Stop thinking! Why don't you just enjoy it?

I'd like to comment on this but first I have to ask (and I apologize if I'm not the first), is there some kind of inside joke in regards to the Ferngully photo that I'm not privy to or are you implying that the only way to enjoy the movie is to take the position discussed above?

JE: Although some are nicknaming the movie "Dances With Smurfs," the second most-popular comparison is to "Ferngully." Try Googling Avatar Ferngully. I got 301,000 results just now.

I can't agree with you more Jim. That's why I read your blog, it reminds me to think about what I'm watching. I have my own view points on things but it's important to read others to help you with your own, it's called dialogue. I don't come here to read things just to reassure my own opinions are justified, other than that my opinions are not necessarily justified all of the time. If you stop thinking you're in trouble, especially if you are actually in the business of filmmaking or any other creative endeavor.

Monkeys are funnier than cats.

I hate it, hate it, hate it whenever someone tells me I'm "over-analyzing" a movie. And it always seems to come only when I'm voicing a negative opinion of a movie that the other person enjoys. I don't think any two people have ever said to each other, "Hey, did you see [Movie X]?" "Yeah, I loved it!" "Me too! Especially how [detailed explanation of what they particularly liked about the movie]." "Bah, you're over-analyzing it! Good day to you, sir!"

And to me, it's an argument that always seems to devolve to, "You just don't like it because you want it to be better than it is!" Which is basically what "You're taking it too seriously!" or "You're over-analyzing it!" means. "Yeah, it's stupid/silly/ill-conceived/poorly made, but change your tastes to enjoy stupid/silly/ill-conceived/poorly made movies, and you'll like it!"

JE: That reminds me of a jokey saying my dad liked to toss around: "Anything's good if you like it!"

And not for nothing, but as long as people are comparing "Avatar" to other movies: If you want to see a GREAT movie about an outsider who enters a wondrous forest filled with mythical creatures and finds himself caught in the middle of the native creatures and the war-bound outsiders, with each side taken seriously in a mature, eloquent story rendered with breathtaking visuals, then for God's sake watch "Princess Mononoke."

Note that I still have not seen "Avatar," so for all I know the comparison I wrote above may not apply to it at all. But the point is: Everyone in the world should watch "Princess Mononoke" anyway.

I used to be a frequent visitor of this blog, but you kept dwelling on how baseless your criticisms were. I was just sick of hearing about it, so several hours ago, I decided to stop reading (Also, I went to the movies, had several meals, and watched some Youtube.) I thought that maybe things had died down since then, so I returned. And *once again* you *can't* seem to let sleeping dogs lie.

Why do you have to be so *analytical*, huh? Can't you just read these posts and enjoy them for what they are? Without having to bring *substance* into it?

It shouldn't go with much saying that telling a joke and explaining a joke are two rather different things: one we find funny and the other not so much.

I don't think the comment cited by the io9 contributor was all that fair. Assuming that we must get started off somewhere then: 'Just enjoy! Don't analyze!', is actually rather a nice way to begin.

Now assuming that anyone who does take the 'Just enjoy! Don't analyze!' as an actual argument to the point that the film is justifiably good on those grounds, we will very happily ignore those sorts of people.

But after taking away those brutes, what are we left with? I still find myself happily advocating 'Just enjoy! Don't analyze!'.

There is however the point when one have turn back the switch and talk oneself through the film (analysis). But the only motivation to do this, I suppose, originates from enjoying the film.

This isn't entirely a matter of critical thought (and all the arguments, which should go without saying, in favour of it), but rather a matter of disciplined thought.

Now here I am assuming that there are simple things in life that give me great happiness without there having necessarily to demand significant reasons justification to myself or others. I may enjoy feeding the birds, and perhaps have a reason to be so enjoyed, yet I need not do it in virtue of that reason. If someone were to ask me at that moment to give a reason why, could I not legitimately say, 'Because I just enjoy it! There is no reason to analyze!'?

This is not necessarily the most interesting or intelligent thing to say either:
"So when you go out of your way to suggest that people should be thinking less -- that not using one's capacity for reason is an admirable position to take, and one that should be actively advocated -- you are not saying anything particularly intelligent."

These sort of thoughts seem to originate from someone not all so confident in their own intellect. Perhaps the whole thing goes back to discipline.

In reply to Kris Pigna:

Princess Mononoke and Hayao Miyazaki's other eco/science fiction action fable comic book Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind are exactly what I think of when watching Avatar. As much as I love the design work on the gear in Avatar the script could use Miyazaki's touch for storytelling. Not only is Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind comic an entertaining action story it is the most philosophically challenging comic book I've ever read. A big plus is that Miyazaki also thought out his tech, his ecosystem, the cultures he presented and his dialogue using his own mind (his interests outside making art didn't hurt either), laboring over it for about 14 years. The persistent problem that Miyazaki's films have here is that they just can't register with moviegoers and I don't know why. His films draw large audiences in Japan, what is it about them that North Americans can't get into?

Thank you for addressing this! As a 16 year-old who dares to criticize The Dark Knight, especially Nolan's clunky action scenes, I hear this all the time and it drives me crazy.

Thanks for pointing out the rules/rhetorical tricks Jim. It absolutely drives me nuts when I see uninformed and poorly thought out comments on any blog, especially the good ones like yours and Rogers. I really wish Logic and formal Debate were required concepts/classes taught in American schools, but sadly no...

While the FERNGULLY comparison is apt in a visual sense, I found the movie to be a story beat to beat ripoff of the ecological sci-fi novel DUNE.

JE: Others have also cited "The New World" (or "Pocahontas") and "Dances With Wolves."

I think many people have forgotten that discussing film should be about the exchanging of ideas whether positive or negative because, you know, we all have the capacity for individual thought and each person will react differently to a film. It is absurd to suggest that every single person should react the same to a piece of art, isn't it?

Those who resort to the ridiculous accusations such as "You're overanalyzing" or "You suck" do so because they are simply afraid to debate. Why? That would require understanding the thought process behind their opinions which most likely were formed from a herd mentality. Once something like that is revealed, you realize how hollow and unserious a person is.

Let's face it. This is not restricted to movies, but (and here is where I knowingly fan some flames) politics, religion and our country's culture as well. What is about our culture particularly in this past decade that berates anyone unwilling to conform to the mainstream? Are people so narcissistic these days that anything is deemed irrelevant if it doesn't reflect their views?

You would think that resorting to the "Stop Thinking" argument would be the event horizon for stupid arguments, but this one has been chugging along for the last 10 years because people need vindication for not thinking for themselves and following the crowd.

More frightening perhaps than the ever-present trend of ill-thought-out commentary is the realization that the Ferngully-Avatar mashup trailer embedded above is actually better than the Avatar trailer from which it cribs its soundtrack. The makers actually appear to know how to let a shot play out for more than 2 seconds (as well as not edit to a metronome). Spooky.

(And yeah, I don't know what it is about you or your blog, Jim, but you get more people trying to psychoanalyze and/or attribute false motives to you than any other film-related writer I read. People must really hanker after your validation.)

charley cvercko: Monkeys are funnier than cats.

That's because they take the time to develop a solid philosophical basis for their poo-flinging.

Good article. Thats something thats annoyed me for ages. Back in university when people wanted to borrow a DVD from my collection, they'd come in and say "I want to watch something where you don't have to think." This always made me laugh. Oh no, not thinking! Thinking is so much effort, and so boring. They want something so utterly moronic and mindless their brain can just shut down and go into stand-by mode like a laptop.

And the other point, I actually can't help analysing a film when I watch it. Because I've made various short films myself, I cant' help but look at how a film/TV show has been shot, edited, the lighting, mood, structure, etc. I can never just shut this off. In fact the more idiotic and simplistic the film is the more analysing I tend to be doing on how much it's annoying me, and how lazy the filmmakers have been.

There is a basic distrust of education and analysis in some aspects of American culture, hence the popularity in some circles of Sarah Palin. She, like George W., eschew such fancy notions as critical thinking and rely instead on their gut. Nuance is lost on such people. How can there be global warming if its cold outside?
Thinking about movies seems silly to such folks. Their "philosophy" is more akin to "relax and enjoy it."
In truth the more critically I think about art, in any of its forms, the more I enjoy it.
Thanks again for a "thought provoking" piece, Jim.

It's indeed frustrating to have people tell me that I should "stop thinking" and just enjoy a movie. I can think of few other contexts in which people would offer this kind of advice, so why this one? What really bothers me though is that they somehow miss the fact that I enjoy movies more since I really began to critically think about them. Analyzing movies may make the bad ones seem that much worse but it makes the great ones that much more rewarding of an experience. What is really the icing on the cake with this whole thing though is that most of the time, the same kinds of people who tell you to "stop thinking and enjoy" are the ones who dismiss you as being pompous and condescending if you try to explain why your love of movies comes from thinking about them.

I don't think there is anything wrong with enjoying a movie simply on the terms of dumb, visceral entertainment (and I happen to be a big fan of funny cat videos). To ONLY enjoy movies on that level is limiting, but it's there's still nothing wrong with it. We don't get to demand that everyone respect our favorite art form.

BUT

That does not mean that a person who likes a film on a non-analytical level is exempt from defending their opinions. An argument aginst a negative review of "Avatar" still must address the concerns in that review. There have to be reasons to overlook the bad.

I think a modified version of the 5 blog post rules here should be required in the first grade curriculum. Imagine how many of the world's problems would be solved by restricting conversations to actual substance. Oh well, I guess we can just go on solving them here, right?

My gosh, Richard Hourula. That is a mighty broad brush you have there. To suggest that "such people" don't appreciate critical thought or that "such folks" are not capable of analytical exercise is absurd. After all, I'm here, and there are plenty like me.

Perhaps we could categorize people not by their political ideology but by their intellectual stamina? Or maybe we can consider those who don't appreciate this type of analysis to be ignorant?

So... We (My wife, 14-year-old daughter, and I ) were driving home from "Avatar" last night. As we usually do, we're animatedly talking about the movie - themes, plot points, motivations, relationships, visuals, etc, and my daughter (who has been chiming in right along...) suddely bursts out with a classic teenager "Why do you guys always have to do this?" We dutifuly respond "Do What?" and she said "I've just come out of a movie that I thought was awesome, I'm all hyped up about it and thinking it's great, and now you've got me THINKING all about it. You're totally ruining the buzz of the experience for me."

We proceeded to rehearse to her all of the arguments outlined above. We want here to be able to think critially about the assorted messages she gets bombarded with so she can make good decisions and avoid getting steamrolled by whatever empty pop fad comes along.

That being said, I'm not without sympathy for her - we were pretty much harshing her mellow, which is a legit beef on her part. While I loved the Racialicous post and I depolore the bubba anti-intellectualism that seems to be on the rise everywhere, I have to wonder if there might be more to the backlash than simply the ravings of the unwashed and uncooth.

Thelonious Monk once famously told a music critic that writing about music was like dancing about architecture, and this might be what some folks (including my daughter) are getting at. Cooking is different from eating, however closely related the one might be to the enjoyment of the other. Reading or writing cookbooks is another activity altogether. All of them have value and they enhance and suppoert one another in many exciting ways, but sometimes it pays to let a little savoring time go by between enjoying the meal and attempting to reverse engineer the sauce recipe.

So..., while I read a lot of critics (and spend a fair amount of time acting as one) I try not to let the analysis compromise my ability to enjoy (just as I try not to let my enjoyment compromise my ability to analyze).

For what it's worth, I found that when it comes to critical analysis of "Avatar", both the lovers and haters are right: In the creation of Pandora's natural world Cameron gave me an absorbing (and at time exciting or moving) experience with lot to love, but his military-industrial complex stuff was not as well realized and felt like it had been grafted on from another, lesser film. Every time the movie shifts gears from the Na'vi rainforest to the Halibuton/Blackwater folks, the suspension of disbelief (something this film really needs in order to work) largely evaporated for me. Couple that with the oft-cited genre pitfalls (recycled plot, thin sterotypes instead of complex characters, lowest-common-denominator dialogue, way too much shoot-'em up, etc.) and I left feeling that I'd seen a good movie, but not a great one.

That being said, I did enjoy eating it at the time...

JE: I empathize. Can we not learn to talk about our emotional responses productively, too? This is about sharing views and insights, not about shutting down discussion, Cartman-like, with "Respect My Authoratay!" (or "My Opinion Is Inviolate -- But I Can't Say Why I Have It!"). I've mentioned this before with regard to the rules of improv comedy: In order to facilitate a conversation, each contribution must add information to the discussion. (Let me re-quote my favorite line about dull post-movie chatter, from "An Unmarried Woman": "I liked it. Phil thought it was flawed.") So, anybody can form whatever opinions they like, but unless they're willing to explore them and articulate how they arrived at them, they have no place on a blog comment board -- particularly not one devoted to the practice of movie criticism. The Phils of the world have nothing to share.

I firmly believe that the vast majority of people think critically about a few things but definitely not about most things, and rarely about everything.

Whether the discussion is film, politics, religion, or sports, we generally put significantly more thought into particular subjects and dismiss the interests or perceptions of others. This is what the the type of fools who would make "Why can't you just enjoy it?" their mantra conveniently ignore.

This attitude is intellectual laziness and is pandemic.

This discussion brings to mind something James Rocchi of MSN Movies wrote in his scathing review of "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen":

"...to deal with the token objections of the film's defenders, I have an inner child; he's just not an inner idiot...I can't shut my brain off and have fun, anymore than I could rip out my tongue and enjoy a meal, because my brain is where I feel fun."

"Why can't you just watch the movie for what it is??? Why can't you just enjoy it? Why do you have to analyze it???"

You know who you're battling here? Normal people. Normal people who have no interest in your explanation. Although, the fact that they take the time to bug you with this actually means that they're NOT that normal, they tilt more towards you. They actually care for your opinion, whereas the real normal people wouldn't care at all about what you do. These people who ask you this are the new inductees to analyses. They are the people between you and the normal people who couldn't be more far removed from analytics.

"I put together these guidelines earlier today"

Could you tack them on the website template itself so that we never have to hear of them again? I'm tired of seeing criticism 101 every serious criticism site I go to. You can't keep letting these new inductees preoccupy you like this or we get nothing done but exhibit how much we get nothing done because we're preoccupied with the new inductees.

JE: Point taken -- and it's a good one. I have to resist the urge to feed the trolls, who don't belong here anyway.

Okay, I really have to go off on this, even though it's only tangential:

WHO CARES if AVATAR resembles some animated movie from 16 years ago that nobody saw?! Seriously, is FERN GULLY suddenly a cultural touchstone now?

There are legitimate problems with AVATAR, though I believe it's a good film in general. But "the story is familiar" is not actually a flaw, really. All stories have been done before- except maybe some of Charlie Kaufman's stuff.

I thought of this piece last night, when the second person — a person I like and respect! — used some variation of the argument, "What gives you the right to criticize this? What movies have you made? If you don't like it, make your own movie!"

THAT is one (of many) Internet arguments I don't understand. If you feel that somebody has no right to think a movie is bad if they haven't made one, then isn't the flip side that nobody is allowed to think a movie is good if they haven't made one?

Following that logic to the conclusion, should movies only be seen by other filmmakers?

Jim - Devin Faraci at chud.com noticed the same post you did and blogged about it in "The Devin's Advocate." You might like it as a companion piece. It's called "It's Ok To Think About Movies.":

http://chud.com/articles/articles/21952/1/THE-DEVIN039S-ADVOCATE-IT039S-OK-TO-THINK-ABOUT-MOVIES/Page1.html

By gosh, by golly, Matt Ryan me thinks you doth protest too much and too strangely. My "broad brush" was not a political one, I just used two conservative politicians as examples of public figures who celebrate intellectual vacuity.
I'm sure glad "you're here." Wherever "here" is. And that there are "plenty like" you. Whatever you are.
And for the record, I agree that lack of intellectual stamina is a far greater sin than a person's political ideology.

I remember coming out of Star Trek with some friends of mine and they loved it. I thought it was bad and they got upset with me. I told them: "I felt like I was watching Star Wars instead of Star Trek." among other large criticisms I had with the movie.
"Why can't you just enjoy the movie?" they asked and then added "When I go see a movie like this I just turn off that part of my brain that analyzes or thinks about it too seriously." At first I felt dumb for taking it seriously but now after "analyzing" that conversation I realize that "Hey, wait a minute. There is a reason I pay $10 dollars to go see a movie. I want some stimulation." And like you said, when I look into the deeper meaning of art, that is my entertainment. That gets me excited and it's why I love movies. There was once an interviewer that asked comedian Bill Hicks why he couldn't just make a show that entertained instead of taking things so seriously.
He responded:
"I know some great jugglers you might enjoy".
That about sums it up for me.

JE: Nice. I fail to see how something that engages only a little part of your attention can be considered "entertaining." Distracting, maybe, but not very satisfying. To me it's like being told you can eat only one potato chip -- nothing else!

Depends what part of the movie you're analyzing. Like, say...the cop in Herzog's "Bad Lieutenant" almost definitely couldn't get away with a lot of the stuff he gets away with throughout the movie, but, that fact is so irrelevant to the movie's aim that dwelling on it is pointless. Or, as I read someone point out a while ago, three soldiers couldn't traverse the Iraqi landscape with as much freedom and independence as they do in "The Hurt Locker." I think these sorts of problems can sometimes distract people from a movie's real substance.

But I'm not gonna turn my brain off or anything.

I'm going to chime in on the idea, articulated by some commenters here, lamenting the lack of ability to debate.

Here's my thesis on why this is so:
1) The vast majority of people tend to follow the styles of the elites of their society.
2) The elites of our society (and here I'm going back to the well of "Voltaire's Bastards") have, for many years now, espoused an ethicless rationality which, in part, emphasizes that winning the debate is more important than arriving at truth.
3) In this zeigeist where "victory is more important than truth" (which could have been the motto of GWB's administration), all is fair in love and war. Hence we find the ad hominem attacks, the conflation of ideas that have no connection in reality, the wild exaggerations, and all the mechanisms of Fox News and/or MSNBC.
4) The end result of this is a culture of debate where people feel they ARE their ideas, and if you attack the idea, you are also attacking them.

So...what do you think of this thesis? Is it on the money? Somewhat true? A bit true? Out to lunch?

It goes without saying, but if you disagree, I won't be offended. It's just my opinion, after all.

Over the years I have heard variations on the following argument on "dueling critics" TV shows:

Critic 1: This film was a big disappointment, it could have been much more but they settled for (cheap gags, mindless action, etc).

Critic 2: I enjoyed it for what it was, they suceeded at what they were trying to do. You should criticize the movie that was made and not the one you would have made.

Usually the same critics would heatedly present the exact same arguments about another film the following week - except they had switched sides.

None of them seemed to find any irony in this.

Over the years I have heard variations on the following argument on "dueling critics" TV shows:

Critic 1: This film was a big disappointment, it could have been much more but they settled for (cheap gags, mindless action, etc).

Critic 2: I enjoyed it for what it was, they suceeded at what they were trying to do. You should criticize the movie that was made and not the one you would have made.

Usually the same critics would heatedly present the exact same arguments about another film the following week - except they had switched sides.

None of them seemed to find any irony in this.

I've been involved with various internet discussion about a particular series for years now and I completely agree with all the rules you express. That said, I would like to add something to the other side of the argument.

One of the things that really gets me are those who - claiming to be intelligent - taking their analytical approach to movies to the other extreme where they are finding faults that aren't actually there. They seem to be looking for reasons to hate the movie instead of actually judging it on its own merits to the point of inventing flaws for them to pick on.

Often these are either a) explained in the film itself but they missed it, b) isn't specifically stated in the film but generally can be assumed from the material and context with a more than rational explanation, or c)is based on some kind of personal prejudice. When you call them out on it then you will almost always get one of the responses mentioned above (being called a fanboy for example). Often I'm not even arguing for whether the film is actually good or entertaining even (in one case it actually isn't).

Thank you for writing this article. I am sick of being told that I would enjoy (insert mediocre film here) if the problem were not with my penchant for analysis (i.e. my personality). I cannot not analyze movies. I wish sometimes that I could, but I can't. I don't know how it works for other "overanalyzers," but in my case it is just the way my mind has always worked. It's not a conscious effort.

I don't get this as often as many others do, but I tend to make watching movies a private hobby. Almost nobody else I know would be interested in what I watch either because it's "weird," "depressing" or "boring." But I do agree that these apparent "arguments" are vacuous in that they crumble upon closer analysis--interestingly enough--but I also note that many people have interests that lie elsewhere. They can sit in front of a movie screen and drool for a couple of hours, without thinking, because their analytical thinking is used otherwise.

If not, then they have more to worry about than how good a movie "Avatar" is to writers like Jim Emerson.

I agree, Jim.

Even if a film is bad, there is thought and intention behind its creation.
Sadly, even areas of the media don't bother to think when processing films. In fact film is often not treated like other art forms.

I interview actors and directors and I never know how to respond when I am thanked for obviously having done research. On one level, it's just good manners to me. But on another, it makes for a more informed and intelligent interview.

Thinking, though, is being pushed further and further down people's priorities. Were this not the case, the media would not have been so complaisant in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Why were so many journalists shocked that there were no WMD's, that they had been led to war on a deception? Because they hadn't done their research.

Not thinking is not just lazy, it's dangerous. And lethal.

I think at times these people do have a point. A movie like 2012 for example got a lot of criticism for being shallow. Fortunately some critics such as our very own Roger Ebert knew while reviewing this movie that it was in fact a time to stop thinking and just enjoy the movie. Avatar on the other hand, as one of the commentators said, wears its subtext on it's sleeve. To not see the subtext is to not see the whole movie. And the subtext is clearly a bit weak. But if this prevents anyone from being captivated by the shots of the beautiful fluorescent forests they need to lighten up.

JE: On the other hand, maybe they don't need to lighten up because the fluorescent forests already do that for them. The subtext is the text.

@Barry on December 29, 2009 11:39 PM
Fortunately some critics such as our very own Roger Ebert knew while reviewing this movie that it was in fact a time to stop thinking and just enjoy the movie.

Isaac Asimov wrote similarly about Star Wars. I believe he wrote something like, 'Park your Science Fiction sophistication at the door...Sometimes it's fun to turn your brain off for a while.'

Science fiction author Walter Jon Williams published a book in the early 90s, in which there was a page that listed some of his previous works as "Novels" and others as "Divertimenti". This kind of distinction happens in print too.

So at what point is it valid to just have fun with something?

Here's my theory. A film (or book) can have a silly premise, or silly events...as long as that premise and those events are internally consistent, and is well executed. Then it's at least good trash.

What do you think?

From Guideline #5:

"Only opinions based on observation and evidence are valid; anything else is just a whim."

What about opinions based on emotion? We are talking about art here. The single biggest reason I go to the movies is because of the way they make me feel. We can't always be expected to explain with scientific precision exactly why a painting or a piece of music creates a certain reaction inside us. The sense of giddy wonder I felt many times during Avatar was powerful and memorable - not just a whim.

Following this rule would whittle every post down to a discussion of a film's technical aspects. The gut reactions we have are far more important, even if they are inarticulate.

"There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear." -- Daniel Dennett

Doesn't this quote imply that you should love bad arguments for a view you disagree with?

OK, I just wanted to say this: I went and saw this the other day with a few friends, some of us liked it, some talked about the "great graphics, no story" thing.
Everyone is saying about how predictable, and unoriginal the story was. Yes there is the obvious connection with Dances With Wolves or Last Samurai but in a weird sense that's why this movies works. It touches on themes so fundamental that you relate almost immediately. Much like the indigenous tribes in Dances With Wolves and Last Samurai they have a connection with the natural world. Cameron isn’t copying these stories, he’s simply agreeing with them. Mankind affects anything we try to study/mine/change. Its our curse as a species, what we change, we destroy. I think the problems, the thoughts,the themes on this movie are already embedded in our minds, but forgotten, so it just helps to wake them up a little. I believe that people should think a little outside the box, with this movie, in a more humane and natural way that in a purely scientific one, based on script, dialogues, camera angles, technology etc. I mean, silly, unoriginal or anything else it may be (I don't agree, but its just for argument's sake) it reignites some basic instincts on many people (for example those that were already a little more environmentally friendly) so, yeah after a lot of thinking I believe its a great movie. Of course I respect all other opinions, but not the complete square thinking, and the belief that "I think Avatar (or movie x) is stupid therefore I am smart"
I really want to hear opinions on this, not only on how good the movie is, or isn't, but if you also think that we sometimes criticize based on square facts too much.