Kevin's Watch

[Mods - I'm putting this thread here because I'm not sure where else it fits, but if you feel it should be elsewhere the by all means etc etc.]

I've often felt that a good psychologist could probably get more of an insight into the internal world of a person by a study of their ten favorite films, than by about any other means. The range of films in subject, tone, and overall feel is so huge, and we all so have exactly the ones that do it for us, that surely this must reflect [in the form of say metaphorical keys] some kind of internal [again say metaphorical locks] state/structure that is completely unique to the individual. I wonder if any work has ever been done in this feild. Does anyone have any observations to make on this [nb my knowledge of psychology is effectively zilch so it may be absolute bollocks].

It's interesting you should bring this up. I was making my list of favorite scenes and just pondering something very similar. I always saw myself as a moody bleak person but when I was looking over my list I was impressed with my own diversity of the themes. It gives me hope that I am not quite as damaged as I thought I was.

Nowhere in the movies I watch (and don't shut off) are any extreme violence or slapstick comedy. I like subtly and layers. Does this mean something in my own psychological make up, I think so. I think I come from a background where you always had to dig through layers with my family, so I am comfortable with that.

My taste have changed as I get older. I don't like clear cut, black or white, good or bad anymore in anything. What was thrilling to me at 20 is gore at 50, what was hysterical at 20 was just plain idiocy at 50.

I think the important thing is not so much the films (necessarily) but the change in tastes. I expect younger people to like things like horror, stupid comedies, etc. If they continue to obsess over these types of movies, then I determine they are somewhat... juvenile.

Other observations are I know a guy who prefers sad endings to happy endings. This indicates to me that he is somewhat cynical.

Yes Orlion - this is the type of thing I mean, but on a larger and more 'study determined' basis. It did occur to me after I had written the post that there was no real reason [other than as a method of 'containing' the sheer scope and complexity of data] why such psychological profileing [nast word] should be limited to films - why not books [or not liking books at all], and what about 'cats or dogs', foodstuffs etc. I'm guessing that much of our likes/dislikes in later life are bound to be related to our childhood [ie what our parents liked and what they did not, what things made us happy/sad in early life etc] but film taste does seem to be an outward expression of a particularly personal and deep rooted set of likes/dislikes that I can not but think it has to, to an experienced observer, draw aside a curtain on our deepest selves.

One observation re both posts above is the current trend for ever increasingly realistic and graphic depctions of gore and bone wrenching injury. Aguy in the shop the other day brought back the dvd 'Evil Dead' - a re-make of the original straight to video gory, but toung in cheek film. "Nasty stuff", he said. "Not like the first one - So bad that even I had to look away at times!" The point was he loved that. Thats what made the film good to him - the fact that the depiction of the brutal breaking of bodies was so realistic that it made him turn away. This can't be good for people - where does it end?

Studies have shown that people who like the movie Being John Malkovich found this question quite significant.

Zarathustra wrote:Studies have shown that people who like the movie Being John Malkovich found this question quite significant.

lol.

loved the movie...

Zarathustra wrote:Studies have shown that people who like the movie Being John Malkovich found this question quite significant.

Dude...I laughed so damn hard.

But it is dismissive, too. I'm sure one could do some large statistical stuff with the idea...it would be at least as useful, and probably more so, compared to rorschach and free association and such.

Can you come up with as funny a line about the reverse:

Film is a way to MAKE people have similar minds.

Wow - I didn't get it.

Zarathustra wrote:Studies have shown that people who like the movie Being John Malkovich found this question quite significant.

This is pure Watchie (or is it Watchy) material, if such a thing still exists.

Great topic. And I have always thought people's taste in media in general give an indication of who they are. It's not always the best way to judge someone, but it at least gives some hint. At least at general IQ as well.

Whenever I am in someone's place for the first time, if it is up front and apparent, I usually peruse their CDs, movies and books. I refer to it as "butt-sniffing."

Thanks for the compliments.

However, it wasn't dismissive! And it certainly wasn't aimed at anyone. I happened to love Being John Malkovich, and I do think that one's taste in movies (along with taste in general) is a "window into one's mind." I've often debated the value of IQ tests with a good friend of mine (who scored very high), and for years my position has been that a large part of intelligence is interest. Finding the world fascinating is at least as important--if not more--than finding it easily computable.

With that said, it does bug me sometimes that people think their interests are inherently better than others, especially for something subjective like art/music/literature/film. And it bugs me when people use their "refined tastes" to adopt an attitude of superiority. But I'm guilty of it, too, sometimes. I want to say that jazz fusion is inherently more intelligent than rap or country music, but in doing so I'd have to use the same kind of arguments that the literary elite use to dismiss genre fiction like fantasy.

In the end, one's taste is a more an indicator of how much you'd enjoy spending time with someone, than anything else.

Zarathustra wrote:I've often debated the value of IQ tests with a good friend of mine (who scored very high), and for years my position has been that a large part of intelligence is interest. Finding the world fascinating is at least as important--if not more--than finding it easily computable.

Not only do I agree with this but I can confirm it. Being intelligent has much more to do with being interested in things than with regurgitating things you learned in a classroom. The best teachers do not fill their students head with facts and turn them into copycats; rather, they encourage their students to start investigating things on their own.

Zarathustra wrote:With that said, it does bug me sometimes that people think their interests are inherently better than others, especially for something subjective like art/music/literature/film. And it bugs me when people use their "refined tastes" to adopt an attitude of superiority. But I'm guilty of it, too, sometimes. I want to say that jazz fusion is inherently more intelligent than rap or country music, but in doing so I'd have to use the same kind of arguments that the literary elite use to dismiss genre fiction like fantasy.

In the end, one's taste is a more an indicator of how much you'd enjoy spending time with someone, than anything else.

I agree and can confirm this, as well. The mezzo-soprano whom I dated in college to this days considers all of her leisure activities to be "not only acquired tastes but tastes worth acquiring" (yes, that is a direct quote). Anything not in her world is either not worth an investment in time and mental energy or is considered to be a mostly-trivial intellectual curiosity at best. Every now and then some new pastime might initially pique her curiosity and, should it pass her self-imposed set of standards, be adopted as something new worth pursuing.

It is possible to raise anything to the level of "art", including rap or any of the various genres of metal. It all depends upon the artist in question--is the artist just trying to sell tickets or is the artist trying to communicate to us their view of the world and trying to make a connection with us? I have to admit that I do not listen to current rap music but I did listen to early rap and early rap was definitely closer to "art" than I think it is today. Yes, there were trivial songs like The Fat Boys "All You Can Eat" (don't get me wrong, I really enjoy TFB but that song isn't about anything but eating) but there was also the groundbreaking "The Message" by Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five, which was about the despair of poverty-stricken inner-city urban life.

To get back on topic....yes, one's film collection can definitely be a window into the mind--you find movies that mirror your interests and you buy them. This would be sufficient to tell someone at random what sorts of ideas or situations interest you...presuming you ignore the typical trivial selections such as The Avengers. Even the types of humorous movies can say something about you--does your collection contain 40-Year-Old Virgin, Anchorman, and Bad Santa or does it contain American Pie and Ted?

Zarathustra wrote: I want to say that jazz fusion is inherently more intelligent than rap or country music

Oh, she is. Prettier, too.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:It is possible to raise anything to the level of "art". It all depends upon the artist in question[/color]

Hannibal Lector would surely agree with you there Hashi!

re Z's point about the 'snob value' element that can creep in when considering ones own interests compared to that of others, the private liking/disliking of films seems to be the one area where this does not opperate. I rent out dvd's as part of my daily duties in the shop; I rent them to people from all 'levels' of society and no-one ever brings a dvd to the counter that they do not want to see. The most suprising thing of all is how often people confound your expectations of what they will like. The idea that highbrow films will go to the 'upper end people' - and they will return them saying they have loved them [and the reverse] just doesn't hold true. Many 'social housing' tenants rented, and enjoyed The Lady [The story of Burmese political reformer Aung San Suu Kyi] and many doctors from our local hospital like nothing better than to sit down to Fast and Furious 6. And it's ok that this is so in both cases. It is this feature, that has so often suprised me [when somebody I took to be a Goon brings back Cloud Atlas and sings it's praises {it happened last week!}] that tells me more about the 'onion layer' depths of our internal state than just about anything else I see.

I do think there is a great difference in renting as opposed to buying movies (although there are the people that never rent, and always buy their movies). Purchased movies are ones that say, "I liked this enough to pick up the full package as I will want to watch this again in my lifetime." Rarely do I buy a movie without having seen it first. The times I haven't has been usually because it is a good deal and I had it recommended by the right people who know my tastes. Or because it is by a filmmaker that I like. I take more chances on renting typically.

Agreed Cag, but I think my point still holds about the nature of the films people enjoy not being a reliable indicator of their position in the social hierarchy. A further point is that how many of us, were we to list our 10 favorite films, would finish up with 10 films all of the same type . I'm betting that the vast majority of adults would finish up with a hotch-potch of selections demonstrating great bredth of taste rather than the other way around. As I said earlier, I know Jack about psychology, but surely if something as obscure as the rorschach test can be so illuminating, then surely something as revealing as our taste in films could be more so?

I dunno, I don't think so.

If we're having a serious discussion about films, I'll talk to you about the brilliance of Touch of Evil and Out of the Past, then probably bore you to death with my treatise on the noir genre.

I was a film major in college, and I consider myself to still be a decent judge of film quality.

That said, if someone asks me what my favorite movies are, they're usually horrified by my list. Most people will grudgingly agree that Rocky and Blazing Saddles are good films. It's when I get to Pootie Tang, CB4, Big Trouble in Little China, et al that I tend to lose them.

Cail wrote:I dunno, I don't think so.

If we're having a serious discussion about films, I'll talk to you about the brilliance of Touch of Evil and Out of the Past, then probably bore you to death with my treatise on the noir genre.

I was a film major in college, and I consider myself to still be a decent judge of film quality.

That said, if someone asks me what my favorite movies are, they're usually horrified by my list. Most people will grudgingly agree that Rocky and Blazing Saddles are good films. It's when I get to Pootie Tang, CB4, Big Trouble in Little China, et al that I tend to lose them.

heh...I think bored is the last thing I'd be by your "noir treatise."
I'd be angry if you dissed it, and happy if you liked it [the genre, obviously]. Noir isn't my "period" but I quite like and respect a lot of it...I haven't seen "out of the past" cuz I have a thing about not liking Mitchum...except in "night of the hunter"...I can only justify analytically about 1/2 of my liking of that film. "Touch of Evil" is spectacular...all things Welles are good at worst.
And "Rocky" is a damn good film even though I hate Stallone.
As are CB4, Blazing Saddles, and BT in LC.

So...on topic...knowing you have that background, which I didn't before, combined with your Rush thing...yea...you might not think it's a window into your mind. But it beyond any doubt gives me a wider context/altered angle on tons of stuff you've said and will say.
Of course you might well still think I have a problem with my EYES, so the window doesn't matter much.
Nevertheless.

Cail wrote:I dunno, I don't think so.

If we're having a serious discussion about films, I'll talk to you about the brilliance of Touch of Evil and Out of the Past, then probably bore you to death with my treatise on the noir genre.

I was a film major in college, and I consider myself to still be a decent judge of film quality.

That said, if someone asks me what my favorite movies are, they're usually horrified by my list. Most people will grudgingly agree that Rocky and Blazing Saddles are good films. It's when I get to Pootie Tang, CB4, Big Trouble in Little China, et al that I tend to lose them.

Damn. Now I have to see Pootie Tang.

Mongnihilo wrote:

Cail wrote:I dunno, I don't think so.

If we're having a serious discussion about films, I'll talk to you about the brilliance of Touch of Evil and Out of the Past, then probably bore you to death with my treatise on the noir genre.

I was a film major in college, and I consider myself to still be a decent judge of film quality.

That said, if someone asks me what my favorite movies are, they're usually horrified by my list. Most people will grudgingly agree that Rocky and Blazing Saddles are good films. It's when I get to Pootie Tang, CB4, Big Trouble in Little China, et al that I tend to lose them.

Damn. Now I have to see Pootie Tang.

You do. Everybody does. It's an insanely polarizing film; people either love it or hate it. It's similar in that regard to BTiLC and TAoBBAt8D. No one is ambivalent about it.

Vraith, you make a fair point.

Yes, I love noir films. I even love the more modern ones.

And you're doing yourself a HUGE disservice by allowing an irrational dislike of Robert Mitchum keep you away from OotP. It's arguably the best film of the genre.

Or Real Genius.