THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A BAD MOVIE

While the title of this piece mentions movies, it really applies to any medium of expression. Artworks are not good or bad. They simply are what they are, and you have a personal, subjective reaction when exposed to them.

Unfortunately, many people look at art as something that must be judged, or (worse yet) understood. Endless standards have been raised and razed over the years, drawing lines in the sand to separate superior from inferior art. Standards don't last, but they can hurt people. Consider those who can't decide if they like something until they hear someone else's opinion. A lot of people would like art to be objective (so they wouldn't have to think about it?), but it's not. It's utterly subjective. Don't worry about what others say. Don't worry about whether it's in. Don't worry about getting it -- there's no great mystery. It's just an experience. Do you like it or dislike it? And bear in mind that even if you dislike it, it can still be a valid experience.

"So what are you saying?" asks the Devil's Advocate. "If it feels good, do it? That could lead to an uninformed, instant-gratification, knob-headed mass audience even more narrow-minded than the one we've got now."

Well, yeah. I guess it could. But that's not quite what I'm saying. I'm just suggesting a rejection of judgmental good/bad (which isn't valid anyway in an utterly subjective realm), replacing it with a subjective like/dislike. And examining your like/dislike reactions in an open-minded manner -- maybe even revising them on reflection. And again, dislike does not invalidate. Keep digging. Of course, our reactions are a lot richer and more complex than a simple like/dislike axis, but you can open that can of worms on your own, right?

Do I suggest the elimination of say, movie reviews? No way (too much entertainment value). Although there are a lot of chowder-brained critics out there, you can also find a lot of thoughtful, worthwhile critics. In either case, you have to bear in mind that it's just their individual reaction talking. Disagreement can lead to constructive thought. Sometimes a reviewer will slag away at a movie ferociously, from a viewpoint so clearly different from my own, that I wind up saying, "Gee. Sounds like a must-see." Heck, they're just trying to make a living.

It's so bad, it's good. I really hate that phrase. Besides my arguments against good/bad above, it just seems to me like a weasel-esque way of holding yourself above the art. Like, "Ha ha, that's amusing. I enjoy it because I'm cooler than it is." Take a hike. It all seems so insecure -- a sort of escape clause to avoid personal ridicule if anyone attacks the work in question. "Oh, of course it's horrible! I was just pretending I liked it. Sort of...kind of." No. If you like it, you like it. If you enjoy it, that's a good thing (good on the emotional level). Don't go hiding behind some sarcastic pose all the time. Don't live your life with a quasi-post-modern sneer. If a piece of art (in whatever medium) brings some fun into your life, open your heart and embrace it with gusto, damn it!

Let's consider the films of Ed Wood -- labeled as the king of so-called bad movies. The blockheads who brand Plan 9 From Outer Space the "worst film ever made" are obviously cruisin' for a bruisin' in my neighborhood. But even by their own constipated standards, they've obviously missed a lot of films much more deserving of the award. For example, in the 1930's, Hollywood ground out hundreds (thousands?) of tedious cowboy flicks with bleary cinematography, muffled sound, cheap sets, inane dialog and stuck-inna-rut plots (you should try to see some of them -- they are not without their charms). But getting back to Ed Wood, here's a few arguments in his favor.

Big Money Hollywood has controlled film language to such an extent that anything that fails to conform is perceived as wrong. No. It's just different. Unfortunately, the Big Hollywood stranglehold on film language may be even worse now. These days, more and more foreign films come off as simply Hollywood with an accent.

Given his extremely limited budgets, schedules and crews, it's a miracle that Wood's films were made at all. Given the same conditions, Spielberg would probably have a breakdown. And the wiseguys who laugh at Wood's one take 'n' hope for th' best shooting are forgetting that he was working with an extremely limited amount of raw film stock. He had to use a single take -- he didn't have enough film available to shoot more than one.

In music, we have long accepted that emotion and content can outweigh technical perfection. Why shouldn't that apply to films as well?

As in some Asian theater traditions, Wood's special effects are not necessarily realistic -- they are symbolic. Wood's films are more about content than the outer surface. Content-wise, the vaunted X-Files has nothing that Wood didn't imply decades ago in Plan 9. Besides, isn't the realism of imaginary objects a silly issue to complain about? Like a certain theme song said, "It's just a show. You should really just relax."

Unlike Big Hollywood, Ed Wood's films are unique personal statements. He should be recognized as a forefather to the independent film movement. If Ed had been French, he would be an art-house god.

Which reminds me -- I'm certain that Jean-Luc Godard must have seen Glen Or Glenda. Large chunks of his early style seem to be taken directly from this film. Contrary to what some say, Glen Or Glenda does not have a rambling or inane plot. It simply doesn't have a (conventional) plot. Why? Because it is an essay, and a rather personal one at that. It also has a very unique structure of interlaced framing devices. And his use of stock footage is not inept -- it's downright post-modern. So what if it all doesn't add up the way most movies do? It's not a carburetor. It's art. Just relax. (a carburetor can also be art, while at the same time conforming to the utterly objective demands of engineering and functional design -- but that's yet another can of worms)

To summarize, when we experience a piece of art, we all have a different experience. All equally valid. Here at OOK, we hope to share some of these experiences in an inquisitive, honestly subjective manner. Cripes, that sounded way too stuffy. Try this: We're gonna yak about kool stuff that we dig even if we ain't suppose'ta!

© 1997 M.Ace

Kulture Links:

Sorry, not much here for you. My amorphous main topic doesn't lend itself to specific web links.
Your best source on Ed Wood is not a link. It is Rudolph Grey's book, Nightmare Of Ecstasy: The Life and Art Of Edward D. Wood, Jr. Most decent bookstores seem to have it in stock -- if you don't want to leave the house, use amazon.com.
The Edward D. Wood, Jr. Homepage has a nice helping of information.
"Stupid Minds" is a concise defense of Mr. Wood.
Tout Va Bien and The Pantheon supply information and links on Jean-Luc Godard. Or join the JLG Discussion List.