Movies or Films?

When you frequent your local theater do you go to the elaborate exercise of excess that is your local mutliplex, or do you seek out entertainment in the pretentious pomposity of a city arthouse cinema? When popping the newest arrival from Netflix into your DVD player, do you want the sensory overload of Transformers 2, or do you want the highbrow intellectualism of something like Lost in Translation? Connotatively speaking, which of the aforementioned cinematic offerings would you consider a movie? Which a film? Why is the differentiation made between the two? What makes something a movie, as opposed to a film? Why do I type entire paragraphs in question form? Ok, ok, seriously - What's the difference between a movie and a film?

Here's the short answer to this queerest of questions in a word - NOTHING!

Now, the long answer, in many words:

A good deal of folks think using the word "film" adds weight to their opinion. Why? Well, a psychological examination would likely lead you to believe it was insecurity manifesting itself in the form of self-importance - but that's neither here nor there, since it isn't the point of this post. A film is often seen as being more serious, or as having more artistic merit, than a mere movie. Consequently, those who watch these more meritous offerings have a tendency to look down upon those who enjoy something as trivial as a movie as entertainment only. Film, in all of it's cinematic glory, is where the truly enlightened movie-goer looks for entertainment. At least, that's the typical rationale. It's a classic case of unadulterated pretentiousness. Elitism. Film snobs. When mocked and put into commercial form elitism looks like this:



Now, you may be thinking, "Dude, I get this. This isn't insightful." You'd be right. It isn't. I take issue not with the existence of movie snobs or film dunces, but with the tendency for those that reside in both ends of the movie watching spectrum to automatically equate different with bad. After all, varrying tastes are a fact of life. Outright disregard and contempt for certain segments of movies, however, is not. For instance, someone who loves the Die Hard series that wouldn't even think about sitting through The Cider House Rules will be prone to missing out on many, many worthwhile films. A person enamored with Gosford Park that looks down on those who enjoy Zombieland, is equally prone to missing out on worthy entertainment. Casting a specific type of movie, whatever that type may be, off as "stupid", or "arty", or whatever other adjective your mind assigns to it, limits your film-watching sensibilites. Your ability to think about movies is hindered. Your opinion is less informed. As with any kind of opinion, the more informed you are, the more valid the opinion.

I'm not foolish enough to believe bringing a close-minded approach to movie watching reflects the character of a given person. However, I would argue that bringing such an approach can lead to a general lazy satisfaction with your opinions, which can lead to close-mindedness in other arenas of life. Close-minded people suck at life. It's an impossibility for them to be wrong, they don't feel as if they have anything to learn from anyone or anything, and they generally think they're better than everyone else. Their shit doesn't stink, so to speak.

Take heed, my friends. Your shit, like everyone else's, does, indeed, stink. It's very easy to selfishly believe in your own hubris. What isn't as easy is realizing opposing opinions and values have legitimate worth. Sure, its easy to pay lip service and tell yourself and others you respect differing opinions. It's an entirely different beast to actually respect those opinions and beliefs and allow them to sit equally next to your own.

I'm not above hubris, I fall victim to it's allure as well. We all want to be "right" and have our beliefs validated, so its only natural to have a desire to put your own values on a pedestal. The trick is coming to terms with the concept that there is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to personal belief. There's only what you think. Its a difficult task to accomplish and by no means am I an authority on the subject. It is, however, something I find meaningful to pursue. Listening to and learning about other opinions, values, beliefs, faiths, or anything else that is foreign to you does not compromise your own beliefs. In fact, it makes your values stronger and more informed. It forces you to constantly evaluate yourself and your beliefs, which allows you to avoid a sense of stagnation. Speaking of stagnation, I believe this blog post is suffering such a malady. Until we meet again.

Woody Allen

I've been searching for a topic to write about and a project to start for over a week now. I had been mulling a few things over, but nothing really excited me. See, I'm a bit lazy (ok, terribly lazy), and I needed something that would not only hold my interest, but that would also instill some discipline. I enjoy writing, but I need a push to get motivated to write. With a little help from my Spectacularly Astounding Mate (my girlfriend, who henceforth will be referred to as SAM), I've decided to task myself with watching, reviewing, and analyzing the filmography of Woody Allen.

The plan is to devote one week to each movie, and to watch them chronologically. Allen has directed a total of 41 feature films, so that's 41 weeks. Ideally, I'll watch the movie on Monday, then do as much research on the movie as I can in the following days. I tentatively plan posting each week's write-up on Fridays. Every film will be watched at least once, and most twice. I say most because, by my count, I've seen 13 of Allen's 41 films. The 28 films I haven't seen will all be watched twice during their devoted week. Of the 13 I have seen, depending on how familiar I am with the film, only one viewing may be necessary.

Now, why Woody Allen? The answer is also my style of dress for the past week due to apparently living in Alaska - layered. Most importantly, I like most of what I've seen from the man. I think 2-3 of his films are (alert! possible hyperbole coming) among the greatest American movies ever made. I'm very interested in seeing his entire output and analyzing his films. Secondly, I don't think most people my age have a grasp of Woody Allen the filmmaker. I figure that most people reading this blog (if there are any at all), belong to my generation. Let's be honest, aside from movie buffs (AKA film nerds), most people under 30 only know Woody Allen as a creepy old man who banged and married his stepdaughter. However weird and fucked up you may think that is (because that is weird and fucked up), his personal transgressions don't take away from his exemplary work. Flat out - the man can make movies. So, think of it as a bit of an educational experience...from a grossly underqualified teacher. My final reason for choosing an analysis of Woody Allen's work as my personal writing boot camp is because I value that work. I think it's important. Allen deals with issues near and dear to my heart, such as God's role in the world (I'm pretty sure he's an atheist) and human nature. He's usually able to touch on profound topics, while keeping a comedic edge. It's an incredibly fine line to walk, as indulging too much in one or the other can result in pretentiousness or a diluted message.

That's really it for now. I plan to get started as soon as Netflix sends me Allen's first film - 1966's What's Up, Tiger Lily?. To get you excited (or possibly turn you off), I'll leave you with the ending voiceover to what is (for now) my favorite Allen film, Crimes and Misdemeanors. If these words don't have a profound effect on you, then Woody Allen probably isn't for you: