David Bordwell examines the crucial distinguishing characteristics of cinephiles and cinemaniacs, and catalogs the shared habits and competitive strategies of the former, in "Games cinephiles play."
Which are you? (Not that you have to be one or the other.) DB will help you resolve any cine-related identity crisis from which you may be suffering.
He writes:
... I do see differences. For one thing, most cinemaniacs like only certain sorts of movies--usually American, often silent, sometimes foreign, seldom documentaries. Do cinemaniacs line up for Brakhage or Frederick Wiseman? My sense is not.Cinephiles by contrast tend to be ecumenical. Indeed, many take pride in the intergalactic breadth of their tastes. Look at any smart critic's ten-best lists. You'll usually see an eclectic mix of arthouse, pop, and experimental, including one or two titles you have never heard of. Obscurity is important; a cinephile is a connoisseur.
The real crux, I think, is this. The cinephile loves the idea of film.Interesting, then, that the cinephile's appetite is both that of a connoisseur and an insatiable omnivore. The cinephile craves, and appreciates, white truffles and meatloaf with ketchup (though not necessarily on the same plate). However, the cinephile abhors catsup for its pretentious inauthenticity.That means loving not only its accomplishments but its potential, its promise and prospects. It's as if individual films, delectable and overpowering as they can be, are but glimpses of something far grander.
The passage quoted above puts something into focus for me, which is that I sometimes worry that I'm losing my religion, that I am lapsing from cinephilia into cinemania. Which must be something like going from Roman Catholicism to Episcopalianism. I have friends who have been through this -- what I call a "crisis of faith" -- when they feel let down not just by the steady stream of lackluster movies, but by the movies themselves. (It's not just a run of bad luck, it's a trial worthy of Job.) I felt similarly around the time I stopped reviewing films on a daily basis in the 1990s -- that, as in a serious depression, what I was seeing was just a copy of a copy of a copy. (This may also be a perfectly accurate perception and assessment of reality. I often wonder if depression might be a manifestation of anhedonia, irrational self-directed rage -- Stewart Smalley's "stinkin' thinkin'" -- exacerbated by a tendency to see things a little too clearly for your own psychological well-being.) I hope it's just another phase.
These days -- perhaps because I do care so much about the medium that has sustained me in so many ways for so long -- I find it difficult to stand the disappointment of a bad movie. Which is to say, the vast majority of movies. My feeling is that life is too short -- and I never used to feel that way, but life wasn't quite as short then, either. I still maintain you can learn as much from an utterly misconceived, failed or incompetent movie (or war or political administration) as you can from a great one, although that doesn't make the former any easier to withstand while you're living through it.
On the other hand, I feel no less euphoria at encountering a wonderful movie, or a terrific touch in an otherwise mediocre picture (apologies to Manny Farber). I can't wait to immerse myself in the Toronto Film Festival next week, where I will be walking into auditoria with virtually no idea of what I'm about to see (except whatever motivated me to choose that particular time and theater from all the available options). The old excitement of "when the lights go down" remains as strong as ever.
One of the people I hope to see in Toronto is fellow movie blogger Girish Shambu, who's just written a heartfelt appreciation of the late Manny Farber, in which he says: "In the process of writing it and in discussing Farber in the comments with others, primarily Zach [Campbell, of Elusive Lucidity], I discovered that my film-blogging interests lay not simply in films but in discourse about films: reading, writing, talking about them."
Girish, I would say, is definitely a cinephile. Among DB's criteria is the desire (compulsion?) to talk about, analyze, share movies and movie-related thoughts and information.
I hope that's why you're here right now.
Do check out Bordwell's accounts of the games cinephiles play (with Jules and Jim as his avatars) -- including such competitive maneuvers as "the breadth strategy," the longevity strategy" and "the insider strategy."
Some day cinephilia itself will evolve into an Olympic sport, with its own judging standards and point totals ("He'll lose one tenth of a point there for mispronouncing Chloe Sevigny's last name..."). In the meantime, you can enjoy expert color commentary by David Bordwell, including assessments of the options available when you encounter "philosophical disquisition that usually sounds better in French but can occur in English too":
It's hard to serve a return. Resorting to I just don't know what that means usually makes you look dumb, whereas Do you buy effluvia like that in ten-gallon drums? would be considered hostile.
(Extra credit: From what song is the first part of the headline of this post taken? Don't put me in shame.)
What a coincidence. I know a cinemaniac (a self-pronounced one), who adores the Star Wars movies and claims that even Episodes 1, 2, and 3 are better than other superior SF movies like DARK CITY or MINORITY REPORT. He currently believes that KUNG FU PANDA is better than WALL-E.
He's a really nice guy, but his tastes are kind of baffling.
Thankfully sites like yours and The House Next Door keep me a cinephile. Discussing film is what keeps me going back to the movies at this point in my life. I never want film to take a back seat to anything, but sometimes life and responsibilities call. I try to use my own blog as an outlet to discuss the things about film that interest me; it's self-serving and acts more as a diary, but it's what keeps me going, because I can't get out there to see all of the films that would make an eclectic year-end list.
My top ten list last year contained almost all American films and one documentary. But I don't think that makes me any less of a cinephile...
I am ranting now. If it weren't for some of the great blogs like this one and the ones you often link to, well, I would have never know about the small films because I just don't have the time right now to go seek 'em out.
So...thanks for keeping me a cinephile and interested in seeing new movies.
Also...I believe your second clue may have tipped it for me (that being the line "don't put me in shame.")...aren't those the words to the Bad Company song "All Right Now"?
Well, I remember watching Cinemania and thinking I had nothing in common with these people except that I watched a lot of movies, so I guess I'm a cinephile. I definitely fit into the ecumenical model and being kind of proud to be able to appreciate both that artsy stuff and pop and documentaries. I'm always torn at the end of the year with my Top 10 lists because it's oh so proper to have a nice, balanced list, but then I just want to throw out one with 8 or 9 docs on it and be done with it all.
I'm compulsive enough to keep track of all the movies I see each year, but that's just so I don't forget anything when I make up my Best of lists at the end of the year, and I am positively crazy compulsive about list-making which I adore and I don't really care how meaningless an activity many people think it is. I don't - I think it's a fine way of organizing and sharing- maybe even promoting - cinephilia, to use terminology relevant to this topic.
Games we play.
I saw Colossal Youth at its Toronto Premier. While sitting next to Jonathan Rosenbaum. And one of the reels wasn't even subtitled. One upsman that, bitches! :)
Except they were called Free...D'oh! Got my Paul Rodgers bands mixed up. Had to go look that one up after I second guessed myself...
"Another difference: Fussiness and solitude. The cinemaniac has a favorite seat, even if it’s way off to the side. To secure it, the cinemaniac shows up early and tries to be first in line. Your average cinephile isn’t so picky about where to sit, and so may slip in at the last minute. While waiting for the show to start, the cinemaniac seldom acknowledges others; a book is the faithful companion. But the cinephile is, if not extroverted, at least gregarious and wants to talk with other cinephiles."
Hey, I've got arbitrary rules about what determines distinctions too. If you bring a group of friends with you to the movie theater, then that makes you a cinephile. If you like to see movies alone, that makes you a cinemaniac. If you get dressed up nice and shower before going to the movie theater, that makes you a cinemaniac, whereas a cinephile just goes dressed in sweatpants and whatever he's got on at the time. The cinemaniac hates talking to people, and genuinely likes to spend lots of time thinking about and watching movies but never talking about these thoughts and feelings to other people, especially other avid cinema-watchers. The cinephile is not particular about ensuring a controlled environment in which to watch a film: they care so much about immersing themselves in the film that they'll show up late to a movie and seat themselves next to a couple of chattering teenagers, maybe even a crying infant, because they aren't pretentious like the cinemaniacs.
Within these two categories are sub-categories. Some cinemaniacs like to wear hats after they shower and get dressed up to go to the movie theater. These are called the cinemaniacs: Level 2: Class a or the "Cine-hat-wearing-maniacs." The cinemaniacs: Level 2: Class b or the "Cinemaniacs-but-not-the-ones-wearing-hats" are just like their brethren only eschewing headware in order to be courteous to the theatergoers sitting behind them, though they still maintain a sullen distance and refusal to engage in conversation.
There is a huge gulf between cinemaniacs and cinephiles, and very rarely do their tastes, habits, or inclinations overlap. These distinctions are a necessity in categorizing such individuals, for if an unwitting theatergoer were to see a person dressed nicely at the theater, they could make the disastrous mistake of courting the attention of a predatory and hostile cinemaniac who they thought was one of the more docile species of the cinephile.
Funny that you mention your worry that you may be losing touch with your own cinephilia Jim. I myself in the last year have been concerned that my passion for movies seems to be waning of late, but I reassure myself its merely a peaks-and-valleys cycle. Until about a year ago, I devoured all of the films I could see, and did firmly believe that even by-the-numbers films or failures could be as instructive as masterpieces. But what I've found of late is a frustration with narrative conventions themselves, or at least a feeling that films that are being praised to the heavens really aren't doing or saying anything particularly new. Maybe I just need another "Children of Men" or "Magnolia" to wake me out of my stupor.
Interestingly, although I have been watching less films that are new (to me) of late, I have been re-watching almost obsessively some films that I have probably seen upwards of twenty times, if only to really get a grasp of what it is that has made them enduring classics (films like "The Godfather", Kubrick films, and some of Hitchcock's more famous works). In other words, I'm finding I have less time for mediocrity...instead, I really want to get to the heart of greatness.
You talk of the difficulty of standing "the disappointment of a bad movie," but I've found that sometimes one's best writing about films can come from just that aggravation (both in terms of humor and as a kind of tribute to what movies can be). If I really like a film, then the writing can be comparatively flat. For these reasons, I try to appreciate the occasional bad movie even if it feels like a waste of one's attention.
I’m not sure coming early and having a favorite seat is particular to either. I watch all kinda of films, I love films, and I always, always take the center seat in a row pretty near to the screen.
As for sitting next to a chattering party, I guess it is disturbing to whosoever it maybe – a cinephile, a cinemaniac, or neither.
I believe watching movies alone is a considerably better way to watch films, i.e. without distraction. Discussion could be had always, before or after, but at the movies it is a personal experience. I, for one, do not especially like to share the joy, as in, sharing high-fives when Batman is pulled up by Sky-Hook. The thing is, and I believe Jim you did post something along these lines, that films to me are like novels. I do not, for sure, want anybody to be glancing upon my shoulder when I’m reading a book. And I hate somebody installing themselves in front of me for a long chat when I’m smack in the middle of things.
I think, that is what an outing at the films is for me. Just watch them as they come. Take them in. Analysis could be for later. Discussion could be for later. But in there, at that moment, I submit myself to it.
Though I admit, the best possible place for me is a film festival. At this year’s Pune International Film festival, I watched 11 films in 2 days, that is over a weekend. And over the next three weekdays, I did watch another 9 films. I had to schedule myself between my job (I am a software engineer), but my car did the trick. I even gave it a kiss. Festivals are probably the best way to experience them. Sitting there in the aisles, mouth agape, with overcrowded auditoriums, with enthusiasts sitting besides, leaning on each other and enjoying the film. There’s nothing like that, and even if you have a life, there’re few experiences out there as mesmerizing. That is the way to watch films I guess, or sitting in the front stall with the screen filling the view.
Maybe, more than anybody, Bertolucci puts it best through Mathew in The Dreamers –
I was one of the insatiables. The ones you'd always find sitting closest to the screen. Why do we sit so close? Maybe it was because we wanted to receive the images first. When they were still new, still fresh. Before they cleared the hurdles of the rows behind us. Before they'd been relayed back from row to row, spectator to spectator; until worn out, secondhand, the size of a postage stamp, it returned to the projectionist's cabin. Maybe, too, the screen was really a screen. It screened us... from the world.
Long time lurker, first time poster. Just wanted to say how much I love this blog, and one of the reasons is that Jim would quote a lyric from a song that can be found on the American Beauty soundtrack! You know, one of Jim's all-time favorite movies.
Thanks for the link to the article, Jim. And yes, I'm a cinephilic girl, and I happily confess to having played ALL the games mentioned at one time or another.
I've also seen the movie Cinemaniacs and I thought the people featured were all at least one beer short of a six-pack - a condition that really isn't explored in the movie. Their behavior is accepted as weird-normal, when really it's obvious it's weird-weird. There were some serious psycho-social dysfunctions going on. But obviously they've found a lifestyle that works for them.
Honestly, I'd have to say I fall into a third group: Wannabe Cinephiles. We watch plenty of movies, are compelled to discuss them afterwards, but don't quite have the all-consuming passion for Cinema to watch a wide enough breadth of films to be considered a true cinephile.
I guess you could say I love movies, but I'm not in love with movies?
The fun part, though, is we can still take part in cinephile games too -- our goal being to avoid having the cinephiles see past our ruse and reveal us for the poseurs we are.
I consider myself a cinemaniac with a bachelor's degree in cinephilia.
90% of my DVDs are action films, and almost all the movies I make are action movies. I'm a snob about them in the way that a cinephile might be a snob about Bergman. I'd like to just go on for three pages here explaining why action films are as valid as any other genre, more viscerally powerful than any, how the genre is actually somewhat broad, including Buster Keaton, No Country for Old Men, and most of Francis Ford Coppola's work, but I'd probably just never stop talking if I got into that...
So yeah, I prefer action movies, but I also have an appreciation for movies outside of my favorite genre. I have the most comprehensive knowledge of film in general than anyone I know, actually, but my appreciation for action film is maniacal. If I see a bad action movie, I take it as a direct insult. If I see a good one, I'm either talking about it for a week afterwards, or I consider selling my camera for fear that I'll never make anything that good.
Dear Mike: I do try to be catholic in my tastes, and ecumenical in my choice of subjects!
The difference between a cinephile and a cinemaniac is that a cinephile knows how to use the word "cineaste" in its etymologically correct sense.
But hopefully he doesn't rub it in.
Russ Meyer once said that for a true breast man, there's no such thing as 'too big'. I think that's a good way to think of the cinephile: for the true cinephile, there's no such thing as 'too bad'. Personally, I think movies can be too bad, and breasts can be too big, to be enjoyed. In that sense, I'm not a cinephile--I'm a cinelitist (a genial portmanteau); and moreover I am usually disdainful of cinephiles. It's good to have broad interests, but in search of the best, not just to have seen everything--surely?
Not surprisingly my background is literature and theater, and, as Bordwell points out, literature-lovers love the great achievements in their art rather than all of it. But I like to think it's not just possible but admirable to treat cinema the same way. So, why do people tend to admire cinephiles so much? Even I admire them sometimes, but I don't understand why I do.
I remember forming my own opinion on this issue roughly four years ago.
For a brief time, I worked at a movie theater in Chicago. Working in that environment I encountered two people types. 1. Person didn't care about movies except in a general way. 2. Person loved movies and even though the pay sucked, person was happy to work at a theater because he/she could watch whatever movie they liked for free. I feel into category 2.
But within that category there was a sub-category. That was for Harry (not real name). Harry would watch anything. And whatever Harry watched, he liked. Not once did I hear him talk about a movies bad points, and whenever I tried to talk about them, he would just claim that the director had the right to do whatever they wanted. As if being a director meant you were always right. His lack of discrimination over what he would watch wasn't the same as the Cinephile description. He just wanted to be in front of a screen. This wasn't a person interested much in film history except on the most surface level. Bless his heart. I'm glad he was having a good time, but I could never take his opinions on movies seriously. When I saw "Cinemaniacs", I saw Harry in those people.
Maybe the difference between a Cinephile and a Cinemaiac is like the difference between a good patriot and a bad patriot. A good patriot loves his/her country enough to see the bad in it and want it fixed. A bad patriot will defend the decisions of his country without reservation.
When I watch a movie, no matter what it may be, I watch to enjoy (hopefully), and to learn (no matter what).
Like the rest of you, I've gone through periods where I felt my love for movies dying; all I can say is thank God for Netflix because if I had to sustain my love with new movies -- and only new movies -- I would have given up a long time ago. The waits between new great movies can take months, even years. (The last masterpiece I saw before Tarsem's "The Fall," which came out in June, was "No Country for Old Men," which came out in late November. That's an almost eight month gap!) With Netflix, I see a masterpiece almost every other week. Call me greedy and impatient, but I wouldn't have it any other way. (And for the record, I like to think of myself as a cinephile.)
You know, I've never worried too much about which precise term defines my personal pathology: I just love movies.
I suppose I come down on the "cinephile" side, since I also love championing good movies to people who may not have heard of them; we're all embiggened when a worthy film expands its audience.
For instance, this week's DVD column spotlighted "The Last Winter" and "Son of Rambow" -- two films that barely got any theatrical play up here in Toronto, but really deserve to be discovered on disc.
Looking forward to meeting you when you get into town, Jim -- first round's on me!
I like a very wide array of of movies, but I've noticed I go through phases of what I like to watch. For a while it was westerns. That phase eventually segued into a gangster movie phase, and that phase has slowly been seguing into a comedy phase. None of the phases are absolute; each contain movies that might fit into another. The gangster phase, for instance, included not only gangsters, but film noirs (Out of the Past, Touch of Evil, Double Indemnity) and foreign films (Rififi, Le Samourai, Breathless) (it could more accurately be described as a "crime" phase, now that I think of it) and the comedy phase includes films that have elements of both comedy and crime (Fargo, Miller's Crossing, In Bruges), ans other dark subject matter (nuclear war--Dr. Strangelove; misanthropy--Ghost World). I dunno, I guess I would classify myself as a cinephile, with mild cinemaniacal tendencies.
I've seen thousands of movies because I believe you have to see a lot of bad movies to see a lot of good movies.
Thanks for linking this article - it's one of my favorite Bordwell pieces and the Jules & Jim dialogue is both hilarious and discomforting. I'd like to say I don't recognize those passive-agressive jousts but...
As for cinephile vs. cinemaniac, I have no doubt I'm the former yet I don't fit all the criteria perfectly. I'll often go to movies by myself (unless it's a new release, most of my friends just aren't interested). I hardly go to theaters anymore; when I lived in New York I would catch retros but even there I generally avoided new releases. A few years ago (around the time of Fantastic Four) I grew tired of being disappointed every time I paid $10+ to see some movie just because it was new and other people were going.
Now I may like, dislike, appreciate, or be perplexed by a movie but it's always interesting. I have five Netflix queues which cast the net wide - one is devoted to the ouevres of the great directors, starting with Griffith; another works its way through a massive list of "greatest movies" ever; one is for to TV or documentary (currently devoted to Twin Peaks); another is exclusively Criterion Collection (the new ones get put near the top); and then there's one that alternates between random choices & "best movies of the 2000s" (of which, in my apathetic approach to new moviegoing, I've missed quite a few).
Before I'm tarred too thickly with the "snob" brush it's worth pointing out that 10 or 15 years ago, as a kid, I avidly followed "the business", trying to see all the big movies their opening weekend, even keeping track of box office scores and the like. It just seems that mainstream films are less fun now - or maybe I just grew up.
I'm selective in what I like, but it's quality I go for, not a specific genre or even period; I have broad taste (though I generally prefer the classics). I think the most valuable distinction Bordwell makes is between someone who loves movies and someone who loves the medium. As the latter type of person, I just think most contemporary films are drifting away from what made the art form so compelling (too much CGI, not enough spontaneity, and an odd dearth of ambition given all the money that's poured into these products). As such I'm not going to waste my time with them. The long view shows that new releases are a but a tiny sliver of the vast cinematic stream, not vice versa.
I posted once to one of Jim's entries that I'm not a cinephile - I don't know enough; but I'm aware of cinephiles' concerns and ideas and respect them.
I can empathize with Jim's dilemma. I am more of a bibliophile than I think I'll ever be a cinephile. I've despaired of main stream fiction for decades (since high school, in fact). I have been a life long reader of science fiction, and I've almost completely stopped reading the field for lack of anything that is novel, or isn't bleak (after all, it doesn't take a genius to know that the next 100 years on planet Earth are going to be tough ones for h. sapiens). It seems that at a time of great technical proficiency, the field has lost sight of the vision that once propelled it to grandeur.
I think film might be in the same metaphorical boat.
But, one last question: is a cinemaniac who likes only animated films...an Animaniac?
(With apologies to Yakko, Wakko and Dot)
Cinephile or cinemaniac? I have to ask you a question. Does it really matter? (Ok, but to satisfy your thirst for opinions on your article, we who administrate Toronto movies are bit of both :) I can't say that I'm more of one of the groups, neither can I say that I'm not any of these two. I'm just happy when cinema goers get together and are able to talk about movies without hating each other. We will see at TIFF, which is getting closer every day and I really can't wait to finally see it on my own. :) Hopefully I will have some time to spare and will check it out. That's all, have a nice day cinema lovers!
Julie
Norm Wilner wrote:
Ah, how cromulently well said. :)
Looks like my first comment on this thread disappeared into the ether. Was it because I used a naughty word?
Anyway, I'm definitely a cinephile. I do have a preference for sitting near the front and just a few sits to the right in a mostly empty theater, and for an aisle seat in a crowded theater. A little claustrophobic I guess. But I'm not too fussy about it.
I'm definitely one of the sorts who takes pride in being as ecumenical as possible, and my top ten lists are usually depressingly balanced, although to me 4-5 docs out of 10 feels balanced.
I keep a diary of all the titles I see with "quick ratings" (out of 10), but I'm not always diligent about it. I mostly use the diary so I can make up my best of lists at year's end and sometimes to look back and see how my opinions of a film have changed since the first (or previous) time I saw it.
I've definitely played most of those games. It's like Name that Tune except you're trying to list one extra movie you've seen by a director that the other person hasn't. And that's how you win! :)
Hmm very interesting. I'd like to count myself as a cinephile, but I know I have some - apparently - cinemaniac tendencies, well namely one which is the seat thing in the theater. I will get there early to secure a particular seat or at least area. Though this is more due to my eye sight as I am legally blind in my left eye and find it much more comfortable for my range of vision to be in the middle.
I suppose if we're categorizing people into these two groups only, we all have lived on the edge of one or the other at some point or share a little bit of this and that. Kind of like aspergers being on the same spectrum as autism.
Though I know, and am proud to say (as ego heavy as it sounds) to declare myself a cinephile. Or at least I hope I am...
I have to be when some of my favorite films range from Raiders to Persona. Wall-E to Wings of Desire. And I seek out shorts and experimental work as much as I can. Basically if movies in some form or another are not in my life, if I am not able to talk and share them with others, I get depressed.
Definately cinephile here. I genuinely love the medium of film. I related to these articles on so many levels. Like others here I keep a journal of every film I watch with at least a rating but often a short (occasionally long) commentary. With the advent of Netflix and the availability of foreign and obscure films I feel as if I will never be able to see them all. I count myself as truly fortunate to live in a large city with theaters and art houses that show films that aren't usually screened or aren't available on DVD. Besides the films themselves I enjoy listeneing to or reading about the director's and technical crew's insights. And I always stay until the last credit rolls.
Jim: I'd never try to put you in shame. The lyric is from "All Right Now" by Free, the song that began my auditory love-affair with Paul Rodgers. Sigh . ..
I'd say I fall into the cinephile category, although I don't see nearly enough movies. Is it possible to see enough movies?
Isn't the song "Sympathy for the Devil"? "Baby, what's my name?" "Baby, what's my game?"
r d finch: No, it can't be Sympathy for the Devil. The lyric as quoted is "What's your game, baby?" not "Baby what's my game?" Plus Jim dropped another hint with "don't put me in shame," another lyric from "All Right Now" by Free. My childhood was otherwise a waste, but I knows my classic rock lyrics.
I think these labels are especially unnecessary. Also, I don't trust or respect the opinions and writings of Bordwell because his textbooks get too many details wrong.