Films Stupid People Think Are Clever

[Puce Moment]

Don't shoot the messenger, I know it's a horribly arrogant thread title. Shitty magazine Esquire have moved into the world of clickbait recently and have been posting stuff like this:

http://www.esquire.co.uk/culture/film-tv/7199/films-stupid-people-think-are-clever/

However, despite the patronising tone (say what you think clever people think are clever films, guys), I find it hard not to agree with some of the choices. Perhaps it should be 'films people think are more clever than they really are.' I find myself defending Haneke, Godard, Tarkovsky and Von Trier against charges of pretending to be clever, whilst at the same time having a begrudging belief that each definitely shat out some shite on the spur of the moment - except for Tarkovsky of course.

Anyway, in terms of thinking something is more clever than they really are, I would go for:

- To The Wonder
I'm not Malick agnostic, The Tree of Life all but brought me to my knees, but to me this film is empty - a middle-class deposition on faith and loss that gets lost in cinematography and forgets story (sorry Sam).

[garbed_attic]

To be fair, Esquire managed a pretty decent (if not obvious) list there to my reckoning.

I'd agree that most Haneke is intelligent, but I think that Funny Games is too ham-fisted, one-track and ultimately didactic to be truly intelligent and is just a pretty sneering piece of work.

Also, I think some people (certainly film academics) have a tendency to think that Lynch's films are more "clever" than they are... which isn't to say that he isn't often remarkable, but I think he's essentially a man of intuition and feeling (+ a seriously accomplished technician and sound man), rather than a person of great intellectual insight. I'm not convinced that his puzzle films tend to intellectual add up to much, but I'm also not convinced that this diminishes their brilliance.

[newbridge]

Vehemently dsagree, To the Wonder is amazing.

Godard is the king of overrated faux-cleverness.

[kittens]

requiem for a fuckin dream, is bullshit

[newbridge]

Also, since when is Wes Anderson smug and/or pretending to be overly clever? He has a trademark style, I don't understand why that leads people to hate him. There is very little that could be considered pretentious in his movies.

[Urinal Cake]

This thread should be renamed, 'Films Mundane People Think Are Art'. Intelligence has nothing to do with it.

I nominate most David Lynch films.

[Blumf]

Also, since when is Wes Anderson smug and/or pretending to be overly clever? He has a trademark style, I don't understand why that leads people to hate him. There is very little that could be considered pretentious in his movies.

I can see that people think he's got a line in forced tweeness that comes across as very smug and irritating. A lot of his stuff rubs me up the wrong way, but I've also enjoys some of his work too (Fantastic Mr. Fox for one). Certainly not in the 'idiots think i's clever' category, just a 'Marmite' thing.

I'll nominate Donnie Darko; dull and ultimately empty but so many people seem to think it's 'whoa' deep.

[Puce Moment]

Also, since when is Wes Anderson smug and/or pretending to be overly clever? He has a trademark style, I don't understand why that leads people to hate him. There is very little that could be considered pretentious in his movies.

Hmmmm, I half agree with you. I think mannered and arch would be a more charitable way to describe Anderson I think. Bottle Rocket is lovely, Rushmore is just brilliant, but everything leaves me cold at best, and pisses me off at worst. I find myself squirming in my seat when his trailers come on TV or at the cinema.

This thread should be renamed, 'Films Mundane People Think Are Art'. Intelligence has nothing to do with it.

I would have called it that had Esquire called it that, but that is less clickbaity. But your title is better - I wonder if Kieslowski would fit here? Or perhaps Hitchcock.

[Sir Rodney Ffing]

The majority of foreign language films on late night Channel 4.

Loved by trendy "So yeah, and I was like..." fuckers.

Most of these films are given a 4 or 5* rating, but this is clearly due to them being

A: Foreign

B: Arty,

and

C: The cunts that give them high ratings are trying to look cool, by liking foreign language films, and saying how good they are, cunts.

D: GROW UP!

E: STOP BEING SO INSECURE

F: YOU CAN BE HAPPY WITHOUT TRYING TO IMPRESS PEOPLE BY HOW CLEVER YOU ARE!

Ps 99% of these films are total shit, just like the English language ones.
I know this, due to having watched at least 3.

[Pepotamo1985]

Can't disagree with a single entry on that list - in fact, three of them immediately sprang to mind when I saw the thread title - but would add Drive.

Inception is a pretty major one. So much of the praise and adulation heaped on that overlong and uninspiring overblown action movie can only be the words of people who have seen zero intelligent cinema ever. As privileging and sneery as that sounds, it's true. Even Guy Ritchie's Revolver posed more challenging philosophical questions. And I say this as someone who likes both movies.

Fight Club similarly seems pretty mind blowing when you're 16, but it becomes a stylish and somewhat unique thriller when you lose your virginity.

American Beauty is a different ballgame, though. That movie is endorsed as somehow intellectual by people in their 30s and 40s.

[Pepotamo1985]

Bottle Rocket is lovely, Rushmore is just brilliant, but everything leaves me cold at best, and pisses me off at worst.

I'd add Royal Tenenbaums in there. Easily one of my favourite movies. It's one of the few films I've ever seen that manages to do the whole heartwarming thing without being remotely twee, is legitimately very funny, and has substance to it.

Apart from that, totally get you. Moonrise Kingdom was so awful that I gave up on Anderson entirely - not seen Budapest Hotel and never intend to.

[Urinal Cake]

I would have called it that had Esquire called it that, but that is less clickbaity. But your title is better - I wonder if Kieslowski would fit here? Or perhaps Hitchcock.

The first part is true but is it more clickbaity to be called 'stupid' or 'boring'? I'm guessing the second.

[Nobody Soup]

requiem for a fuckin dream, is bullshit

I agree, I think it's obviously pretty clever and cool looking with some great tricks but it's just anti-drug propaganda. I didn't give a solitary shit about the characters and I just think it's an unpleasantly depressing film.

[Phil_A]

To be fair, Esquire managed a pretty decent (if not obvious) list there to my reckoning.

I'd agree that most Haneke is intelligent, but I think that Funny Games is too ham-fisted, one-track and ultimately didactic to be truly intelligent and is just a pretty sneering piece of work.

Also, I think some people (certainly film academics) have a tendency to think that Lynch's films are more "clever" than they are... which isn't to say that he isn't often remarkable, but I think he's essentially a man of intuition and feeling (+ a seriously accomplished technician and sound man), rather than a person of great intellectual insight. I'm not convinced that his puzzle films tend to intellectual add up to much, but I'm also not convinced that this diminishes their brilliance.

I've always suspected the opening scene of Fire Walk With Me(with the absurdly oblique series of "clues" that Cole relays to Chester Desmond) might be a subtle dig at those who spend their time attempting to extract hidden or symbolic meaning from Lynch's films. I have enjoyed reading theories and analysis of his work before now, but like you said, I think the temptation among academic types is often to see much more depth there than he has consciously included.

[Mister Six]

I'll nominate Donnie Darko; dull and ultimately empty but so many people seem to think it's 'whoa' deep.

I love Donnie Darko. I think it's a beautiful, mesmerising film. But it's also the same kind of chance, circumstantial beauty as sunset rays glinting off a surprise snowfall rather than something created with intent, as the director's cut and Southland Tales both confirmed.[nb]Though I kind of liked Southland Tales too, even if it is a mess.[/nb]

[newbridge]

I wonder if Kieslowski would fit here? Or perhaps Hitchcock.

Please justify how those are not in every respect two of the greatest directors of all time.

As for Anderson, I've enjoyed every movie he's made, but I can understand that he's not to some people's taste. But I still don't think he's trying to be clever or that his aesthetic comes across as smug. Tarantino is an example of a horrible, smug idiot who tries to put "clever" things in his movies to make people think he's not an uneducated louse.[nb]I'm prepared to accept being in the minority on here in thinking Tarantino is horrible.[/nb] In contrast, Wes Anderson just seems to have an idiosyncratic not-quite-reality visual aesthetic in all of his movies.

[Puce Moment]

Please justify how those are not in every respect two of the greatest directors of all time.

In every respect? Really? Well, I'm thinking of the Three Colours Trilogy which I find his weakest work, but which certain people laud as quality, intelligent world cinema, without necessarily having seen The Double Life of Veronique, The Dekalog, or his early shorts. You know - "Dracula's what?" It's a shorthand for world cinema, alongside Betty Blue, La Haine and A Bout de Souffle.

Regarding Hitchcock, this from the The Cinema of Alfred Hitchcock' thread (which reads rather similarly to my views on Fincher):

I think Hitchcock is over-rated, purely because I think some of his production and cinematography choices are schlocky, and I don't think he was especially good at getting the best performances out of some of his actors. I think that by the end of the 60s his style of filmmaking was quite dated, and this is reflected in the often hysterical and unsubtle decisions he makes with regard to story and direction.

Having said that, if I actually consider his films it is hard not to be impressed by some of his output. Despite it's clunky editing, I can see why Vertigo is so beloved as it ratchets up tension extremely well. Rope and Rear Window do claustrophobic, arse-clenching moments better than almost any other film, and Psycho is really quite brilliant (his masterpiece in my opinion). But for me that is where it ends - I will say this, he knew how to choose source material and he knew which screenwriters to hire.

[Noodle Lizard]

Most of Darren Aronofsky's films, to be honest, even though I like some of them.  Black Swan is the worst culprit, but thankfully it didn't last too long.

Inception.  Jesus Christ.  There are people who think The Dark Knight trilogy is a lot more profound than it is too.

Shutter Island.  I don't know if people think it's "clever" necessarily, but it gets far more praise than it should.  Total shitshow.

Waking Life.  I like it quite a lot, but it doesn't half attract some mentally dull stoner types.

I'll agree with Donnie Darko, though I like that film a lot too.  Total one-off by Richard Kelly, though, as The Box is one of the most laughably shit films I've ever seen.

[Noodle Lizard]

Can't disagree with a single entry on that list - in fact, three of them immediately sprang to mind when I saw the thread title - but would add Drive.

Yes, absolutely.  I'd probably like that movie more if it weren't for everyone (including its director) raving about how sophisticated it was.  Nicholas Winding Refn is probably the most frustrating filmmaker in this regard, he can make great stuff like Valhalla Rising and Bronson (still haven't seen Pusher), but then tops it off with Drive and the piss-awful Only God Forgives.

[Retinend]

As for Anderson, I've enjoyed every movie he's made, but I can understand that he's not to some people's taste. But I still don't think he's trying to be clever or that his aesthetic comes across as smug. Tarantino is an example of a horrible, smug idiot who tries to put "clever" things in his movies to make people think he's not an uneducated louse. In contrast, Wes Anderson just seems to have an idiosyncratic not-quite-reality visual aesthetic in all of his movies.

It's not relevant to his skills as a filmmaker to call him "uneducated." But it's exactly right. Becuase of his autodidacticism, his tastes in film are not shaped by the liberal cine intelligentsia, who enjoy the films of autors like French New Wave, Werner Herzog, David Lynch and similarly cerebral contemporary filmmakers[nb]nothing against these[/nb] . His tastes are shaped by exploring the bowels of video rental shops, watching kung fu films, exploitation films, war films and westerns. Films about movement and action and consequences. His aesthetic is non-intellectual, that is, non-aligned with the aesthetic touchstones that "intellectual" designates[nb]Cormac McCarthy comes to mind as a literary analogue to Tarantino in this way[/nb], but of course this is different to him being an idiot or him not being intelligent in the way he makes his films.

And I think the only way of confirming the latter is to ask what some film does to provoke a potentially open-ended and interesting train of thought, amongst the infinitely many possible trains of thought available... most people would take an "intelligent" film to look like "Funny Games" and to make us think abstractly about issues, but a film could also have characters which provoke a thoughtful reflection about similar types of people in the world. I think "Requiem for a Dream" is a good example of a pretentious film because there it doesn't provoke any discussion of the issues; taken at face value, it's a morality tale, and most broadly taken, it's a parable. Neither do its characters provoke any reflection on type of people in the world, expect to pity them. We can start spinning the parable into different spheres of life by naming "symbols" and creating symbolisms, but this is ultimately arbitrary and more a reflection of the critic's own preoccupations than of  the skill of the  film team.

By this criteria I do think Wes Anderson films are a little pretentious, because they have the gloss of high drama but the characters are, I find, actually difficult to relate to real people. Admittedly, this might also be true of Kill Bill, but not the others.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Inception
The Dark Knight
The Matrix Trilogy
Gone Girl
13 (Tsiameti)
Side Effects
Now You See Me
The Sixth Sense

[kittens]

no one thinks the matrix is smart do they? i did when i first saw it but i was a little boy

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Sorry, forgot to include Fight Club and to a lesser extent American Beauty.

[garbed_attic]

It's not relevant to his skills as a filmmaker to call him "uneducated." But it's exactly right. Becuase of his autodidacticism, his tastes in film are not shaped by the liberal cine intelligentsia, who enjoy the films of autors like French New Wave, Werner Herzog, David Lynch and similarly cerebral contemporary filmmakers[nb]nothing against these[/nb] .

Incredibly on-point with your post and a sterling defence of Anderson (I find his films infectiously enjoyable, even though I feel like I shouldn't enjoy rich white people havin' fun as much as I do).

But I'd disagree that Herzog is a cerebral filmmaker... or Lynch, for that matter.

I think they're just mistaken for cerebral filmmakers because they're both pretty smart. But really I think their pleasures are visceral and intuitive. It makes a lot of sense to me that Herzog can't stand Godard's cinema, for example.

[Retinend]

Thanks for the compliment. Though I was actually responding to the comment that Tarantino is an "uneducated louse," and defending him, not Anderson. That said, Anderson also stands apart as an intelligent film maker who doesn't fit the standard "cerebral" style of the cinephile intelligentsia... though here's another misunderstanding.

I see what you mean about Herzog and Lynch, though I don't take the word "cerebral" to mean what you do. I hear people use it to describe the musical style of weird american indie groups, for example, which has no "intellectual" content in the literal sense.

To me the word is a synonym for cryptic, off-kilter, trippy, anti-mainstream or detached and ironic. You could also say that they appeal, as an aesthetic choice, to the intellect over and above the default mode of appealing to the emotions (e.g. the big "audience moments" of Spielberg and Tarantino films, vs the unnerving and difficult-to-pin-down images of Herzog and Lynch).

Though by saying that they're cerebral, I'm not meaning to say that they aren't also poetic and evocative... Herzog and Lynch definitely are.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Meh, I think Inception is a pretty clever film. I find Gaspar Noe's films moderately enjoyable but they're not clever, they're just one hackneyed idea stretched out over 2+ hours with some "shock" bits put in to stop people falling asleep.

[samadriel]

No!  Inception is balls!  BALLS!  Wobbling spinning-top my arse!

[El Unicornio, mang]

No!  Inception is balls!  BALLS!  Wobbling spinning-top my arse!

It's not Nolan's fault it went over your head! *runs away*

[Puce Moment]

Yeah, it's shit. Soz. I tried watching it again recently and had forgotten how bad the fucking acting is.

[Pepotamo1985]

Joseph Gordon Levitt's character always makes me laugh, too. The only reason he's in the film is to explain the plot before it happens, as its happening, and after its happened to other characters [nb]who are constantly asking what's going on, even when it's been explained to them already[/nb]. He serves literally no other purpose - and the ludicrously over-dramatic intonation he employs to sell how important and significant certain concepts are borders on parody.

Another thing that gets me about Inception is how uninspiring the dreamscapes are. No flying, lazer guns or time travel or alien planets or fucking or anything remotely interesting, oh no.