1. There is absolutely no indication that I don't. 2. I clearly stated earlier that I do.



You're proceeding from a false assumption, and it's impeding your ability to understand what people are trying to tell you.

Growing and changing do not make your previous perspectives worthless. They do mean that you will look back and marvel at the differences between your old self and your new self, knowing what you know now--but that doesn't trivialize the experiences you had. In fact, without those experiences, you wouldn't have the perspective you have today.

To go with another analogy, the colors of the rainbow didn't become any less vivid when Isaac Newton* broke them down into their constituent frequencies. They still have the same qualities they've always had. We just have more ways of looking at them, new ways of thinking about them. Someday, we'll have even more ways than we do now.

You, in particular, seem very sure of yourself currently. I am pointing out that you will be as different two years from now as you were two years ago. Case in point:



We've all changed. Some of us haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

I liked The Dark Knight quite a bit myself when it came out. I think it has tarnished over the years, as tends to happen with significantly flawed movies. But that does not mean that I was wrong for enjoying it then and it doesn't mean that never had any merit in the first place. I can still examine it and see the things I like about it, even though they now stand in relief from the things that have lowered it in my estimation.

As I've said before, we operate as best we can with what we have at the moment. Never mind the additional value it has, given that I've learned much from the way my opinion of it has evolved these past three years.

On that note--and this might be a broad generalization--I will say that it seems very uncanny for somebody's tastes to evolve so quickly their their views of what is best and what is worst can completely invert themselves in just a few years.

I realize you're excited about the ideas you've recently adopted, but the honeymoon won't last forever. Or, to put it another way, it'll be interesting to see where you're at in 2013.

If you're utterly sincere about this, then I suggest you stop watching movies. Forget they even exist. By your own calculation, it is statistically unreasonable for you to even bother. On a long enough timescale, you will have spent a significant span of your natural life and a significant chunk of your personal fortune on something from which you took neither sufficient enjoyment nor personal fulfillment.


(*I am aware that this was actually Theodoric of Freiberg, so nobody bother pointing that out.)

Cook,

If i watch Winchester '73 and am just not impressed am I a moron because I don't see greatness? And, what is wrong with having Vertigo and 2001 at the top of a favorites list? Are you saying they are quintessential, cliche picks?

I have no problem saying The Godfather is my favorite movie of all time, as cliche as that might seem. The first time I watched it (9th grade school night), I had no idea that 3 hours had just gone by, and I knew what I had just seen was the best that I had ever seen. Ten years later, I have yet to get that feeling again after watching countless more films.

Oh, and Drive was awesome. Gosling just oozes cool.

You're wrong about this, Ken. Or perhaps I just misunderstand you. To assert that we change at equal intervals throughout our lives is ridiculous, especially in regards to taste. Shade's honeymoon with Killer of Sheep is ongoing because he reached a breaking point, as he said. I reached a breaking point too. Some honeymoons don't last forever, sure; I'm not as pumped for Avengers as I was immediately after Thor...and I know what it feels like for a honeymoon to crash and burn; I was there when Spidey 3 and Quantum of Solace turned out to suck. But I really don't foresee myself going back on the Nolan backlash or the Mann praise. The latter especially is too personal. I kinda think you underestimate the power and longevity of these ideas. Nolan came up with Inception at 16, and look what happened. In 2013, I'll be at the midnights for Man of Steel and Robopocalypse.



Well if watching them was enough for personal fulfillment, I probably wouldn't even be on this forum. The way I plan to counteract that statistic is to keep on reading more, writing more, and hopefully making films of my own sooner or later. Passion isn't about how many movies you like, it's about how much you care overall; just look at Pauline Kael. I can remember when Rob and others talked about becoming disillusioned with watching a lot of movies after a while. The reason for that is that after a while, watching them just isn't enough anymore. You have to push harder, and apply movies to other aspects of your life other than when you're sitting in front of a screen.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.



If the feeling has lasted 10 years from the 9th grade, it's probably legitimate. Just as long as your other favorites don't include Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Singin' in the Rain, and The Searchers.



No, in fact Winchester underwhelms a lot of people after one viewing. And coming from a director whose themes are largely Darwinian, Winchester exemplifies that much less obviously than some of the others. It can also strike some viewers as gimmicky the first time around, but it's a tough film not to enjoy. Honestly though, you have to watch at least 10 of Mann's films before you can get a sense of what he was trying to do, and what he was trying to say. Individually, his films are too...humble and simple to give you an immediate sense of their profundity. Once you realize the way he captures the power/pain/ecstasy of life, his films become like drugs. It's the shock of the rawness of it that can get under your skin.

I guess the majority of the Sight & Sound critics are cliche. They all seem to have 2001, Kane, & Vertigo on their ballots.

They're inevitably that way because they're lists compromised by a group. Something like Winchester or Killer of Sheep has no chance in that sort of poll. Those things have some measure of interest, but should not be what you judge greatness on because, as has been discussed, it's gotta be personal on some level.

I don't want to get into the Drive debate, but I do want to put in a good word for Winchester '73. That's one of my personal favorites in the Western genre. It's really smart, well made, and entertaining. It's a great movie in every way.

Aside from the fact that it has little in the way of depth, which is my bigger criterion for "greatness." Winchester 73 is good, not great

*realizes Kunz and MGames are about to go at it...

Haha, I was going to come in an defend the film (because it has plenty of depth, Mr. Kunz), but Eddie Griffin munching on popcorn is too damn funny for me to muster up any effort. I'll let MGames stand by his Mann.

There's a lot of different ways I could respond to this, but right now I feel like comparing it to a film that many people on this forum would consider unequivocally great: Pulp Fiction. It's pretty easy to take for granted that Tarantino's approach to film structure was revolutionary and absolutely original, but that's just a fantasy of Indie culture. Tarantino had a badass, fresh attitude, and thus became successful the same way every other filmmaker has become successful. Having said that, his structure was very good; entertaining and interesting, and it definitely added a an extra layer to lot of great dialogue and fun scenarios.

Winchester '73, if you stop to think, is essentially the same thing, except that it's a far more visual film than Pulp Fiction. It too is divided into five segments: three major, two minor. For Winchester, this is easy to take for granted, just because Mann happens to take your intelligence and intuition as the viewer a little more for granted by not including chapter titles. Breaks between stories are always triggered by the same musical cue, however, and a pull out from the gun. Mann deliberately uses the passing of the gun to provide the ultimate panorama of the western genre, but this is far more than just a gimmick. For those who don't know, the story concerns James Stewart's quest to kill his own brother. Fratricide is basically the most primal/primitive crime you can commit, and is extreme even compared to all the other primal practices going on the in the old west. Therefore, before Stewart can earn the right to commit this act, he must pass through all other staples of violence in the old west, which include: sheriffs, cavalry officers, gamblers, Indians, a shooting contest, and a major outlaw. Mann symbolizes the stripping of a man's scruples by simultaneously stripping down the staples of the western genre. For that concept alone, and its seamless execution, Winchester earns a spot among the best genre revisions of all time; yes, on the same level as Psycho and Godfather in that respect.

People take this for granted because they refuse to open their minds about the western genre, and because they can't cope with the fact that it hasn't made any highly esteemed 100 best lists. Is Winchester just a piece of pulp? Then what the hell is Godfather; if Godfather isn't pulp, nothing is. As for the Hitchcock, everybody knows that the final scene of Psycho when the doctor explains everything is stupid as hell. There no scene in Winchester that comes close to not working; no scene could stand to be taken out, and no scenes could possibly be added to make it better. It's an example of absolutely perfect construction.

I'm not sure what else James is looking for in regards to depth.

Because i haven't seen Drive I was looking forward to reading this thread.

Any time someone offers me an "Everybody knows" statement, I find the lectern of vanity to be pretty rickety.

I agree that hearing someone's favorites are the most popular films of all time. Those are stock answers cultivated in a public opinion field. Who would you have dinner with if it could be anyone alive or dead? Ghandi, Lincoln, Einstein... But I digress.

I find it comical (and sad) that anyone here would consider their personal growth period in film appreciation to be over, that they've reached a level of "profound understanding", but yet a single film turns "everything upside down". Is the best truly in the past?

"What will you know tomorrow?"

MGamesCook
do you still prefer Bend of the River to Winchester '73?

also, you put some big spoilers in there.

Well said McGames, though unfortunately you convinced me more that Pulp Fiction was shallow than Winchester 73 was deep

No, the best is in the future when we'll be able to use our profound understanding to judge new releases better than we could before.



I'll certainly avoid doing the same for El Cid. Bend of the River is a better example of Mann's signature use of landscape, which cannot be found in Winchester to the same degree. Winchester is a singularly great accomplishment in its own right; it's certainly his broadest and proudest contribution to the western genre, but one could also argue that Stewart's character is shallower than some of the others he played for Mann. But both films represent the director in top form.

I will say one thing: many of the critics I've noticed who underrate Mann tend to consider Naked Spur his masterpiece. Such a designation indicates a failure to fully understand him. Spur is excellent, and very entertaining, but far, far away from his best work, and certainly below both Winchester and River. It's a minor work from a major director, a'la Spielberg's The Terminal.

It feels odd replying after so much time (a lifetime, in internet days), but a few quick things:

Yes, Armond White knows more about movies than me. Much more. It's a moot point though. You could say that about any professional critic. They've all seen much more than I have and much more than I ever will. Vexer's favourite critic, Dustin Putman, knows more about movies than I could ever dream of understanding. The thing about movies (or life) is that, generally, the more you know, the less you realise you know. For a little while I had an Arthur Conan Doyle quote as my signature: "Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius."

Cool masturbation metaphor involving Rob Holloway though. He no longer posts here so it's a little odd that you'd bring him up. He's busy masturbating on, uh, I mean rescuing homeless German Shepherds. You know, they should have had one of those dogs in Drive (see that moderators, I'm on-topic!). Good breed.

Anyway, I still say White is a bad critic and an overrated writer. His reviews read like an exercise in obfuscation. If there's a point, it's deeply buried (unless it's about Noah Baumbach being retroactively aborted). Kyle Smith and Mike D'Angelo, to name two, are much better writers and critics. I cite them since I've noticed that they often offer a contrary opinion.



Oh? Maybe White isn't so bad after all Really, I don't see how anyone could watch Contempt and not love that movie.

He splooges on Weekend in this little capsule review as well. "Funny, powerful and unforgettable." I wonder how MGames feels about his favourite critic getting his rocks off on his least favourite filmmaker.

This post came with a lot of booze, and I wish I could take it back...but Armond White's importance shouldn't be undervalued. I hope he regains employment before the year is out.