• Life Advice & Visual Arts Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌
    📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸
  • LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari

I HATE cultural ELITISM in ALL FORMS

<<The music snobs can be even worse. You make a list of your favorite songs - 500 of them - and they come out of the woodwork to inform you that your list is shit because there's no Beatles, no classical music. You try to explain that it's your list, your favorite songs, but the snob doesn't care because he can't understand why his favorite music isn't everyone's favorite music. His is the only opinion that matters and until you get some of that High Fidelity indie music on your list, you're nothing but a corporate whore and you suck, man.>>

I hear that; I've never understood people who seem to think that any music made after 1900 is crap.
 
We've got a few people here who are excessive movie snobs. People who feel their opinions carry more weight than those of everybody else on the planet.

A movie can please 98% of the audience, garner positive reviews from 90% of the critics, and there'll still be some poor deluded egotist who opines, "Are you kidding? That movie was a completely disjointed pile of donkey dung."

How they come up with this is beyond me. A film that reaches and pleases its audience is a success, and a good film.

"I didn't enjoy it much. It failed for me." That I understand. An opinion, expressed as such.

"That movie is terrible and the director talentless." Statement of fact, and inapplicable.

Film students, in particular, always seem to want to apply objective criteria to judge the worth of what is a completely subjective experience.
 
so you're saying that a Joel Schumacher movie (Batman & Robin, for example) is just as worthwhile as a movie like 'Citizen Kane' or 'The Battle of Algiers'?

or a book like Danielle Steel's newest is as important as 'Lolita'?

I don't think so. I think it is inappropriate to treat someone poorly based on their taste, but I also think objectivity (in regard to the arts) is ruinous.
 
Last edited:
You're missing my point.

I never claimed that comparisons couldn't be made, but you make them within an agreed-upon framework, or they are valueless.

Two film students with common ideals can compare films between themselves and arrive at reasonable decisions based on shared views.

But you cannot make a blanket statement about the non-objective worth of a film without any qualification.

There are many people who would be bored stiff by Citizen Kane, but find Adam Sandler films endlessly watchable. For them, the Sandler films are BETTER films.

Clearer?
 
I understand you. I think you're wrong.

Take the example I used. Someone may be bored to tears watching "The Battle of Algiers" and love "Batman & Robin". They may think Batman & Robin is a "better" movie based on their relative enjoyment of the two movies, but they would be wrong.

If they then wanted to question you regarding this, you should be able to come up with particular reasons (or qualify) as to why this is so.

I agree with what some people are saying when they are frustrated with people who, for instance, only watch movies that were made pre 1960 and say all new movies are terrible. But this type of person is as narrow minded as someone who only watches Vin Diesel movies.

But the critic Pauline Kael termed this "all-good" in the eye of the beholder outlook as "saphead objectivity"
 
I think that's funny because most of the movies made in the United States are made by giant studios and are made for one purpose- making money.

Filmmakers are concerned with making art and to hear that there is no qualification between what they are doing and what some committee at a studio is producing could have the effect of dissuading people who are interested in making movies from making them.

To say that Britney Spears is just as good as Velvet Underground because it's "all good" neglects the fact that there are tons of people who are influenced to create music from listening to the Velvets, but people who listen to Britney want to be famous like her, they want to create an image- not music.
 
I think there's a big difference between "I understand you but I still think it's wrong" and "I don't care, I'm right"
 
As far as ripping on bands, I'm definitely guilty of this, however, I'm not going to pretend I like a band just because someone else does nor do I expect everyone else to like the bands I enjoy. If you ask me what I think about a band, you do so at your own risk. I'm not going to candy coat my opinion just because someone is a fan of some group I deem to be shit.

There is nothing worse than a fan who thinks everything by their favorite band is gold and that they can do no wrong--there is no band ever who has done everything right. Bands are just as fallible as you and I, so I get pissed when a band takes a shit and presses it into album form and their legions of fans swallow it whole without tasting what they are actually eating.

By all means enjoy, watch, and listen to whatever you like--I'm not going to tell you not to, but on the other hand, I am not going to lie to prevent someone's feelings from being hurt. Not everyone is going to like your favorite band. Get over it.
 
I think there is a certain measure of integrity that goes along with creating something that I feel is absent in many of the movies (since we are talking about movies specifically now- but this applies to everything). Some create with the finished product and their audience in mind. Most studios, however, find two marketable actors/actresses and a plot formula, hire an impressive advertising company to pump out the teasers on TV and their single thought is centered on the movie's profitability- I think there is a marked difference between these two situations.

Also, regarding this idea of if a person thinks it's good, well it must be- I think it is pretty sad to say that if one 5-year old, for instance, thinks something is a success, then it is.
 
Last edited:
chrissie said:
I think there's a big difference between "I understand you but I still think it's wrong" and "I don't care, I'm right"
Click to expand...

There may be (although you should in the future quote accurately), but in this situation I read what he wrote and disagreed with his conclusion that I didn't understand what he had written earlier.

Don't put words in my mouth. I do fine on my own.


And also, "elitist" would more accurately reflect a person who thought only classical music was good. or only classic literature was good. I'm not saying that. I'm saying within each genre of all things- there are good and bad. I can't believe this idea would generate much controversy.
 
Last edited:
The problem with defining non-subjective criteria that places a ranking on something like movies is that you have to nail down the criteria.

Doesn't deciding your own opinions should be the universal standard sound elitist?
 
But I'm not necessarily saying it's that cut and dry. There are pieces of art, music, books, movies whatever that I may think are good and others don't- and that's fine. I do think there is latitude here. I agree that there is a problem when you said that you would have to define criteria and consequently add it up to subjectively determine whether it passes the good or bad test. To me, the crux isn't what I think is getting you hot, which is the last "ultimate" decision. If you can define and discuss the criteria that is important to you- then the "ultimate" decision is kind of irrelevant, but when I hear people say that they want to see the new Matt Damon movie because he's hot, or they thought the da vinci code was a great book because of its prose...
- I'm not the type of person to grill people and ask what exactly they thought was good about it and then make fun of them (I think this puts people dangerously into the category of Comic Book Guy on the Simpsons)- but I do think, "wtf? were we watching, reading, looking at the same thing?"


Also, I may not like something and still realize there is merit to it. For example, I don't particularly like 'Raising Arizona', but I still think the movie has merit and would call it a "good" movie (although that term is kind of fluffy).

But to say unequivocally that because someone thinks something is good, well I guess it is- is just lazy

And what you referred to sounds more like megalomania
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by pfunk
And also, "elitist" would more accurately reflect a person who thought only classical music was good. or only classic literature was good. I'm not saying that. I'm saying within each genre of all things- there are good and bad. I can't believe this idea would generate much controversy.
 
man, i had to do something in this thread. for something that almost comes obviously close to being called flamebait, everyone was giving each other the old, "I agree with you," stroke stroke comments.
 
Originally posted by crystalcallas
who said people here wanted eVERYone to like their favorite band (or something to that effect?) You dont only rip on bands (i couldnt give a fuck about it) you also rip on people and their music preferences for no reason and with no tact. THATS the elitist attitude i despise. :p


As if that hasn't happened to everyone at some point in time. I also don't recall ripping on anyone's musical tastes out of the blue.
 
Last edited:
Finder said:
Originally posted by crystalcallas
who said people here wanted eVERYone to like their favorite band (or something to that effect?) You dont only rip on bands (i couldnt give a fuck about it) you also rip on people and their music preferences for no reason and with no tact. THATS the elitist attitude i despise. :p


As if that hasn't happened to everyone at some point in time. I also don't recall ripping on anyone's musical tastes out of the blue.
Click to expand...

So saying 'hello' before being a dick about what you think is your superior musical taste makes it alright, huh? 8) :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top