Does a "film experience" qualify as a good movie?

jungleroomx

David Lynch unleashed a visual mindfuck the likes of which had few peers then, and while the special effects are dated, it still holds up as a nightmarish dystopian art piece to this day, and it is still both confusing and utterly disturbing.

Eraserhead is a film that will leave a lasting impact on people, and is a movie that will haunt even the far corners of your brain even years after you've seen it, its images remaining as vivid and detailed as they were when they were displayed on your screen...

But is it a good movie?

Despite my lavish love for the film and its impact on my own psyche, I cannot bring myself to call it a good movie. It's characters unremarkable, there is little story or exposition, it's more a string of events laced within a dreamscape where everything is just a bit... off. It contains no real rewatch value past the first or second viewing... it's barely a movie. It's more of a "film experience", a sort of one-shot deal that leaves huge craters in your thinking process and makes you question the reality you yourself have been stewing in for years. And it's not alone...

These movies whose visceral impact is due to its unexpected nature and events, its unique qualities and original take, undoubtedly leave an impact on their viewers.

Which brings me to my question:

If a movie doesn't fall within "movie" standards, and seems like an experiment, but still manages to imprint itself on your brain because of how remarkable the experience was, does this mean it's a good movie, or simply an interesting experience?

Linespider5

It's a good movie.

I'm always a fan of defying standardized definitions when it comes to art of any kind, and limiting a movie within what can be expected or is established would be a great disservice to the medium as a whole. If the movie imprints, it's done its job.

UnknownSaint

The Snakes on a Plane midnight premiere was one of the funnest theater experiences I've ever had - but it wasn't a good movie.

Good 'film experience' =/= good movie, unless you're going to conveniently stretch the typical definition of these terms. If that's the case though then what's the point of even discussing these sorts of things?

Astaereth

It depends on what your definition of movie is. It sounds to me like you're conflating "filmed piece of entertainment" with "story". Eraserhead is a terrible narrative because it eschews character development, exposition, and the clear representation of its environment and actions in favor of an emotional impact. But because that impact can be powerful, it's a good movie.

You also shouldn't mix "good movie" and "good viewing experience." The best viewing experience in my life was probably the first time I saw Riki-Oh: The Story of Ricky. It's a terrible, terrible movie which is nonetheless both hilarious and awesome. (It's basically if you took The New Testament and set it in a futuristic corporate prison full of assholes who know kung-fu. And Jesus punches THROUGH things. Things like faces.) That was an amazing viewing experience, but not a good movie by any conventional definition.

Lynch in general, I come to with very low expectations. I don't expect a coherent story, or characters that I care about, or even to be moved emotionally; I usually just come to his movies hoping to see something new and/or batshit insane. That usually works out.

And hell, there must be something there, because I saw Eraserhead once about 6 years ago and I can still hear that damn song. "In Heaven, everything is fine..."

Zombiemambo

Absolutely. You don't even have to enjoy a movie to consider it a good film. I watched a documentary about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did I like it? Absolutely not, I bawled throughout it and generally felt awful. But was it good? Very.

ElJeffe

Is it a string of still images shown in sequence to imply motion and then shown in a movie theater? Then it's a movie.

Does it accomplish what it seeks to accomplish in some non-tautological sense? Then it's good.

Yeah, this means stuff like "Snakes on a Plane" qualifies as a good movie. In a sense, it is. It's fun, cheesy, gratuitous fun that is great to watch with the proper audience. And that's exactly what the filmmakers wanted. They succeeded at what they set out to do - yay, them.

I don't think every movie has to be Casablanca to be called "good". But this does require a slightly different definition of good than that used to describe a film like The Godfather.

SanderJK

There's three things here:

Movies that are pretty bad, but in the right surroundings become a fun experience. This is very subjective, because it depends not on your opinion, but on the friends, the mood, the theatre, the amount of alcohol. For instance, I watched Transformers in a totally packed urban theatre. Shouting comments and mocking, catcalls, applause midmovie, it was fun to be there, but the movie on it's own, I never have to see again.

Movies that are wellmade within their genre, that are fun to watch, but ultimately add little. These I'm tempted to call "Fun movies." A movie would fall into this category if it satisfies two conditions: Was I entertained, and was I able to suspend my disbelief. (The latter for me is important, because I turn into a wisecracking machine otherwise) This would be Iron Man or Gladiator.

Movies that are good, that transcend their genre, have amazing cinematography, that are thoughtprovoking, or that just makes you feel that you are watching actual human beings, that you care for. Some movies just add something extra, that end with discussing it with friends.

I have not seen Eraserhead, but Lynch in general is an outlier: His movies are intentionally obtuse, I appreciate them being around, because life can be obtuse at well, and stories don't resolve themselves neatly most of the time. They're hard to watch, because you have to pay full attention, but they do generate a lot of discussion. Though I remember watching Lost Highway with friends and just ending up googling for information because we weren't sure what happened. But I'm not sure I'd call them good.

UnknownSaint

ElJeffe wrote: »

Is it a string of still images shown in sequence to imply motion and then shown in a movie theater? Then it's a movie.

Does it accomplish what it seeks to accomplish in some non-tautological sense? Then it's good.

Yeah, this means stuff like "Snakes on a Plane" qualifies as a good movie. In a sense, it is. It's fun, cheesy, gratuitous fun that is great to watch with the proper audience. And that's exactly what the filmmakers wanted. They succeeded at what they set out to do - yay, them.

I don't think every movie has to be Casablanca to be called "good". But this does require a slightly different definition of good than that used to describe a film like The Godfather.

I think Snakes on a Plane is a bad movie for a lot of reasons, but definitely not because campy can't be good. It's just that having a good time watching a movie does not mean the movie is good, even in a bad-good kind of way. There's just so much that goes in to the whole event of watching something, especially in a theater, that can add or detract from the experience - and not all of these factors have anything to do with the movie itself.

Hell, I could have liked a movie more because the popcorn I was eating while watching it was really good, making the whole thing more enjoyable. Doesn't actually reflect on the quality of the movie though. Sometimes you can have good times with a bad movie, and this doesn't always mean it's a so-bad-it's-good movie either.

mrt144

Astaereth wrote: »

It depends on what your definition of movie is. It sounds to me like you're conflating "filmed piece of entertainment" with "story". Eraserhead is a terrible narrative because it eschews character development, exposition, and the clear representation of its environment and actions in favor of an emotional impact. But because that impact can be powerful, it's a good movie.

You also shouldn't mix "good movie" and "good viewing experience." The best viewing experience in my life was probably the first time I saw Riki-Oh: The Story of Ricky. It's a terrible, terrible movie which is nonetheless both hilarious and awesome. (It's basically if you took The New Testament and set it in a futuristic corporate prison full of assholes who know kung-fu. And Jesus punches THROUGH things. Things like faces.) That was an amazing viewing experience, but not a good movie by any conventional definition.

I'm gonna have to stop you right here.

If we aren't going to use a conventional definition then what the fuck are we talking about?

Regina Fong

"Good movie" is kind of broad. Most films can be broken down into the technical components and those can be judged on their own merits, whether it's the score of Jaws or the cinematography of Gone with the Wind. It's fairly easy to agree on a good score, good camera work, good sets/art direction, good special effects, good action sequences and so forth. The story elements and the acting should probably be considered separately, and critics do this all the time. Sometimes a critic will dislike a film overall but praise a particular performance. Sometimes a critic might pan the screenplay but acknowledge that the cast and director did an admirable job working with what they were given. In this way, a film like Eraserhead can be called a good movie while still criticizing the story elements, which are fairly wonky, and of course some people think that the story works as intended.

Xagarath

Kubrick, a man who probably knew more about the medium than 99% of us here, considered Eraserhead the best film ever made.
I'm going to go with him on this one.

I'd also add that Eraserhead's story works exactly as intended. It's a piece of nightmare logic, and arguably much more interesting plotting than yet another film rehashing the Hero's Journey.

zeeny

Not for me. I don't find it hard at all to have fun watching terrible movies that pretty much don't deserve to be talked about outside of the moment you're viewing them.
That said, Eraserhead is a great movie.

Atomika

As the resident film snob, I'd say the OP's problem is academic.

What is a good movie? One that challenges the viewer? One that tells a cohesive narrative? One that tries new things, despite it often failing at those things?


I don't generally like experimentation for experimentation's sake being slapped on a screen and being told, "Hey, look at this innovative movie!" That said, I love experimentation that takes a knowledge of filmcraft and places it in a context that advances the audiences' perception of what a film can be. It's all very intangible, and if you try to find absolutism in rote definitions, you're going to fight an uphill battle forever.


Maybe the best way I can judge whether or not a movie is good is by the answer of this question: Does it even try to be a good movie?


There's a lot of highly-paid and ubiquitous directors working out there today that simply have no intention of making a good movie. But they can pander to common denominators like a motherfucker, which in itself is a skill.

May be matters more who you want to be. Do you want to be the person who enjoys film analytically and applies a body of experience to your enjoyment, or do you want to "shut your brain off" and just have a good time? Both are equally acceptable choices, but they're kind of like arguing Scripture vs. Logic; the devout on either side of the argument are incapable of understanding or empathizing with the rhetoric of the other.