re: Jeff's post

Jeff - My reaction wasn't really to your post to be honest, and I wasn't writing you off as anything, I'm sorry if it came across that way. The reason I'm saying the conversation gets ended is that it feels like instead of actually entertaining what I'm saying and maybe thinking, "that might be an interesting point about this one individual film," or, "that's a different way to think about things than I do," or, "yeah, ok, maybe that might be worth considering for half a second even if I don't agree with it, I see what you're saying but here's what I'm thinking it might be instead," the response is "this is why you're wrong and this is the right answer and here is all the literary and historical and film criticism proof to shut you up." Some of my friends "discuss" things this way too, and it also tends to happen with superfans of a director. It's just that telling me all the reasons why I'm wrong and you're right and will always be right isn't what I mean by a discussion of the issues. Arguing that if I took film seriously enough I would this or that, it's just not what I mean by discussing something, it just leaves me feeling cut down. I know I'm just overly sensitive, I'm sorry. But that's why I say you can't have a discussion with superfans about it, because their response is set up such that all I can say in response is "okayyyyy.... I guess I'm an idiot, sorry." I had a positive response to Brandon's post because he was like, I liked this film but hey Lisa might have a point, but either way here's what was good and bad for me about this film. I felt like it was a response that granted the premise of what I was saying and respectfully disagreed (and agreed) without attacking. Seriously my reaction was not to your post Jeff, I had planned what I was going to write in response to your initial response, but then John's came in soon after and like I said earlier John got my Irish up. Haha. If you remember correctly in my original post I actually complimented both of your original posts about the film, I didn't think you guys were oozing over it just because you like Malick, I felt like your defenses of the film were commendable. Along with all the good things I had said about the film which have been long lost here :) what I said was that my personal beef with movies like this is with superfans in general who aren't looking at the film individually, and that I have issues with the philosophy behind that in general, and I was a bit confused by the intention behind the use and then non-use of narrative, and I thought lack of accessibility was an issue worth discussing, and what I challenged from your posts was that I didn't understand what you guys meant by important because that seems like something people just SAY and I wanted to know why you would say that. And then I was told why I was wrong. And I still pushed to get to the discussion about accessibility and then got told why I was wrong, with helpful metaphors about Beethoven and TS Eliot and whatever. I mean, I get it, this is why I'm wrong, I totally hear what you guys are saying, it's just hard for me to relate to the style of debate here, I can't engage in it, I feel like I'm being scolded and told what's right and what's wrong and that's IT. That's just not how I see things. John said, "he's not stupid, he's wrong." Well, okay... but there's nowhere for the other person to go from there. There's no granting of a premise. There's no conversation, it's a lecture. It's black and white, absolute. It's limiting, it ends the conversation. And that's fine, you guys know way more than me, and you ARE right. I just don't know where to go from there. I mean when I discuss something like this with my sister or my friends or whatever, the reaction is, "hmm okay that's interesting, that's not how I see it but I think that makes sense and here's how we differ," or, "that's a good point actually, ok so if we go with that then maybe it's like this..." or, "I'm not sure I'm on board with that, do you think maybe.." or "I hear that, but maybe this is something that will change your mind." That's why I'm saying the conversation gets shut down, it's not that someone is defending the issue, it's the way the defending is happening. It shuts the other person down. Unless they're a master debater I guess, which I am not. Or less sensitive than I am I guess, that's a personal flaw. I know I don't know what I'm talking about, but if anything I'm saying is interesting at all, just telling me why I'm wrong about it doesn't make sense to me. This is all just my opinion. I think it's probably just a personality difference. It's a common style of argument, but I just don't respond well to it. Seriously I don't care who loves what film, I really couldn't care less. If you loved the movie and I didn't, that's awesome, I don't think that makes you pretentious. (That wasn't what I was saying.) You can like whatever films you want. But on the flip side if I question one film from an important director, I'm not taking film seriously or willing to challenge myself, and that's the way it is, period. That was where my reaction came from, I felt attacked by the style of debate instead of engaged. My issue with pretension has to do with the tendency of snobby film critics to discount accessibility as an issue worth discussing. The same thing happens in theater. It bugs me. Brandon gave a way better explanation of it than I ever could. But anyway that's all I was saying about that, I wasn't saying you guys were pretentious for liking the movie, I don't care about that, seriously. I think I've been unclear throughout my posts but seriously I don't know how to clear it up, I'm sorry. I'm just not good enough at articulating what I'm trying to say, and I'm not enough of a match for you guys to engage in that style of debate. It's totally unnatural to me, and I get overwhelmed and just don't have the backup for it on my end because that's not even the way I'm thinking or the way I'm trying to discuss something or half the time even what I'm trying to discuss. I think I'm probably just not smart enough and don't really know what I'm talking about. And at this point I'm so sick of losing sleep over it that I'm just ready to concede the whole damn thing. You guys are right, I'm wrong, and believe me I definitely don't know what I'm talking about, I never should have questioned this stuff. Just forget everything I said, erase it from your brains. I hope I didn't hurt anyone's feelings, I'm sure I didn't mean anything I said, and if I seemed more pleased with one person's post over another, I was probably just lacking sleep and coherency. I probably don't even take film seriously enough to be still debating this!

Please god someone else go see this movie, my turn on the cutting board has to be up! Pretty soon I might just jump in the gorges myself instead of letting you guys throw me in there. The New World is getting moved wayyyyyy down in my queue.

Brandon: I am letting you debate for me from now on. You said exactly what I was trying to say way better than I could. I especially liked the Barnes and Noble anecdote. That's how it was in my master's program too, and it really irritated me. Anyway, just what I was trying to get at, said in a much better way. Thanks for putting it clearly to aid my ambiguous blather.

Ben: That's a horrible story. I hope the man is okay. :( Sorry you had to go through that. Those kinds of experiences always put things in perspective for me. I would probably still be crying. :-/

Okay anyway, I'm gonna go pop open a wine cooler and eat some candy. Later haters. ;)