How I did it...

Hmmm.

The indie movies that were not noticed:
Strike the tent: IMDB Rating 4.9
The CIrcle: IMDB Rating 5.4

The indie movies that were noticed:
El Mariachi: IMDB Rating 7.0
Blair Witch Project: IMDB Rating 6.1 + deceptive hype.

Do you notice any pattern? How can a movie be 'good' if only a few people like it? :)
 
You're basing your opinion on IMDB RATINGS!?!? A lot of people liked White Chicks too, but that doesn't make it a good movie.
 
Billy Pilgrim said:
Oh, I don't know, maybe some filmmakers was to challenge their audience, and make them think.
Click to expand...
I guess that's the problem. People go to cinemas to be entertained. If they want to be challenged and made to think, they would watch a documentary or read a textbook. Big budget filmmakers don't have the luxury of thinking of anything except how to entertain the audience as much as possible. Why should an indie filmmaker think he has that liberty. It's hard enough to make a successful movie on a small budget when you have a laser-like focus on the need to entertain. Why push your luck by trying to play college professor or parent?

And the ones that try and do both, usually have a really simple message that no one has to do any real critical thinking to "get". Take Crash for example. It parades itself as high art that's supposed to make you think, but it's point is so grade school and easy. Not everyone wants to put on a silly hat and dance around for people's pleasure.
Click to expand...
I guess that's part of the difference between successful and suffering artists. It's not just the money they have, it's their willingness to please us.
 
seunosewa said:
Big budget filmmakers don't have the luxury of thinking of anything except how to entertain the audience as much as possible. Why should an indie filmmaker think he has that liberty. It's hard enough to make a successful movie on a small budget when you have a laser-like focus on the need to entertain. Why push your luck by trying to play college professor or parent?
Click to expand...

I leave the entertaining to the studios and television. There are people who look for more in cinema beyond flashy entertainment and special effects. This is why these discussions are great. We're both challenging each other, and I think that's what cinema should be about. I believe great art challenges people. It shouldn't be easy, with the same prepackaged message that everyone is made to take with them.
 
seunosewa said:
I guess that's the problem. People go to cinemas to be entertained. If they want to be challenged and made to think, they would watch a documentary or read a textbook. Big budget filmmakers don't have the luxury of thinking of anything except how to entertain the audience as much as possible. Why should an indie filmmaker think he has that liberty. It's hard enough to make a successful movie on a small budget when you have a laser-like focus on the need to entertain. Why push your luck by trying to play college professor or parent?


I guess that's part of the difference between successful and suffering artists. It's not just the money they have, it's their willingness to please us.
Click to expand...

well thats a load of ****.

A good filmmaker can make you think, and entertain all at once. People go to the cinema to have an experience; any modestly intelligent person not a "tween" or a teenager is able to discern between the crap "entertainment" and quality filmmaking.

It is rather short sighted to assume that every indie filmmaker's sole priority is to entertain; or that Bid Budget filmmakers have no choice but to devoid their work of any deeper thought.

I'd personally rather have my films have underlying thematic content that has deeper meaning than just a "good story". It's called having a voice;

While I agree that entertaining is no doubt a huge and probably one of the biggest aspects for most filmmakers; there is a reason filmmaking is considered part of the 'arts'.

There are people that really care about film as a form of artistic expression but also understand the business side of it.
 
Billy Pilgrim said:
Oh, I don't know, maybe some filmmakers was to challenge their audience, and make them think. And the ones that try and do both, usually have a really simple message that no one has to do any real critical thinking to "get". Take Crash for example. It parades itself as high art that's supposed to make you think, but it's point is so grade school and easy. Not everyone wants to put on a silly hat and dance around for people's pleasure.
Click to expand...

Also, I don't suppose 'El Mariachi' has grabbed a huge, widespread audience. It has had some success with its core group of fans, but if you conducted a man-on-the-street poll I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find 20% of the people had ever even heard of 'El Mariachi'. Of course, if you poll filmmakers, that percentage would be quite a bit higher. :)
 
Loki said:
well thats a load of shi*.

A good filmmaker can make you think, and entertain all at once. People go to the cinema to have an experience; any modestly intelligent person not a "tween" or a teenager is able to discern between the crap "entertainment" and quality filmmaking.

It is rather short sighted to assume that every indie filmmaker's sole priority is to entertain; or that Bid Budget filmmakers have no choice but to devoid their work of any deeper thought.

I'd personally rather have my films have underlying thematic content that has deeper meaning than just a "good story". It's called having a voice;

While I agree that entertaining is no doubt a huge and probably one of the biggest aspects for most filmmakers; there is a reason filmmaking is considered part of the 'arts'.

There are people that really care about film as a form of artistic expression but also understand the business side of it.
Click to expand...


I'd have to agree with this. There's entertaining and then there's entertaining. All entertaining doesn't have to involve putting on party hats and dancing. Prime example -- 'Schindler's List'. Not an easy movie to watch. Definitely makes you think. 'Entertaining' in the sense that while people are not particularly cheered by it, they do enjoy the experience and are glad they saw it.
 
seunosewa said:
Hmmm.

The indie movies that were not noticed:
Strike the tent: IMDB Rating 4.9
The CIrcle: IMDB Rating 5.4

The indie movies that were noticed:
El Mariachi: IMDB Rating 7.0
Blair Witch Project: IMDB Rating 6.1 + deceptive hype.

Do you notice any pattern? How can a movie be 'good' if only a few people like it? :)
Click to expand...

Easy. If only a few people know it even EXISTS.

El Mariachi could easily have gotten a biased rating from indie filmmakers who voted. If you could find a way to subtract out the votes of filmmakers, so that only general audience votes counted, I wonder what its rating would be?

Blair Witch was hyped through the roof. Deceptive? Sure. But still means WAY more people saw it than saw Mariachi -- or ANY of the other movies I mentioned. The more people who see it, the better your chances of getting a more accurate scoring.

See if IMDB will tell you how MANY people cast votes for each of those movies you listed.
 
Oh, and as far as the statement 'How can a movie be 'good' if only a few people like it?' Using the IMDB ratings then, 'Blair Witch' must have been a MUCH better movie than 'El Mariachi', right? Not only a higher score, but nearly 5 times the number of votes! People LIKED it better, so it must have BEEN a better movie. Right? :)
 
A little more info from those IMDB ratings...

the circle -- a whopping 41.8% gave it a 10 (perfect score)
strike the tent -- 25.8% gave it a 10
blair witch -- only 12.3% gave it a 10
el mariachi -- only 10.3% gave it a 10
 
People go to the cinema for a variety of reasons. Some to think, some to be spoon fed. Certainly the medium can do the latter like no other save TV, but that does not mean it cannot do the former on equal level with literature, and fine arts. A lot of people (most filmmakers) have a sliding scale with pure entertainment on one end and pure challenge and move the slider back and forth, though rarely all the way to one end, on the other depending on their mood and sensibilities. Though there are people (the vast majority in this country) like my parents who never think about challenge vs. entertainment and only go because something "looks good" to them.

There are those that skew heavily towards either end, all entertainment, or all challenge, and will incorrectly label anything that does or does not meet their personal bias for what they like to see as a good or bad film.

It's pointless to argue about any of the above because the arguments are not actually at polar ends, meaning one is absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong, either side can therefore find ample evidence to support their side as being right.

People that only enjoy challenging erudite films, and people that only enjoy mindless entertainment enjoy films half as much as they could at the theater and miss the point. Did it tell the story, was the vocabulary sophisticated, subtle, crude and was it suited to the style and the style suited to telling the story, did it find an audience, large or small, that connected with it on some level, did the filmmaker confidently accomplish what they wanted to whether its how you and your friends would have done it or not, does the filmmaker have a unique personal voice - all questions that can be asked of a movie about dinasours running around in modern times or of a movie about 3 french teenagers exploring cinema, revoultion, and sensuality in the 1960's France.

Having said all that ... geeks probably vote more on the internet than cinefiles do. :)
 
Last edited:
Billy Pilgrim said:
A Woman Under The Influence and Faces were the only films of his to make any money or get any good reviews, really. Two of his eleven films. Husbands, Opening Night, The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, Minnie and Moskowitz, Love Streams were all totally disregarded, and panned by critics. And "Woman" and "Faces" didn't get any recognition until it was fashionable. He had to book theaters for "Woman" himself, pay for all the prints, advertising, etc. Most theaters wouldn't book the film, and it only got into the New York Film Festival after he convinced Martin Scorsese to threaten to pull "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" if they didn't screen "Woman". Shadows got great reviews in Europe, as just about all of his films did overseas. But in America he went neglected, and/or critically lauded. Sure, he's more appreciated now, and is a major influence on filmmakers (he's my biggest influence) but not a single one of his films wound up on either of the AFI's list of greatest American Films, and most of his films have never been distributed on video, laserdisc, or DVD (Love Streams and Husbands did have limited VHS releases, in butchered form). All of this appreciation has only occurred after his death.
Click to expand...

I guess my impressions of Cassavettes fall victim to a contemporary eye. But I assumed we weren't narrowing our impression to success in the states.

As far as the availability of his films, I have this set:

http://www.amazon.com/John-Cassavet...=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1195428918&sr=8-1

And I know Opening Night was released on VHS, because I have a copy of that and it's kind of old.

I do think a lot of people reference him or his films because it is fashionable. Personally, I respect the efforts he was making more than I actually enjoy his films.
 
I think we've all seen films that purport to be "deep" and "meaningful" while simultaneously putting us to sleep and that's what we're talking about here. Being "entertain" isn't really about turning your brain off and have fun, it's about being engaged in whatever is happening on screen. A film that failed to get the audience to care is a failed film, no excuses.
 
I didn't mean to derail this thread. I've never seen your movie, but I'm interested in at least hearing your story, be it in book form or not.
 
jade8472 said:
I think we've all seen films that purport to be "deep" and "meaningful" while simultaneously putting us to sleep and that's what we're talking about here. Being "entertain" isn't really about turning your brain off and have fun, it's about being engaged in whatever is happening on screen. A film that failed to get the audience to care is a failed film, no excuses.
Click to expand...


Well said. I think that "engaging" is a better word than "entertaining".
 
Well, I have to jump in and give my dos centavos worth. I had a friend who moved down to my area, predominantly Hispanic, who had watched all the Cheech & Chong movies but did not find them funny at all.

While he lived down here with us he developed an understanding of the culture and its particulars, especially how the sense of humor is derived. It was only since them that he has changed his opinion about C&C's movies, he finds them freaking hilarious as I do. He said that living and understanding the culture gave him an insight as to what the heck those movies represented in terms of their raw humor.

I am not saying one has to be Hispanic to understand El Mariachi, the story in and of itself is weaved really well, but it helps to understand some of the nuances of Hispanic culture to grasp some the humorous aspects of the film. Again, that is just my opinion.
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
Oh, and as far as the statement 'How can a movie be 'good' if only a few people like it?' Using the IMDB ratings then, 'Blair Witch' must have been a MUCH better movie than 'El Mariachi', right?
Click to expand...

I might actually argue that blair witch IS a better movie than el mariachi, although I haven't seen it since it came out. But that's beside the point, back to topic...
 
Oh, and as far as the statement 'How can a movie be 'good' if only a few people like it?' Using the IMDB ratings then, 'Blair Witch' must have been a MUCH better movie than 'El Mariachi', right?
Click to expand...
Wrong! El Mariachi has a much higher IMDB rating of 7.0 (Blair Witch is 6.1)
 
seunosewa said:
Wrong! El Mariachi has a much higher IMDB rating of 7.0 (Blair Witch is 6.1)
Click to expand...

You're right -- I misspoke on the 'higher score' part. But the point still stands -- MORE people watched 'Blair Witch' and rated it, FIVE TIMES more people. Assuming a direct correlation to audience, that would mean FIVE TIMES more people saw 'Blair Witch' than saw 'El Mariachi'. If that's what we're using as a measure of how 'good' a movie is, then 'Blair Witch' would have to be considered a far better movie than 'El Mariachi'.

Any kind of ratings like these are subjective at best. There's nothing to prevent the same person from voting multiple times. There's nothing to stop people who are financially or personally involved with the movie from voting, thus skewing the results. It's a crap shoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top