m Not There (again), and No Country for Old Men (again). I personally and intellectually enjoyed each of these movies, although There Will be Blood tops my list of 2007′s Best Pictures.
Unsurprisingly, Calgary is a city of philistines, and at the end of each of these movies I have heard individuals loudly and publicly declare:
“There’s two hours I’ll never get back” (There Will be Blood)
“I don’t get it. Why?” (I’m Not There)
“What! No! Where’s the ending.” (said at the ending of No Country for Old Men)
“Another good movie with a lousy ending. Why can’t there be movies with good endings.” (No Country for Old Men)
I understand that the movies above don’t have typical or simplistic box-office movie plot structures. I also understand that folks who parade their ignorance publicly do so proudly. Although I do occasionally mock individuals who have the audacity to expose their foolishness, I suspect this only exacerbates the problem.
I would love to delve into discussion with the critics, however, I suspect my efforts would be rather fruitless. So, I am left with the question: should I, or should I not, direct witty and biting comments to critical curmudgeons?
Also, have you encountered philistinism at motion picture events?
Please share your thoughts in the comment section.
Related posts:
Leif, I love that picture! If only…
The major problem with the philistines, I’ve found, is that now if I go to a movie and I like it, but I don’t hear people complaining about how bad it was, I start to question my judgment.
There Will Be Blood tops your list, eh? I saw it on Friday, and it was definitely a very excellent movie. A phenomenal acting performance, and amazing use of music. I particularly enjoyed the fire scene. There was some very powerful cinematgraphy there. The whole movie reminded me quite a bit of Citizen Kane. However, No Country for Old Men remains my top pick of the year. It basically comes down to preference, because they were both so good, but NCOM was just slightly better shot, I felt, and I loved the variety of characters. Really, I found it more entertaining, and so I liked it better. They are two amazing movies, and it’s crazy that they both came out in the same year. I think people will look back on us with jealousy years from now when we tell them we were going to the theatres in 2007.
Although there will be some that will find it hard to believe that I didn’t go see Transformers or Spiderman 3.
Hi Ian!
The image refers to another solution for philistines not mentioned explicitly in my post. Perhaps I will start carrying a sling and some stones to the theater.
Don’t get me wrong, I saw NCOM twice, and the movie was even better the second time around… That said, I like There Will be Blood (TWB) more because Daniel Day-Lewis does such an outstanding job. I enjoyed the slower pacing of TWB, as well as the more political commentary on the religion of business and the business of religion in the USA. For me, TWB is a more reflective movie, although both films ask haunting questions about the nature of ourselves and our world.
I did see Spiderman 3 and Transformers (download). You didn’t miss anything. Of course, Live free or Die Hard is another story. . .
Are you watching Superbowl? I’m not a football fan, but I don’t mind watching a big game. I’m looking to have some beer and watch the game with some guys . . . Maybe we could enlist Rhett.
Yeah, I’d be up for that (or maybe down with that, I can’t decide). I haven’t followed the season much, other than watching the last half of the Patriots last game to see if they would set the record. I always enjoy the Super Bowl, though. Sounds fun!