I utterly fail to understand what nationality has to do with anything, though I suppose it's become the standard fall-back accusation for people who are evidently emotionally disturbed, or at least utilizing Internet forums to vent some sort of deep-seated frustration over their lives. Regardless, "pretentious" is definitionally *not* pejorative, as it merely means 'of or having pretense.' Calling something 'pretentious' implies it was executed with more, or with more obvious, thought and deliberation than something that isn't 'pretentious.' Of course, it is usually (incorrectly) used as a synonym for "pompous," which itself basically means 'to be archly pretentious in order to demonstrate personal superiority or preeminence.' 'Pompous' is pejorative. 'Pretentious' can go either way. I adore Tarkovsky and Kubrick, but also readily admit that they are extremely pretentious. So what? It works for their movies. Howard Hawks is a great example of a revered filmmaker who was almost studiously *not* pretentious. Again, that's perfect for his style. Contrarily, I myself detest Gaspar Noe's stuff, because I find it extremely pretentious and *also* dislike the form and intent of said pretenses. All of these things can (and are!) true, because 'pretentious' is *not* a qualitative concept.
Your rant is much appreciated, and is clearly setting a high example for "non yanks," but you should save your swagger for instances in which you have any idea what the heck you're talking about. Also, clever capitalization and schoolyard vitriol fool no one but yourself.
Anyhoo, the original post makes a good point --- personally I love Tarkovsky, dislike Bergman and am ambivalent to Tarr. Maybe we all group these guys together based on superficial or technical similarities (exquisite, slow-paced photography), when really they're far removed from each other by dint of basic intent. That is, Tarkovsky's basic predilection seemed to be for poetry, specifically for making film 'poetic,' and that kind of open-aired approach is something that resonates for me. I get more of a criticality to Bergman that eventually just suffocates me. And Tarr, well, after seeing his stuff and reading his interviews, I'm semi-convinced the guy is a certifiable depressive. As in, he should be on suicide watch. And his stuff is just stunningly wonderful, but it's also a head-space in which I don't particularly want to spend much time. So, for me, it's Tarkovsky's stuff that I rewatch. It would be insane to rank these filmmakers objectively (though, good grief, many have tried and will continue to do so with *authoritative certitude*); I think we can only notice what truly speaks to us individually, and realize that our psychological reactions to movies and styles goes deeper than shot-length or even subject matter.
reply
share
feodoric
10 years ago
The latter contribution to this thread/discussion by this fellow named flanger216 - and I hope that doesn't mean there are 215 more such "flangers" out there "flanging" similar delirious, incoherent ideas about the semantics of words they clearly know nothing about. Every once in a while, and especially here at IMdB, I happen to fall upon the ranting of one flanger or another in the middle of an otherwise interesting, potentially stimulating discussion on a subject I care about like thousands of readers who frequent this forum.
You want pretentious NOT to be pejorative? How can you imagine anybody in his/her right mind might understand a word you mean when you write amateurish, dumb and hallucinatory mumbo jumbo such as "Calling something 'pretentious' implies it was executed with more, or with more obvious, thought and deliberation than something that isn't 'pretentious.". Whhhhaaaaa-aaaaat ????? Look, I have nothing against you, I don't know you at all and I won't repeat it to your friends, if any, that I read this prose of yours at IMdB, but I do hope that your pseudonym is not something that could betray your actual identity, because.... Here's another good word for you, Mr. Aurae Calidae Saccus (search for it; to be sure you're getting it, I'm using Latin, which used to be the international language, the common currency that allowed honest me to communicate with each other a while ago...): You were saying that your correspondent was confounding “pretentious” (a non-pejorative attribute in your lexicon from hell) with “pompous” (something I’d swear fits you well in person!)? Try this instead: sententious ! Now, mix sententious + wrong = fallacious! I’d bet you’ll turn this one into something good too! If that’d be so: you’re probably too self-important to realize your arse is on backwards :-)
It's been a while (at least back to good ol' Danny Boy Quayle days) that I hadn't witnessed utterances made by as genuine a nincompoop as you, Sir Flanger my man! If it weren't so sad to see how crassly, persistently and deliberately ignorant one can remain despite having been provided with clear explanations by others previously in the thread about the actual meaning of pretentious and pretentiousness ..... I would laugh so hard it might hurt my maxillary muscles for weeks. But I have been said to be a fair judge of characters and I will enter a plea of innocence in your favor. Correct me if I’m wrong, but English is not your mother tongue (and then please don’t say anything about your mom, please!), right? The way I see things now, you had a fit about semantics for the simple reason that in your own first language (Albanian? Zulu?), the morpheme equivalent to pretentious(ness) is non-pejorative, and represents in fact a quality. Accordingly, you are proud to be pretentious, although I wish you knew how pathetic this really sounds in the mouth of someone speaking English...
You want to pretend you know your English? Learn the language first, Dan Quayle !!!!
P.S.: And thanks for providing the good laughs!
reply
share