I think Ahriman is definitly RIGHT.
Well, except for all the parts where he's completely wrong, like here:
you categorized me so I tell you in my turn that I suspect you are type of audience who says any Hollywood production is trivial, any foreign movie is wonderful and anything Iranian is masterpiece. It is in your head and becomes your identity and you don’t want to use you brain when you watch a movie (just the country of production is important/ more exotic better).
We're going to ignore the irony of Ahriman condemning someone for "categorizing" him and then proceeding to engage in "categorizing" and stereotyping of his own. No, the bigger problem is that no such audience as what he describes exists, except in his head. It's one of the favorite tactics of the intellectually deficient: If they don't like a film that lots of other people like, they look for something that makes that film "unique" (it's silent, it uses non-professional actors, it's by a canonical director, it's foreign, etc.) and then claim that the only reason anyone claims to like the film is because of that "unique" aspect. That is to say, in their muddled heads anyone who comes to a different conclusion about a film is obviously less objective because they're blinded by its lack of sound/style of acting/the prestige of its director/its foreignness/etc.
Of course, if the people who made such claims had brains to think and would simply ask they would quickly realize that those same people could name foreign films they don't like (I could name hundreds, personally,) films by certain prestigious directors that they don't like (ditto,) silent films they don't like, acclaimed classics they don't like (ditto,) etc. Ahriman is attacking a straw man because it makes him feel better about his inadequacies as a film viewer. He's too arrogant to accept the fact that people who come to vastly different conclusions about a film than he does are generally, in fact, thinking just about it just as much as he does (probably more so) and viewing it just as "objectively." It's not that they think "any foreign film is wonderful" and thus rate all foreign films accordingly (I'm going to give a 99.99% probability rating that nobody, anywhere, thinks that), rather it's that they reacted to the film differently than he did. It's as simple as that.
And, before I get accused of something, it needs to made clear that I have absolutely no problem with people disliking this film (though I consider it a masterpiece) - Ahriman can think that it's a terrible film all he wants, and I would respect that. However, when he moves into the realm of judging the validity of other peoples opinions - as he does when he makes statements like the above quoted - he loses. He's not wrong to dislike the movie, but when he starts trying to invalidate other peoples opinions and claiming they have some ulterior motive or bias he will
always be wrong. In other words, I only bother to respond to his stink bomb in this otherwise fairly intelligent conversation because there are few dumber movie debate tactics - few more intellectually vapid and dishonest and arrogant - than the "you only liked the film because it's foreign/old/acclaimed/whatnot" "argument."
I suppose on a clear day you can see the class struggle from here
reply
share
casio_balboa
12 years ago
Germanesque, your sulky, lengthy troll response does more to prove Ahriman's point than Ahirman's own words.
P.S. 'Crimson Gold' is indeed a subtle film that, at least for me, lingered in my thoughts for days afterwards. I found the scene with the police waiting outside the party to be particularly memorable and easily one of my favourites from the past decade of cinema.
reply
share