Quote:
Originally Posted by Reaper16
"Self-indulgent" is one of those terms, like "pretentious" that doesn't mean anything anymore. They're terms used nowadays in place of saying "this person or thing doesn't align with my tastes."
TWBB is tremendously entertaining, if one is entertained by tension, deep character examination, camerawork that has an understanding of the artform, incredible acting (from Day-Lewis and Dano), and themes that are actually explored as themes (as opposed to the, say, Nolan Batman trilogy, which throws out buzzwords like 'justice' and 'authority' and 'fear' and etc. in a statement by some character and then doesn't bother to explore or complicate those buzzwords very much).
And, as always when defensive accusations of snobbery start getting tossed around, I have to iterate that this isn't an either/or thing. It's OK to be entertained by inconsequential popcorn cinema AND art-house cinema. I watch both and I'm entertained by both. That I expect more from a director like Christopher Nolan doesn't change that.
|
What?
Just because you don't use the term correctly doesn't mean it doesn't have an operative definition. There Will Be Blood qualifies. Yes, Daniel Day Lewis did a great job; he always does. But the whole movie was just an exercise in him showing he's a great actor. As I watched it, all I could see was John Lovitz and John Lithgow yelling "ACTING! BRILLIANT! Thank You!"
Acting school from Gregory Mate on Vimeo.
Yeah, we get it Dan; you can act. Now how 'bout the movie actually go somewhere? You can do both, Y'know? 'No Country' proved it.
On the flip-side, every Wes Anderson movie is fairly self-indulgent these days but I actually like those.
When someone says "Damn, watch better movies" to people that aren't willing to nitpick a movie that has a billionaire ninja, the 'accusations' of snobbery are justified. You clearly weren't willing to just let this be an either/or issue when you start castigating folks for not demanding reality in their cinema.