The Merits of a Movie Buff

[dot80]

I personally have always been interested in movies, and found the entire medium to be entertaining and moving. Recently my English class started a film unit and it brought to my attention the merit and importance of movies. Now whenever i am watching a movie i am always aware of the cinematogrophy techniques being used (of course my knowledge of these is very limited) and of the themes and symbols present in the plot.

This brings me to my reason for posting, what exactly would you say is required to be a "movie buff"? I think everyone would agree that to be a movie buff one atleast needs to have a running knowledge of universally accepted classics and of most current movies. But what else would you think they would need? While i dont feel to be called a movie buff one needs to expertly know all the techniques used in film, i think they should have a general knowledge of these. In addition a general knowledge of film history, and influential directors/actors is needed to be able to correctly judge new movies. These last two qualities would be the main factors differentiating a movie buff with a movie goer. The later just having the average liking for movies, while the former being wholeheartedly interested in film as a medium. Movie Buffs also would judge a film not only for its ability to move an audience, but also for its themes/symbols/techniques present in the movie. So what do you think?

 

[Tahuti]

A movie buff is a hardcore variant on a movie goer. A movie goer loves to watch movies, a movie buff watches a movie almost every day.

I would use the term "film connoisseur" to describe your definition of movie buff. Not all movie buffs are connoisseurs, and vice versa: A movie buff is defined by watching a very huge amount of films on average, while connoisseurs are defined by their attention for detail when watching and their knowledge about film in general.

 

[Glassfan]

I personally have always been interested in movies, and found the entire medium to be entertaining and moving. Recently my English class started a film unit and it brought to my attention the merit and importance of movies. Now whenever i am watching a movie i am always aware of the cinematogrophy techniques being used (of course my knowledge of these is very limited) and of the themes and symbols present in the plot.

This brings me to my reason for posting, what exactly would you say is required to be a "movie buff"? I think everyone would agree that to be a movie buff one atleast needs to have a running knowledge of universally accepted classics and of most current movies. But what else would you think they would need? While i dont feel to be called a movie buff one needs to expertly know all the techniques used in film, i think they should have a general knowledge of these. In addition a general knowledge of film history, and influential directors/actors is needed to be able to correctly judge new movies. These last two qualities would be the main factors differentiating a movie buff with a movie goer. The later just having the average liking for movies, while the former being wholeheartedly interested in film as a medium. Movie Buffs also would judge a film not only for its ability to move an audience, but also for its themes/symbols/techniques present in the movie. So what do you think?

I think you've got a fairly-well thought out philosophy here. IMOH, I would think a movie buff, like myself, is just an amateur movie critic - who's job is to judge the films and inform the public (like a journalist). I agree with Keiserguy, connoisseur is another good phrase to describe a dedicated amateur. But movie critic is an actual job, working in media like a weatherman or sports reporter, using his talents and knowledge to inform the public.

Just in passing, I've begun focusing on international remakes in my DVD collection; like Seven Samurai - The Magnificent Seven - The Thirteenth Warrior; or, Yojimbo - A Fistful of Dollars - Last Man Standing. I like to compare the different styles, characters and directorial techniques.

 

[dot80]

Hmm that is an interesting take on it Kaiser, I like you definitions better than mine. Glassfan thats a very interesting idea. I had never really thought about comparing them, but i suppose it would be the same as comparing two different languages of literature. I will definitley keep that in mind.

So what do you consider yourselves? Id hardly consider myself above the average person when it comes to movies. While I'm very up-to-date on current movies, I am sorely lacking when it comes to the classics. It was the film unit that I mentioned early that inspired a greater interest in movies. I have only just recently watched Casablanca and the Godfather. While i found the Godfather to be great, Casablanca I found a little dry on comparison. I actually wouldn't mind discussing these movies in more detail with someone. I think that could definitley increase the experiance of watching these old classics, if anyone would be interested. I tried to start a movie club thread earlier but it didn't end well. But I was thinking about stating a new thread, more centered around discussion of what makes a movie a classic.

 

[sophie]

A film buff is someone who can reasonably be expected to talk about movies in an intellectual manner without embarrassing himself. Rather the same as history buffs. Also in both categories, self-identification tends to also imply false-confidence.

 

[dot80]

In a normal situation I would agree with you, but in this case I think it is safe to label yourself as one if you truly believe you are. Afterall we are not going to test anyone who claims to be. There is also no reason to lie. But I also think that any movie buff would definitely be more humble than outright labeling themselves as one. I was expecting more of a "I know a little about movies."

 

[CivCube]

How to know if you're a movie buff:

- You own more than one Criterion DVD.
- You bother listening to commentaries.
- You bother reading online analysis of director commentaries.
- You know how many silent films before 1930 existed.
- You're proud to have seen most of the films for one era of film history.
- You can tell the difference between different movements of foreign filmmaking (e.g. French New Wave vs. French noir).
- You read reviews of obscure-yet-influential films and find yourself disagreeing with them.
- You are aware of methods of obtaining hard-to-find films that do not involve Internet downloads.
- You hunt down old magazines for older film analysis.
- You know who Pauline Kael is and think she's better than Ebert.
- You refer to filmmakers by their names and not by "Hollywood".
- You know the names of cinematographers and production staff and follow them diligently.
- You think the 70s were the best decade for movies.
- You can appreciate aspects of bad films without irony and still bother with deconstructing the filmmakers' intentions.
- You can tell what kind of camera is used for a shot. Furthermore, you can recite the different types of shots and cuts.