I don't really like using Oscar bait as a criticism either. There are characteristics certain movies have that make them obvious Oscar bait, but these can still be good movies. Deserving over movies that aren't Oscar bait, usually not, but saying a movie is bad because it compares badly to another isn't looking at it for what it is.

Whenever I look at "pretentious movie" lists I see a ton of movies that aren't trying to be anything other than what they are, be it genuinely albeit unintentionally bad or movies that I personally feel flew over people's heads. But none I would call this. I don't get that "Oh this is so full of shit" feeling like I do when I hear a pretentious director's interview. I need more info than any movie can provide to make this determination. But that's just me.

Nobody has sufficiently explained to me how you can possibly verify a movie is pretentious.

People focus much more on the first part than the "than is actually possessed" criteria but everything a movie is is on the screen. Pretension implies some sort of trickery or hidden depths of true inadequacy but a movie can't hide if it's actually plain bad. Directors are pretentious, actors are pretentious. People, with layers. Not a film.

😭

Exciting, they deserve to be known for much more than being the Whip It guys.

And to be 100% clear even if that was their sole contribution to the arts they'd still be world class visionaries.

I enjoyed it too and being an idealist I responded well to your ideas, I just don't want to force how I agree things should be with what people perceive is the fairer course. I notice something like overcorrection in society constantly though....I may be a self-proclaimed feminist but this has people thinking I have opinions I don't have about how we should repair ties with each other.

Take care. :D

The thing is, I do get the impulse to think so.

I used to think adaptations would invariably be better the more they listened to the author but I realized the more movies I watched the ways movies are different from books A, exist, and B, aren't lesser. And authors don't always know these things and think everything they did can and will translate and will unreasonably hate the movies if they don't. I do still think they should have a say, just not the say, which informs my confidence in Death of the Author as a concept as well.

I appreciate that first bit because I very much fall into that camp lol, but I never would because I don't want to step on any toes. Even if I don't think anyone's saying I can't, I just would fold in on myself nevertheless if it hurt someone in ways people borrowing something from my culture would never hurt me.

I think making it black and white is just easier because making exceptions for this and that means deciding what is or isn't okay will take over people's lives more than it already does when it's already pretty black and white as it is. Like the cornrows example may be more egregious because the tensions that exist across those communities are more extant than anything between white girls and Japanese girls lol (We've buried the hatchet since WWII I think it's safe to say), but isn't it just easier to say, just avoid as much as you possibly can? I think most feel it is on both sides, even if one side remains in longing to still adopt neat parts of other cultures secretly.

We're talking about slightly different things is the problem I think.

I don't think academia gets to say what something is about either, that's just as bad if not worse. I believe them encouraging a belief in Death of the Author merely serves the end of people not believing something just because one person said it was the case, even as the creator, if they have evidence there's more to it than what they'd said. And if anything I found my high school classes had wanted you to take the author's word for it more than not, anyway. I'm not convinced this is just how the world of academics universally thinks.

To be 100% clear: I think it's very important to know what the author had actually intended. I don't think it's important to believe them over what your gut says. That's literally it. I know we still disagree fundamentally but I don't think this means what you think I think it means.

I think it's all traceable to the borrowers often being treated as having outdone what the originators ever did, because they're "unique" or some similar designation, which just spits in the face of people who have likely been less advantaged than the borrower's culture so it's just kicking people while they're down or who were down historically.

Things like CA would matter much less in a world without prejudice or unfair treatment based on race, religion, etc, but seeing as it does exist, I think it being seen as a no-no makes sense.

Suffice it to say interpretations/opinions don't impede someone's original vision or tamper with it, they exist independently of it. As art is not an objective field like science there's no "right" answer and thus the harm that's put out into the world when someone takes a Death of the Author stance is nil as I see it. And I don't think the theory does say the consumer has MORE say. Equal say more like. I wouldn't believe in it otherwise.

It's not the same as censorship because it's not altering anything whatsoever.

I do like the idea, but unlike my belief in Death of the Author, I think the culture itself gets the final say. If more people become lax on "outsiders" taking their own meaning that does or doesn't align with their own, that would be pretty wonderful. But it's not the consensus at this time and I understand why.

Thought-provoking reply though.

Ugh. To me this is profoundly limiting and I'd be ashamed if as a creative I hampered people's imaginations and value they derive from my work just because my fragile ego demands it.

> So, I assume you are a proponent of things like changing Ronald Dahl’s books, painting leaves on naked people in paintings, etc… because once the artist is done, fuck ‘em right?

I find it abhorrent thank you very much. Censorship has nothing to do with the theory. You're out of line. I actually like knowing what the author thinks! I just don't take it as gospel.

I'd feel disrespectful if I wore a kimono and got it into my head it had any greater meaning to me than just wearing one. I don't agree you must be apart of the culture originally to partake, it will just never mean the same thing to you. That's what I mean by this.

I guarantee you interpreted something into a story the author didn't think of themselves or outright disagrees with (Maybe they just didn't express this publicly if you're in the habit of checking). If not, you have no sense of imagination whatsoever.

Plenty of creatives have said once their work is out into the world, it no longer belongs to them. I enjoy writing and if I ever publish anything I'd feel the same. Writers who don't feel this way are selfish control freaks and have no business sharing their art with the world if their own interpretations are so much better and more interesting than the consumer's.

Why does their opinion take precedence just because they created it? Fiction doesn't belong to one person the way an entire culture's creations belong to that culture. Fiction is meant to be for the consumer's enjoyment, and if that enjoyment involves interpreting things the creator didn't explicitly mention....isn't that what art is all about?

People after all unconsciously incorporate tons of themes into their own work they're unaware of. As long as they can be backed up this is just more interesting to do than throwing up one's hands and saying, oof, tough luck, author says blue curtains are just blue and can't represent sadness, your interpretation is invalid. B o r i n g.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not assuming anything. :P

Well, except one thing. People love backing up what a creator says and claiming you can't deviate when it's how they think anyway.

No???

How did you....

I'm just saying just because that's not what he intended, doesn't mean people can't read this into it? Not at all saying you have to agree?

Death of the author is a thing.

The creator's view of their own work isn't one you have to live by, thankfully. Boring way to engage with art.

I know right. All. Clearly.

My criteria goes:

1: Get thee to a nunnery, instant revulsion whenever I remember it exists

2: Really no higher through effort on the movie's part, I just feel more charitable

3: Not exactly in worst of all time conversations, but near it

4: Below average

5: Average

6: Above average, but that still sounds better than many 6's I give; basically middling to fine

7: Good! Opportunity for advancement

8: Great! Probably worthy of higher but just didn't grab me quite that much

9: Nearly masterful, usually just don't want to be too premature and declare it so right away

10: Perfect in my own estimation, will carry with me my entire life, would date if a person

It's more the rule than the exception for me. On one hand I don't think a movie that can't stand up to a rewatch should be a favorite so I'm not against it at all, but I do believe you can overdo most things even if it's the best ever.

Star Wars fans are the biggest crybabies on the face of the Earth, that's why.

Before that it was no different to any other director like that, but the pile-on really began after Star Wars. End of.

Fair bit more of an overwhelming list, don't want to frighten away the poor lad/lass.

Sure I'm down. I think OHMSS is one of the best and that had been a one off.

Knowingly though? Before the public reacted to the show as they had?

Doubtful.