I like slow films. It doesn't always work, though.

I agree.

On a related note to what I've been saying, applied specifically to questions of the pacing in The Tree of Life, I think people are really too quick to read vast and implausible universal principles into the very particular, local reasons people give. Thinking that the pacing of The Tree of Life was too slow does not amount to a condemnation of slow paces in general. Whether or not the pace of a given film is appropriate depends upon all the other, unique features of that film: what it aims to say, how it goes about saying it, what details it requires that you be sensitive to, how that pacing impacts the way those details affect you and relate to each other, etc., etc. You really can't generalize from a "principle" invoked to react to one film to any other films—it might be a principle that is legitimate only for that one film, because of the various features of that film.

<3

What you had a problem with. He had no problem with it. He isn't subject to your approval, and your approval is not objective truth.



Yes, he isn't wrong. That's what I'm saying.



Maybe he's not setting limits for himself so much as that the limit is set by his general lack of enjoying movies. I'm not interested in ballet. If there was a ballet about hot women taking their clothes off, and I enjoyed it for the hot women and nothing else, it doesn't mean that I'm limiting myself. It means that I have no interest in the art of ballet.

Taste is perspective. Saying that someone has bad taste is judging it by your perspective, not by objective truth. Saying that his taste in movies is limited is true, but saying that's bad is judging it by perspective. He might say that his tastes are refined.



Of course you are. You have an opinion, too. You can't say that you hold the truth of the matter and he doesn't, though. You see it your way, and he sees it his. Both of you are right in that both of you are accurately presenting your opinion on the movie.




I actually do believe in objective morality, using my definition of objectivity, but I can't prove that it exists, let alone what it entails. It certainly isn't what ultimately drives us as subjective beings. People follow their own subjective consciences, which are very often not in line with each other. If you could somehow prove beyond any doubt that rape was objectively the moral thing to do, I would reject objective morality, because raping people is not something I'm willing to do. If you could prove that it was objectively immoral, rapists wouldn't stop. You can try to appeal to a person's conscience, but that only works to the extent that they have one that tells them not to rape. Otherwise you have to focus on their sense of self-preservation.



I saw comments that something can be objective and subjective at the same time, and I saw comments about how you're calling the reasons objective rather than the overall opinion, but I didn't see any explanation of what it means to be objective. If you're saying that it's a universal truth that a given reason for liking a movie is good or bad...that's splitting hairs. You're still claiming knowledge of something beyond your perception without evidence, when you have no basis for even presuming it exists. At least with morality we can question why it is that we have a sense of right and wrong, but value in a movie is self-explanatory. We individually place value on our reasons for liking a movie because they make the experience of watching it more rewarding. There doesn't need to be any more than that.

If you're defining objectivity some other way, you should give -- not say you already did, but give now -- a clear, concise definition of what it is to be objectively good.

Even if you defined pettiness in such a way that it was inherently true that a person is petty for watching movies just for hot girls, that doesn't make it an identifiable objective fact that "pettiness" is wrong. If it was a reflection of their overall world view, I would call it hedonism, and hedonism is a perspective. Hedonists don't answer to you. You are not the arbiter of their truth. If you insult them, you're insulting them from your perspective, and they might insult you from their perspective right back. My perspective is that people should like whatever movies they like, respect what other people like, and enjoy the discourse rather than trying to dictate terms or assuming they know anything about another person based on their interests in movies, music, etc.

I'm going to respond in the philosophy discussion thread so that this thread can return to its intended purpose.

Sure, I only made that post because criticizing the slowness of "The Tree of Life" was absolutely contrary to my own impression of the film. There are also films that I would probably enjoy more if they weren't as slow as they are.

Harry?

Uh, oh. Pnoom's not gonna like that.

Yeah Pnoom you hit the nail on the head here. I thought the pacing of The Tree of Life fit neatly into its thematic purpose(s).

still kinda boring though

Lime.

What I'm saying is his opinion changed, but that doesn't mean it was moving toward a more accurate reflection on how the movie pertains to him. He was getting older. Granted, I think Hoffman's character was obnoxious as hell, but relating to the youthful indiscretion side because you're young isn't wrong.

[/quote]

Ebert's quote has nothing to do with his value judgment of the film. It actually has no bearing on our discussion. All he is saying is that now with his age he sympathizes more with another character. That in no way impacts his evaluation of the film itself.

The rest of this is a bunch of nonsense (particularly the taco analogy).

The last sequence really kind of drags (although I can sort of see why he did it that way). Really though I need to watch it again.

If you've ever wanted to see Tarkovsky do a police procedural movie, look no further than Ceylan's Once Upon a Time in Anatolia. It's basically No Country For Old Men meets Stalker by way of 90's Kiarostami and with absolutely stunning night cinematography to top it off. Excellent, excellent film.

Fucking YES. Ceylan's best, from what I've seen (Climates and Three Monkeys being the others).

Also, finally someone else who detected the NCFOM vibes going on in this movie. The comparisons with Kiarostami are also very apparent. If you want to watch a movie that has a very similar landscape fetish and also starts out with a shot of a car driving past a lonely tree, watch Zvyagintsev's The Banishment. It's his best (and imo his only truly great) film. An immensely talented filmmaker but one who's not quite as poetic in his cinema as his masters.