I Love You, I Love You Not
Rushmore. What is there not to like?
Bill Murray. The drummer from Phantom Planet. Futura Bold.
Needless to say, I was taken aback when Nell said she didn't like it.
Let me rephrase that. She hated it.
Which is okay. We all disagree about movies. But this wasn't one of those "agree to disagree" situations [like that fight Mark and I had over the merits of Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever]. I didn't even have particularly strong feelings about the movie.
The point was this was the kind of quirky little indie flick that high school Nell, a quirky little indie in her own right, should have loved. But she didn't. And I refused to accept it.
We all formulate little algorithms in our head about the kind of things our friends like and dislike. They are superficial and reductive, but they usually work.
Ian, bless his heart, has an incredible tolerance for the worst movies. And I mean the absolute worst. In the span of six hours we once sat through Walking Tall, Doom, and Soldier. If there is a trashy action movie that nobody else will see, I know I can always rely on him. Yet, he mysteriously loathes Ghost World -- a fairly harmless twee comedy in the vein of Wes Anderson.
What is it about these turn-of-the century indies that is so polarizing?
And it is not just my circumstantial evidence.
There is a large industry dedicated to deciphering a person's individual taste. In fact, Netflix has a competition based around trying to improve its rating estimation by 10%. Succeed, and you net a cool $1,000,000. What people have discovered, however, are a few vexing movies that seem to have a high variability of people loving them or hating them. These outliers are the final obstacle in surpassing the 10% threshold.
It has become such a problem that people have dubbed it the "Napoleon Dynamite" issue.
A few of the top movies with high variance stick out for obvious reasons: Fahrenheit 9/11 (political), The Passion of the Christ (religious), Twister (Bill Paxton).
What intrigued me were the top 5 didn't seem to have these obvious signifiers.
The Royal Tenenbaums ([My] User Raiting: 5.0, Average Rating: 3.3)
Lost In Translation (UR: 5.0, AR: 3.3)
Pearl Harbor (Likely User Rating: 1.3, AR: 3.5)
Miss Congeniality (LU: 2.1, AR: 3.4)
Napoleon Dynamite (UR: 3.0, AR: 3.4)
Instead, I would categorize most of them under the quirky indie comedy label. [Pearl Harbor remains a mystery.]
Although the Netflix data only extends to 2006ish, I have a feeling we could safely throw Little Miss Sunshine and Juno into the volatility index.
So, I repeat my earlier question and open the floor to you: what is it about these turn-of-the century indies that is so polarizing?
[Editor's note: future Nell later recanted her heretical views on Wes Anderson. She now rates Rushmore with Four Stars on Netflix. Ian's current opinion on Ghost World could not be determined by the publishing deadline.]
Bill Murray. The drummer from Phantom Planet. Futura Bold.
Needless to say, I was taken aback when Nell said she didn't like it.
Let me rephrase that. She hated it.
Which is okay. We all disagree about movies. But this wasn't one of those "agree to disagree" situations [like that fight Mark and I had over the merits of Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever]. I didn't even have particularly strong feelings about the movie.
The point was this was the kind of quirky little indie flick that high school Nell, a quirky little indie in her own right, should have loved. But she didn't. And I refused to accept it.
We all formulate little algorithms in our head about the kind of things our friends like and dislike. They are superficial and reductive, but they usually work.
Ian, bless his heart, has an incredible tolerance for the worst movies. And I mean the absolute worst. In the span of six hours we once sat through Walking Tall, Doom, and Soldier. If there is a trashy action movie that nobody else will see, I know I can always rely on him. Yet, he mysteriously loathes Ghost World -- a fairly harmless twee comedy in the vein of Wes Anderson.
What is it about these turn-of-the century indies that is so polarizing?
And it is not just my circumstantial evidence.
There is a large industry dedicated to deciphering a person's individual taste. In fact, Netflix has a competition based around trying to improve its rating estimation by 10%. Succeed, and you net a cool $1,000,000. What people have discovered, however, are a few vexing movies that seem to have a high variability of people loving them or hating them. These outliers are the final obstacle in surpassing the 10% threshold.
It has become such a problem that people have dubbed it the "Napoleon Dynamite" issue.
A few of the top movies with high variance stick out for obvious reasons: Fahrenheit 9/11 (political), The Passion of the Christ (religious), Twister (Bill Paxton).
What intrigued me were the top 5 didn't seem to have these obvious signifiers.
The Royal Tenenbaums ([My] User Raiting: 5.0, Average Rating: 3.3)
Lost In Translation (UR: 5.0, AR: 3.3)
Pearl Harbor (Likely User Rating: 1.3, AR: 3.5)
Miss Congeniality (LU: 2.1, AR: 3.4)
Napoleon Dynamite (UR: 3.0, AR: 3.4)
Instead, I would categorize most of them under the quirky indie comedy label. [Pearl Harbor remains a mystery.]
Although the Netflix data only extends to 2006ish, I have a feeling we could safely throw Little Miss Sunshine and Juno into the volatility index.
So, I repeat my earlier question and open the floor to you: what is it about these turn-of-the century indies that is so polarizing?
[Editor's note: future Nell later recanted her heretical views on Wes Anderson. She now rates Rushmore with Four Stars on Netflix. Ian's current opinion on Ghost World could not be determined by the publishing deadline.]
posted by d l wright at 5/04/2009 09:11:00 AM
14 Comments:
Maybe this is part of the problem, but I think it's a scandal that you would put the actively terrible and very much hated by me Juno and Little Miss Sunshine in the same group as the five star gems, Rushmore and Lost in Translation.
My distinction between the two groups has to do with quirk for quirks sake masking giant problems with tone and even substance in the case of the former. My adoration of the latter group has to do with quirk as a natural byproduct of a substance that is on par in terms of quality with style. (I don't put The Life Aquatic and the one in India in either category, because Wes Anderson's pacing is getting worse, not better, and his knack for character and conflict has really taken a back seat to his art direction.)
ghost world sucks. 300 rules.
Quirk was cool by the time Juno and Little Miss Can't Be Wrong came out. Which is obviously not ok. Anderson got too cool for his own good too.
I must fall into Logan territory on this issue. I love all of those movies except for Pearl Harbor, which I've never seen, and Napoleon Dynamite, which I'm completely indifferent towards. But I do remember Nell's uncanny dislike for Rushmore.
I think what makes any of those movies so polarizing, as someone who likes them, is the same answer you can get from any message board on the web. Anyone who doesn't like them simply isn't intelligent or good-looking enough to fully understand them. Thus, the hater hates the movies because the movies remind the hater of his or her lack of intelligence and his or her poor physical construction.
Also, my favorite part is when Ecks and Sever team up, get married, change their names to Mr. and Mrs. Smith and then take that memory erasing serum. Crazy stuff.
(Seriously though... I didn't get your "dead" link at first. Well played.)
p.s. Pilar, I do think you're right about later Wes Anderson films. Although my love for quirky Portuguese music made the Seu Jorge parts of Aquatic my favorites.
Quirky indie comedies are often "difficult" movies. Are they polarizing because some people view that difficulty as a signal of quality even when the movie is bad? And because some people view that difficulty as a signal of highfalutin snottery even when the movie is good?
Are they polarizing because the good ones and the bad ones all have the same veneer so that people who are maybe less discriminating can't tell them apart?
who is pilar?
Sorry, guys. I'm a friend of Logan's from grad school. I hope this doesn't make anyone feel funny, but I've been lurking y'all for about three years.
P'WNED?
Pela: I put Juno and Little Miss Sunshine in that same group for that exact reason. With those two movies, there seems to be no middle ground. People either love their or hate them. And while I personally agree with you about the two movies having huge problems in tone and substance, that still doesn't explain their huge popularity. I doubt people rate them with five stars just because they have quirk for quirks sake. Conversely, I can't imagine the person who hates Rushmore yet loves Juno. Maybe that individual could help articulate the subtle differences between these quirky indie comedies. [Perhaps Nell could reach back to her days of ennui and describe her former hatred of Max Fisher for us?]
As to your later comment, I think you are getting closer to the right idea, although I don't know if I would describe any of these movies as being particularly difficult. And if the movies all have the same veneer, wouldn't these less discriminating viewers all rate them the same? The conundrum is that there is no clear way of knowing if someone who likes Lost In Translation, for example, loves or hates Rushmore. Or Ghost World. Or Juno. Sam, for example. Does he actually hate Ghost World or was he just being sarcastic? I honestly have no idea.
Mark: I understand that you are probably being a little wry with your response, but to re-iterate my question: why Napoleon Dynamite as opposed to A Beautiful Mind or Crash? At least I can point to pseudo-profundity with the latter. I don't think Napoleon Dynamite went over anybody's head with its depth of meaning.
Slightly unrelated: Pela, Netflix recommended me a movie called Time Crimes saying that people like me give it an average of 4.5 stars. So I watched it, and I was like dude, unless a time-travel movie has more than 3 recursions ala Primer, it is not worth my time.
Timecrimes = 3 stars.
what's P'WNED? if logan went to grad school why can't he get a better job?
and i actually hate Ghost World
I will give my actual theory for three of the movies. Napoleon, Juno and Rushmore are, to put it mildy, goofy as hell. Goofy isn't exactly a good thing. Nor is it that bad.
Important Fact: I rated Rushmore 4 out of 5 on Netflix, Nell still doesn't like it, "because it's mean". I withheld the 1 star for one reason: Phantom Planet dude. The only reason I can enjoy Rushmore at all is I am somehow able to separate character from actor, which is usually impossible for me.
Also: I loved the Life Aquatic, liked Rushmore, but refuse to see Darjeeling Limited (that dude again) and actually also Juno because of the feeling that they are pandering to me in a disgusting way, a feeling I call the Garden State feeling. A feeling I wish never to feel again.
Post a Comment
<< Home