Today’s question comes from Hank, who writes:
I got a copy of “The Film Snob’s Dictionary” for Christmas, and discovered to my surprise that I am not, in fact, one of them.
Their definition is that a Film Snob is “the sort of movie obsessive for whom the actual enjoyment of motion pictures is but a side dish to the accumulation of arcane knowledge about them.” For me (and you as well, I suspect) it’s all about the movie enjoyment, and rabid-puppy enthusiasm for the ones we love. A QOTD might be suggestions for a better term for those of us on this side of that definition.
As to the book, it’s a funny-once. I read it in about thirty minutes this morning. It’s authors seem more intent on scoring snarky points off of people with different opinions than anything else, which attribute I’d have said was more definitional of film snobs than anything else. (“You like that?”)
So:
What makes someone a “film snob”? Do you consider yourself a film snob? If not, what term would you use for your film fandom?
Hank is right when he guesses that, for me, it’s all about enjoying the movies… and sharing them with others, too. I could not possibly care less about some of the things that some film fans worry about, like whether this edition of a DVD release has a slipcover while that one does not. And while I enjoy, say, looking at movie posters, I don’t get excited by the news that such-and-such upcoming movie got a new poster, and I’m not generally all that interested in hearing the latest casting news (with a few exceptions for very favorite actors or franchises). I think that is reflected in how I simply don’t cover that sort of movie news here — apart from the fact that there’s an abundance of that sort of coverage online already, it’s just kinda boring to me.
What would I call myself? A film geek, I guess.
You?
The Film Snob’s Dictionary [Amazon U.S.] [Amazon Canada] [Amazon U.K.]
(If you have a suggestion for a QOTD, feel free to email me. Responses to this QOTD sent by email will be ignored; please post your responses here.)
According to this definition, I wouldn’t be a snob either. “Film enthusiast” would be closer to the mark. I like or dislike certain films with a passion, but my hopefully well-informed utterances about such preferences and aversions are not driven by any concern to be perceived as a cognoscente by others. Snobbism is all about appearances.
If you’re familiar with every single title of the Criterion collection, you’re a a film snob. if you’re someone who’s *seen* every single title of the Criterion collection is Quentin Tarantino.
I was once told that a gourmet was someone who liked the experience of haute cuisine; not just the fine food, but the more refined things in the whole experience, but a gourmand was someone who was just into the food; that a perfect new york street dog was as good as a meal at el Bulli, appreciated on its own terms.
Yeah, I’d call myself a film enthusiast or film geek (the two words are basically interchangeable to me). I love movies and everything about them, I want to experience them and share them with other people. Geeks are all about the art. Snobs are all about themselves.
I would never say for myself that I’m a snob in any way, but some people I know think I am one because I like foreign movies, black and white and silent etc. But unlike real snobs I don’t really care much about reading books about, let’s say, Citizen Kane. I’ve seen that movie three times, i like it, it deserves it’s reputation as one of the greatest movies, I read few articles about it and see no reason to read about it any more. what’s more there to say, but snobs are all into analyzing the same old movies over and over again. another thing that shows that I’m not a snob is that I don’t really care who made the movie. I respect authors, but I’m not one of those people who say that every Tarantino,PTA,Lynch…movie is better than something directed by someone hired to do the job. if movie is good I’ll say it’s good no matter who made it and who stars in it. i don’t care for labels but I’m certainly not a snob!
The book sounds as though it’s talking about the sort of Star Trek fan who’s rejected by other Star Trek fans for being too much of a stereotype.
I’d call myself a film enthusiast; I don’t know as much as I’d like to about the processes of film-making, and to me that’s a prerequisite for geekdom just as much as biting the heads off chickens. In fact this is one of the reasons I like some very bad films – observing what works and what doesn’t is hugely educational.
I really don’t care about pre-buzz for a film – I want to know very roughly what it’s about so that I can calibrate expectations going in, but I don’t pay the slightest attention to posters (mostly I don’t even see them), and trailers are more likely to put me off than to enthuse me.
The book seems to me to be way off. A film buff, maybe I could indulgently accept their knowledge-based definition for. But a film snob? Of course not. A film snob is someone who is snobbish about films, not necessarily knowledgeable. A film snob looks down on certain sorts of film. A film snob is the sort of person who calls them “films” rather than “movies” (*cough* *shuffle*).
I’m trying to work on describing fans in more useful terms than the mainly audience-based definitions adopted in (media studies-inflected) fan studies. One of the things I do is identify what I call “vectors” of fan activity. They include, for example, “collecting,” “spectating” (which refers to enjoyment of others’ texts), “creating” and pertinent here, “knowledge”. The “accumulation of arcane knowledge” referred to by Kamp and Levi is most definitely a fan thing: emphasis on the a. Which is to say, one fan-defining activity among many.
But I guess The Film Fan’s Funnyonce, while a more honest title, wouldn’t have sold as many copies…
I think that you’ve got something quite important here: the traditional model of fan behaviour, of people watching the primary source and then talking about it, is hopelessly simplistic in this connected metacommunity.
There are some people who memorise stuff. There are people who learn about the processes involved in making the primary materials (that’s often me). There are people who absorb and enjoy, and may eventually try to work out what it is that they enjoy.
Any of these people can like or dislike something, with more or less formal justification depending on their state of knowledge.
(As for “film” vs “movie” – yes, obviously this is a UK/US thing, but in an age of digital video it seems to me that “movie” is the defining characteristic much more than “film” ever was…)
What is a ”metacommunity”?
As I’m using it, the larger group of people made up of multiple smaller communities.
Thanks, Roger. It wasn’t a useage I was familiar with, but I get you now.
It’s a very good way to describe fandom(s): especially because while you have distinct fandoms, you also often have a strange meta-awareness of the overarching idea of fandom, which transcends boundaries based on interest (so RPG fandom is, in some ways, the same fandom as SF fandom and so on).
…or Alex Cox
Speaking of which, Repo Man comes out on Criterion in April.
Walker is already there.
The easy answer is that a film snob is someone who thinks that other people are watching movies wrong. Examples would include: “You like American movies?” and “I wouldn’t watch anything made after my children were born.”
But, as usual, it’s more complicated than that. I think it’s okay to hate That’s My Boy for its casual acceptance of statutory rape or Piranha 3DD for its objectification of women. And if someone responds, “Why can’t you just turn off your brain and enjoy the movie?” I think it’s okay to believe that there’s something wrong with that person’s view of the world.
But I try not to react that way. I try to think: I’m glad that people have found a movie they love. It’s hard to argue against love.
So I guess snobbery is about defining good taste so narrowly that you exclude most other people. If you do that, then it’s possible you don’t love film as much as you love hating other people. And eventually, it can turn into a vicious circle, when you start to hate them because they think that you’re a snob.
I don’t think I could say it any better than this.
Yep. That’s pretty well what I think too.
I didn’t realize there were different connotations. *I* do that sometimes, in comments. Or rather, I switch back and forth just for variety’s sake, so I’m not saying “movie movie movie movie” all the time.
When I was a kid, we talked about “Going to the pictures” rather than “Going to the movies”. I think there’s a British/American dimension to it, but there’s also a distinction based on perception of worth/culture. The film/lit student I was at uni with claimed that the big US directors used the term “film” rather than “movie”.
To me snobbery is all about the attitude. I have no problem with people wanting to collect every single bit of arcane knowledge about a movie, if they’re doing it out of genuine enjoyment (I’ve done the same for certain movies myself). It’s when they think that such knowledge makes them superior to other moviegoers that they become snobs.
I think snobbery is about establishing an insider/outsider dynamic, even if the insider is a community of one. It allows for a conspiratorial wink between members (“We’re too smart to buy into that…” “Only we’re really sensitive enough to get it…”).
There are those who consider people movie snobs who don’t like the latest popular shitastic action or vampire movie. I’ve been called a movie snob simply for being discerning in what I watch. For actually caring about getting a decent story. I’ve heard people at work avoid talking to me about movies because they think I’m always negative about them, which couldn’t be further from the truth. I LOVE movies, which is the exact reason why I care so much. And why I don’t just accept whatever Hollywood dishes out. I’m amazed at the amount of people who do.
Like MaryAnn, I don’t care about all the minute stuff. I just want a great movie. And I love discussing those great movies with people of a similar ilk.
A movie snob is just like any snob; someone who believes themselves to be better than others. Someone that looks down on others because they have a dissenting opinion or that they just ‘enjoy’ stuff. They believe that knowledge is power and so that power must be kept by the alleged elite.
A movie geek or nerd (depending on your definition) is someone that loves movies and wants to share that love with as many people as possible.
It’s not about what you love, it’s not about whether or not you have standards or any form of quality control, it’s about how you process that love; do you share it or hoard it?