Note: Sometimes 'Bad' Movies Are Not Bad Movies
It seems like a fella's favorite movies just can't get a fair break these days. It's hard for me to even admit to some of the movies that I like without being jumped on for liking 'bad' movies. Now, to set the record straight about what kind of movies I watch, what kind of movies I like, and how I feel about them:
I'll throw in a question-and-answer format to make things a little easier, akin to many conversations that I've had with loved ones that I try to share with:
I hear this argument against movies just about every week. Sure, I know zombie cinema isn't quite held up there with great epics like "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Spartacus," but what makes a movie genuinely bad? Anyone? Class? Okay, I'll even put it in caps and center-align it for you, so you can look it up when you have trouble remembering it:
I'll throw in a question-and-answer format to make things a little easier, akin to many conversations that I've had with loved ones that I try to share with:
"This movie is so bad! Where do you find these? What? Well, yeah, I mean, it's entertaining and all...but...it's so bad! I know, I laughed at the jokes -- and yeah, the part with the head was kinda scary and gross, and I guess the disembodied head scene was supposed to be scary and gross, so...but it's such a terrible movie! What do you mean, do I think the jokes were intentional? Of course! But the movie is just...so bad!"
I hear this argument against movies just about every week. Sure, I know zombie cinema isn't quite held up there with great epics like "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Spartacus," but what makes a movie genuinely bad? Anyone? Class? Okay, I'll even put it in caps and center-align it for you, so you can look it up when you have trouble remembering it:
A BAD MOVIE IS A MOVIE THAT FAILS TO DO WHAT IT SETS OUT TO DO.
That's probably not enough. I'll put it in bold, too.
A BAD MOVIE IS A MOVIE THAT FAILS TO DO WHAT IT SETS OUT TO DO.
Now, there are some arguments that run tangent with this one, such as the argument of The Fallacy of Intention, which states that no matter what we think, we cannot truly know what the filmmaker was intending to do with the film. We only know what comes along with the text itself, what actually occurs in the film itself. That's usually enough to help judge the quality of what's onscreen. If, say, Michael Keaton's "Mr. Mom" had started in the beginning to be a desert epic, and then accidentally settled into domestic role-reversal comedy, we can reasonably say that it was a pretty shitty desert epic. Or at least a movie with serious tonal problems.
If, say, "Return of the Living Dead" had funny parts that were funny, and gross parts that served the story as gross parts, then it's working. Period. Bad movies are movies that don't work. If "Return of the Living Dead" wasn't funny when it presented 'funny' parts, and the gross stuff wasn't really gross, then it would be a bad (or at least medicore) movie. I can say, then, with a great amount of conviction, that "Return of the Living Dead" is a good movie. It just happens to be a good zombie movie, sadly existing in a genre that's not very well-respected.
Now, after that refresher lesson, I will state: no movie is so bad it is good. It may be enjoyable because it's bad, but that does not make it good. Now, a lot of the time, people will apologize for a film's flaws by saying that 'it's so bad it's good' -- except they don't mean that. They usually mean that they really like it despite its weaknesses, they still enjoy the parts that work. I don't care how many times anyone watches "Moonlight and Valentino," it is not now and never will be enjoyed for the same reasons that people watch "House of the Dead" for.
Finally, in case you're wondering, I do take this pretty seriously. Why, you're asking -- it's only movies, after all!
I take it seriously because it's extremely disrespectful to judge something or someone based on standards that don't actually apply to them. It's disrespectful to degrade someone's work because you generalize, and arbitrarily group it with things that it doesn't belong with, in a way that's wholly unfair. It's disrespectful to confuse personal preferences with actual quality. For instance, I don't like pop music as a whole, but I know that there is pop music out there that is good pop music. And that's all it's trying to do. If pop music isn't pushing back the boundaries of acoustic endeavors, well, it doesn't much matter -- it's just supposed to be entertaining to listen to. I can't ask it to be more than that, but if it does turn out better, then everybody wins!
In conclusion, if anyone ever calls "Return of the Living Dead" a bad movie, then I will absolutely kill them if they even try to defend "The Last Unicorn."
If, say, "Return of the Living Dead" had funny parts that were funny, and gross parts that served the story as gross parts, then it's working. Period. Bad movies are movies that don't work. If "Return of the Living Dead" wasn't funny when it presented 'funny' parts, and the gross stuff wasn't really gross, then it would be a bad (or at least medicore) movie. I can say, then, with a great amount of conviction, that "Return of the Living Dead" is a good movie. It just happens to be a good zombie movie, sadly existing in a genre that's not very well-respected.
"This movie sucks! I can't believe you watched it more than once! The special effects are just terrible, and the actors seem like they stumbled in from an even worse movie! Okay, fine, I'll give you that -- it's got nice cinematography. And the colors are pretty."Sometimes I do watch movies that are bad. It's unfortunate. I seek out obscure films, hoping to find something a little special, and it's inevitable that they will not all hold up under intense scrutiny. Considering that I'm always watching movies, which is a considerable time and money-draining experience, I like to make the best of things. It's a lot like having relationships with actual people; sometimes you have to overlook their flaws, and focus on what's good about them. If I didn't do that, cinema would be my most-hated enemy, and I wouldn't have any friends. I will paraphrase three people to make my point, and all three are respected film critics and historians:
- The late Pauline Kael, of the New York Times:
"Movies are so rarely great art, that if you can't appreciate great trash, there's little reason for us to go." - Joel Simon, of the Buffalo News, in his review of a John Carpenter film:
"Unlike Spielberg, Carpenter couldn't cook Coq Au Vin on his best day -- but man, can he make a great greasy burrito!" - Joe Bob Briggs, world's foremost living drive-in movie critic from Grapevine, Texas: "I can find something to like about pretty much any movie, as long as it isn't boring."
"This movie is so bad it's good!"For the last time, some movies are bad! Some movies are good! If a movie works as a film, then it is good, regardless of what it's about, what genre it's in, or who's in it. Bad is bad! Good is good!
Now, after that refresher lesson, I will state: no movie is so bad it is good. It may be enjoyable because it's bad, but that does not make it good. Now, a lot of the time, people will apologize for a film's flaws by saying that 'it's so bad it's good' -- except they don't mean that. They usually mean that they really like it despite its weaknesses, they still enjoy the parts that work. I don't care how many times anyone watches "Moonlight and Valentino," it is not now and never will be enjoyed for the same reasons that people watch "House of the Dead" for.
Finally, in case you're wondering, I do take this pretty seriously. Why, you're asking -- it's only movies, after all!
I take it seriously because it's extremely disrespectful to judge something or someone based on standards that don't actually apply to them. It's disrespectful to degrade someone's work because you generalize, and arbitrarily group it with things that it doesn't belong with, in a way that's wholly unfair. It's disrespectful to confuse personal preferences with actual quality. For instance, I don't like pop music as a whole, but I know that there is pop music out there that is good pop music. And that's all it's trying to do. If pop music isn't pushing back the boundaries of acoustic endeavors, well, it doesn't much matter -- it's just supposed to be entertaining to listen to. I can't ask it to be more than that, but if it does turn out better, then everybody wins!
In conclusion, if anyone ever calls "Return of the Living Dead" a bad movie, then I will absolutely kill them if they even try to defend "The Last Unicorn."
sent by The Retropolitan at 1:48 PM
...1 RESPONDO-GRAMS:
In Defense of "it's so bad it's good"
The problem, like in so many arguments, is in determining the propopistion. Let us say that in the sentence "it's so bad it's good," the word "bad" is used to signify that the movie fails at achieving it's intented goals, and that "good" is used to signify that the movie did manage to entertain. We now know that the proposition might be: "the movie failed so much at achieving its intended goals that it was entertaining."
In such a case, the person uttering the word "bad" means by "bad" what you do in your argument against using the sentence in question, but is employing the word "good" to mean something different.
Now, it might be true that a person who says "it's so bad it's good" is making the proposition: the movie fails so much at achieving its intended goals that it managed to achieve all of its intended goals." But this proposition is so obviously contradictory that it is uninteresting. It might suit us better to apply the Principle of Charity in deciding what the person means. I also refer you to your own principle of asking "are we being fair to the movie?" when making the determination of which proposition a person intends when saying "it's so bad it's good."
Post a Comment
<< Home