1. You are not alone, Christopher. Love your commentary on the subject!

Posted at 5:22PM on Aug 5th 2008 by kevin

2. I don't compete with my film knowledge with my friends, most likely because I have an encyclopedic understanding of cinema and I don't like making others feel trite because they haven't sat their ass in front of a TV as often as I have. However, I actually make films for a living so I'm more interested in the process of telling stories, creating solutions and understanding the craft.

What gets me are the cinephiles who have no understanding what-so-ever of what it takes to make a movie but yet they project their wisdom as if they understand filmmaking. I also don't like cinephiles who are mouthpieces for the studio's (like aintitcool.com) - That's obnoxious.

Posted at 5:35PM on Aug 5th 2008 by flowers

3. I read the Boardwell post and thought he was being sarcastic. I could totally see a 'Comic book guy' saying the same exact things except with underground comix or Star Trek episodes.

Posted at 9:06PM on Aug 5th 2008 by Sergio

4. I love playing movie games. I usually play the same one you do, the movie-actor-movie thing. Six Degrees is always fun, too, though we usually try not to use Kevin Bacon.

Posted at 12:19AM on Aug 6th 2008 by Randall

5. I think Bordwell's post is just on large agreement with you, although he'd be one of the best players of that game around. I wouldn't be half bad at it either, but I don't play that game. Why? Well, those strategies aren't really the point of watching the movie. That's just one-upsmanship, which is a fundamental part of why a lot of people are attracted to critical and academic fields, but not really the point of either.

While I don't think that the article is laying down a gauntlet or anything like that, it's pointing out how artificial and strategic these strategies are - they're about winning and nothing else. If you can't beat him one way, try another tactic. No real discussion or appreciation involved. If you have standby responses, you aren't really engaging.

Now, why the post is worthwhile: first, because all of us engage to some degree or other in this sort of behavior. If not the intellectual oneupsmanship (who has the time?), then in some sense of satisfaction at having watched a lot, or since way back, or deeply, or something similar. We do want to have some sort of unique relationship with the art that works for us, and we do by virtue of it working for us, but it's not as quantifiable as 'I was into Wong Kar-Wai since As Tears Go By.' Second, because, as Bordwell points out at the end, critics are especially guilty of this.

It's not really their fault. They've seen so many movies, and they have to pull together an apparatus for disposing of them or live the hell of dealing with each on its own terms. So we have 'It's a shallow imitation of his earlier work' or 'It aspires to Altman but lacks his humanism' or 'It has a shaky camera like so many other movies these days do' - this might all be true, but it's often just a way of staying superior to the film. Bordwell really wants a criticism and cinephilia that isn't. So do I. So, I think, do you.

So it's worth keeping track of the games cinephiles play, because they are so rampant that a lot of people don't realize it, and because you're probably one of those people.

And if you're not, well, you're probably watching the movies with your eyes and not your mouth, and that's a good thing.

Posted at 12:49AM on Aug 6th 2008 by PST

6. When I was in film school my friends would play the game you mentioned, start with an actor name a movie they were in, the next person names another actor in the film and a different movie that actor was in, and so on. If you got stuck or repeated an already named chain-link, you lost.

We never tried to stump each other or win. We wanted the chain links to go on as long as possible, so we'd usually go for "easy" choices. But inevitably one of us would get stuck on Tom Skerrit. It happened so often that eventually "SKERRIT!" became an exclamation of seething anger akin to "Newman!" from Seinfeld.

Posted at 7:56AM on Aug 7th 2008 by Andrew

7. Chris, what you've got to realise is that to film maniacs it is their life and their entire life.
I consider myself a cinephile as I love movies, 90% of my friends love film, talking about film and everything else inbetween. I freely admit my taste is just an opinion (Love Seagal & Powell/Pressburger...theres a weird combo for ya) but when it comes to internet blogging or reviewing these net nerds seem to grow a pair and talk down to you from up on high.
It used to get on my tits but then I realised that these people need a little victory as it's the only thing in their lives they excel in.

Let em have that moment of superiority I say

Posted at 8:08AM on Aug 7th 2008 by Gabriel Cash

8. And having just read the referenced blog, it's gotta be satirical.

"And remember that you can always change the subject to sports or rock and roll. No one-upsmanship in those domains!"

The sad thing is that I've known quite a few Jules and Jims in my life. Self professed "experts" on film who, without exception, will discard their opinions when they aren't populist (or in many cases, against the grain) or they get schooled by someone who actually knows what they are talking about and believe what they say (since the Jules and Jims rarely actually believe the nonsense they spew.)

They aren't "lovers of film", they're just narcissists who LIKE film and need to feel superior. In other words, FILM SNOBS.

Posted at 8:17AM on Aug 7th 2008 by Andrew

9. Nice article man. I consider myself a film buff but I do have a life outside of them and I like to be able to discuss/enjoy them with my friends who don't watch as many.

As Andrew said, I think the phrase is 'film snobs'. I love talking about films, but I can't see how any person would derive pleasure over talking about things that the average person wouldn't care about. Either this writers friends are all film buffs or it's something entirely different, and perhaps worse, altogether.

"What I don't do is take any pleasure in what Bordwell labels "breadth", "longevity" or "depth" strategies. After all, loving movies and the "idea of film" is not a competition. It's a celebration."

That sums it all up. Nicely done.

Posted at 9:17AM on Aug 7th 2008 by Dylan T

10. I lost all respect for Bordwell as a "cinephile" when in one of his books he says that "Do the Right Thing" takes place in Harlem. He could know every single shot of every movie for the last 100 years but not knowing where one of the most controversial and great movies of 80's takes place and assuming it's Harlem, no chance. And it was just a little blurb about it too but that did it for me.

I love movie trivia and games and that's what the movies should be about. Quoting great lines with friends, trying to re-enact scenes, testing knowledge (Example: on what day did forrest gump end his runs across the country if he left the day after he asked Jenny to Marry him). Information like that actually helps understand characters, stories and scripts better and makes for better movies. It shouldn't be about breaking down shot composition ad nauseum. Because I could say something completely different about a shot or color scheme and why it's there and my opinion would be just as valid. Tarantino once said, and I'm paraphrasing, "I never went to film school, I went to films, I worked in a video store and watched movies and I make movies because I love them". While I don't always love his movies I can appreciate what he is doing and how he goes about it. And that's why Bordwell writes about movies and Tarantino makes them.

Posted at 1:46AM on Aug 8th 2008 by Mark

11. The one game I play with my cinephile friends is this: we watch a movie and try to quote it immediately before or as a character says the line. This only works with two things: very popular movies we've seen a million times (Indiana Jones, Batman, Star Wars and, of course, Surf Ninjas) and beer. Usually I play this with a friend at the video store where I work and it has nothing to do with this conversation.

What DOES: it seems to me that part of playing these games IS showing off your knowledge. I don't necessarily play games like that, but I do get in conversations that are like competitions, where a friend and I end up naming a bunch of movies to see if the other has seen it. Part of this is just to prove who "gets" Herzog better, but most of my "films to watch" list comes from these conversations. The great films I watch are a direct result of me and my friends acting like snobs. So don't knock snobbery too much, man, it has its upsides.

Posted at 3:02AM on Aug 8th 2008 by Pat

12. I kind of made up (I think) this driving game called the "one-word movie game". You had to get someone else to think of a movie with just one word, almost always a fragment of dialogue but sometimes a memorable prop. The rules were loose, sometimes proper names were okay but not character names (so, no "STELLA" or "ADRIAN"). The fun part was thinking up the movie/word combinations.

Some examples:

Rosebud -- which could be the game's name
badges
plastics
napalm
Wapner
cropduster
Royale


Sometimes, a word out of context didn't work so well:

"communicate" or "failure" didn't suggest ....

Posted at 10:09AM on Aug 11th 2008 by richard