Martin Scorsese Essay on Streaming Platforms and Film as "Content"

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I just don't see what difference it would make if you would want those pointed opinions running through your head and helping to shape your opinion after the fact anyways (which, again, I think is a good thing). This is probably just me not placing some special emphasis on the first viewing the way that a lot of people do, though. My interest is usually in the most recent viewing and nothing else.

Same deal with the idea of observing a book club discussing a novel at length before sitting down to read it. That does not sound like some objectionable thing to me either. I just don't relate to that concern at all.

You lose the unfiltered raw reaction, sure, but I just don't view that as being worth anything personally, considering that I value the eventual reaction after all the filtering much more anyways.

Well, I look at films (in parts) with considerations towards expectations (related to genre, gender, or any form of creativity and artistry), losing my raw reaction, these considerations become only theoretical and I can't really measure their efficiency. Anyway, no problem with the way you prefer to do things, maybe just try not to label as dumb how other people might want to do them.

 

[Shareefruck]

Well, I look at films (in parts) with considerations towards expectations (related to genre, gender, or any form of creativity and artistry), losing my raw reaction, these considerations become only theoretical and I can't really measure their efficiency. Anyway, no problem with the way you prefer to do things, maybe just try not to label as dumb how other people might want to do them.

Read my explanation above the one you quoted. I did not label either of your approaches as dumb, you just misunderstood it that way. I stand by the idea that I think that it's dumb for someone to not want to be exposed to external sources altogether for the sake of a misguided sense of individuality (which apply to neither of you-- if you appreciate finding out about other perspectives after your first experience, then you are not the target of the comment). That is something else altogether (it's essentially being anti-learning) that has nothing to do with managing expectations.

The idea of someone avoiding press before a first viewing to manage their expectations is something that I separately differ on personally (which I expanded on in the post you quoted) but would never label as dumb and didn't.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Read my explanation above the one you quoted. I did not label either of your approaches as dumb, you just misunderstood it that way. I stand by the idea that I think that it's dumb for someone to not want to be exposed to external sources altogether for the sake of a misguided sense of individuality (which apply to neither of you-- if you appreciate finding out about other perspectives after your first experience, then you are not the target of the comment). That is something else altogether (it's essentially being anti-learning) that has nothing to do with managing expectations.

The idea of someone avoiding press before a first viewing to manage their expectations is something that I separately differ on personally (which I expanded on in the post you quoted) but would never label as dumb and didn't.

It doesn't matter that you're not targeting glovesave or me, you're still maintaining that there would be a dumb way, contrary to yours, to watch films. Surrealists would go in after the beginning of a film, leave before the end to enter another projection, and so on, only to regroup afterwards and try to make sense of the "oeuvre" they'd seen.

 

[Shareefruck]

It doesn't matter that you're not targeting glovesave or me, you're still maintaining that there would be a dumb way, contrary to yours, to watch films. Surrealists would go in after the beginning of a film, leave before the end to enter another projection, and so on, only to regroup afterwards and try to make sense of the "oeuvre" they'd seen.

I could understand taking exception if you felt that the criticism was actually unfounded (which I assume is why you gave a bunch of defenses for how you justify your approach, even when it wasn't what was under attack), but I don't understand finding something inherently wrong with the entire idea of commenting on what you think about an approach in general. The fact that I wouldn't place the same label on your approach, despite differing on it, suggests that it's not a matter of "I'm criticizing it because it's contrary to mine." I'm criticizing it because the justification for it that I've come across seems particularly irrational to me. I don't have an understanding of the purpose of why surrealists do what you're saying, but I imagine that depending on whether or not one finds the purpose reasonable/tenable, it would be fair to similarly comment on that approach accordingly as well.

I don't see the concept of someone having a "dumb approach" as making any less sense/being any more impossible than someone making a "bad decision", and the latter seems to be widely considered acceptable commentary that only reflects what the speaker thinks of the idea. If I misspoke and called the person dumb instead of the idea dumb, I'll gladly apologize for something like that, but otherwise, I'm not sure I see where you're coming from.

 

[glovesave_35]

I just don't see what difference it would make if you would want those pointed opinions running through your head and helping to shape your opinion after the fact anyways (which, again, I think is a good thing). This is probably just me not placing some special emphasis on the first viewing the way that a lot of people do, though. My interest is usually in the most recent viewing and nothing else.

Same deal with the idea of observing a book club discussing a novel at length before sitting down to read it. That does not sound like some objectionable thing to me either. I just don't relate to that concern at all.

You lose the unfiltered raw reaction, sure, but I just don't view that as being worth anything personally, considering that I value the eventual reaction after all the filtering much more anyways.

I like unfiltered clean slate.

I know everything you are getting at. I have a BA in film studies. In the context of reading a film as a piece of art to be dissected at length, and typically with a certain focus, there is merit to knowing what angle is going to be discussed prior to first viewing. That is different than how I like to consume most media in my life nowadays. I don't read a Pitchfork album review of my favorite bands' newest material, either. I may after getting into it myself to see what someone else thinks.

Anyways, I'm glad you know what you like. So do I. Cheers.

 

[Shareefruck]

I like unfiltered clean slate.

I know everything you are getting at. I have a BA in film studies. In the context of reading a film as a piece of art to be dissected at length, and typically with a certain focus, there is merit to knowing what angle is going to be discussed prior to first viewing. That is different than how I like to consume most media in my life nowadays. I don't read a Pitchfork album review of my favorite bands' newest material, either. I may after getting into it myself to see what someone else thinks.

Anyways, I'm glad you know what you like. So do I. Cheers.

Yep, that's fair. Again, this one's just something I don't relate with much anymore (I'm straight up the type who more or less doesn't even care about getting spoilers), not something I have any ill feelings towards.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I don't see the concept of someone having a "dumb approach" as making any less sense/being any more impossible than someone making a "bad decision"

I've said it elsewhere, but that's only because you give too much importance to (and maybe define yourself a little too much through) your appreciation of art in general. Drinking bleach is a bad decision and is pretty dumb. Watching a film, whatever which way you feel like watching it, is still just watching a film. To appreciate someone like Raoul Ruiz, you need to read at least a little about some complex ideas and narrative structures, but not doing it and not appreciating his work isn't dumb. Not everybody find enjoyment in these things, and nobody really needs them.

 

[Oilslick941611]

Art is art and content is content also both can both

If streaming was developed first he would be defending streaming against small scale 'art' cinema.

Both can co-exist.

I'm an avid streamer, I never went to the movies much and I lived with a Cineplex literally in backyard for 10 years and went once.

as someone not interested in film as art but rather view it as entertainment ( and I don't see how that cheapens it) is it really any different than Albums/CDs Cd/streaming music services? Vinyl is in the middle of a resurrection.

One could also view the reduction in fees/licences and salary as a market correction as well. Art isn't about the money anyway right? (just adding this in as someone will invariably mention artists money declining with streaming)

 

[spintheblackcircle]

The entertainment industry is ever changing. People appreciate convenience..finding a date through an app, watching a movie from home on a website, having your favourite food delivered to your door.

Been watching these Tom Cruise Deepfake videos.......soon we won't need actors. It will all be CGI, just like this video

 

[Shareefruck]

I've said it elsewhere, but that's only because you give too much importance to (and maybe define yourself a little too much through) your appreciation of art in general. Drinking bleach is a bad decision and is pretty dumb. Watching a film, whatever which way you feel like watching it, is still just watching a film. To appreciate someone like Raoul Ruiz, you need to read at least a little about some complex ideas and narrative structures, but not doing it and not appreciating his work isn't dumb. Not everybody find enjoyment in these things, and nobody really needs them.

You keep making this suggestion and I'm not sure where it comes from or what it has to do with what I said (the last time you said it as well). It seems kind of uncalled for/weirdly personal. Did I say something to tick you off recently and now you're uncharitably associating that with everything that I say now? Because to be honest, that's kind of what it's felt like with the last few exchanges I've had with you, when I've had nothing but pleasant run-ins before.

Having an approach that doesn't involve appreciating something to some optimal degree isn't dumb, I agree, but the reasoning given for why someone has this approach can be dumb, which is what I'm referring to. In this case, I think that [believing that influence/adding perspective from others into your consideration is something negative that compromises an opinion and somehow makes it inauthentic] (a common mindset that I've heard) is a backwards idea, because I think that element is a huge part of reinforcing and building an opinion. Not allowing it to ever enter consideration taints/limits an opinion more than the other way around, IMO.

One thing to note is that I'm using "dumb" interchangably with "questionable/skeptical/backwards/irrational" (kind of like "silly"). I think the severity is on that level, not on a level that should be viewed as more insulting than that.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Did I say something to tick you off recently and now you're uncharitably associating that with everything that I say now?

Oh no no, sorry if it felt that way. I just think you're overimposing your opinion on stuff that is purely subjective. Didn't want to attack you personally.

 

[Shareefruck]

Oh no no, sorry if it felt that way. I just think you're overimposing your opinion on stuff that is purely subjective. Didn't want to attack you personally.

Oh, okay.

I think we just disagree on how subjective the specific mechanisms in question are (and maybe certain broad concepts in general), or maybe how we ought to speak about things that we can't be certain about. I think it's unnecessary to make psychological assumptions and assign questionable motivations such as "you give too much importance to (and maybe define yourself a little too much through) your appreciation of art in general." Makes it sound like I'm arriving at these views through pompous ego/narcissism or something, which I think would be an unfair charge.

My thought isn't coming from a place of self-importance, it's just coming from a place of "I don't think it works that way and I care to express that sincerely, trivial/tentative/limited as it may be." Finding something dumb isn't some final condemnation that suggests certain, over-stepping authority, in my view. It's a working assumption until further insight shows otherwise.