17 here, Junior in high school, employed, free time, DVD's are legal... brings me here. I haven't seen many older films like previous posters, but I've been renting a lot recently... trying to see some classics I haven't before.

All of my friends think that I have a personal blockbuster on my shelf, they're always impressed when they see it. And just like any other collection, there's many titles I wish I had, and even some I could afford to get rid of.

Luckily, the majority of my friends love movies as well. I talk with them about it, hear what they like, what they don't like, and I'll throw a recomendation at them. I try not to argue with some of them, (why 2 Fast 2 Furious wasn't nominated for best picture), because they have their own opinion... and it's not something worth looking like a dick about.

I'm interested in what other have to say... keep it up!

If a girl can't appreciate Les Quatre cents coups why would anyone want to be with her?


I'm also heavily considering to rename this thread the 'Fanny & Alexander Blind Buy Club' it's very reassuring to know that there's other people my age as interested in auteurs like Bergman.

lmao, true that, I see these kids my age post there dvd collection, haven't even heard of some of them, I enjoy being a teenager still!


(Check out my collection if you don't believe me )

Heh, I've got my fair share of Michael Bay, and the American Pie trilogy at that. That said, I'll take a girl who doesn't have to play 20 questions through "Memento" over a "Cinderalla Story" ditz any day of the week.

..and don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day.

-JP

I'll take a 'watch a Bergman jump in bed talk all night then fool around session' over a 'drunken spontaneous "I have to go pee long and hard" after we do it session' anyday.

I've learned my lesson from freshman year, thanks!

but I do love to get drunk - once in a while -...

Yes, we all like yto get drubnk sometimse.

-JP

No offense, but people should buy what they like. Not what others say is great. I used to buy Criterions and award winners, etc because everyone here clammored over how great they were. I found that despite them being good, there was no reason to own them as most were one and done.

Some like Ben-Hur, The Godfather, etc I like to have in my collection, but I do not go out of my way to get the classics. I get what I enjoy and what my wife enjoys. My wife likes Pluto Nash (don't ask me why - I did not hate it but it was pretty bad) so it is in my collection and I am not ashamed of that. There is no Bergman - doubt there will be. I may rent it and if I like it find some more, but it is not a priority.

Oh, and as for people not knowing about the classics, that is like saying everyone should know about baseball history or NASCAR or NFL, etc. It is an entertainment thing and not an important part of history - schools do not need to teach film history to today's youth - some basic world history and geography would be a better idea. If they are interested in film, come to places like this and learn.

I beg to differ. An art credit is required to get a high school diploma. All things considered, film is much more an artistic medium than a form of entertainment. Sure, people go to the movies to be entertained...in the same way that people go to their local 'Museum of Art' to be entertained. Comparing cinema to sports is just plain silly...the two differ on so many fundamental levels.

So, I'll dispute your claims that film "is like baseball," and "isn't an important part of history." Cinema brings to life past societies in a way that no History 101 text book could ever hope to. The emotions, the likes and dislikes, the concerns and worries, the attitudes and mindset of societies past are all laid out on the screen. Video of an old baseball game tells us who was capable of swinging a bat, and which pitcher had an off night. Classic cinema works as a portal into a previous (and often distant) society. The two differ on so many levels that your analogy is nearly laughable.

And finally, we're not asking that these people watch every single frame of film shot by Bergman, Jean Luc-Godard, Fellini and company...no more so than we'd expect the average person to know Jackie Robinson's rookie-year batting average. However, is it that wild to expect the names Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, and Cy Young to ring a bell among the average person in modern society? How about Leonardo da Vinci, Vincent Van Gogh, and Michelangelo Buonarroti? Or Ludwig van Beethoven, Franz Joseph Haydn, and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart?

If not, why do you find it odd that most of us are aghast when grown men offer a look of confusion at the mention of some of the most renowned directors of all time?

-JP

I agree with you; that it would be a good thing for people to know who these excellent directors were and at least have seen some of their films. But your analogy doesn't quite work.

While Bergman, Kurosawa and others might have made huge contributions to the way film is now, they sadly aren't the Babe Ruth's or da Vinci's of directors. People like Hitchcock, Kubrick, Spielberg, Scorsese and Coppola fit better with your analogy of household names. Should the others mentioned in this thread hold the same acclaim? Sure. But they don't.

Most people with a passing interest in films know the directors I mentioned, and have probably seen at least some of their films. The same goes with your analogies in their respective fields. Most people have seen a picture of a work by da Vinci, or a song by Beethoven. But some of the more obscure people in their fields that made as big of or even greater contributions, people have never heard of.

I bet forums dedicated to music or painting have the same debates on other names that were more talented or contributed as much or more than the examples you gave, and are ignored by the general public. And as with here and directors, even many people that consider themselves true art buffs or music buffs are unaware of them.

Famous musicians and famous directors fit well. Everyone loves movies, everyone loves music. People have hundreds of CDs, people have hundreds of DVDs. But I bet you a huge majority of people mostly just listening to music that they grew up with have no idea who people like Robert Johnson were and how their music influences almost every aspect of how music is made today.

I agree with your argument that people that enjoy the art of movies and think more of the field than just something to do while you eat popcorn would be better off knowing the directors mentioned. But the sad fact is these directors aren't names most people have heard of unless they are passionate about films, the art of directing and film history. Blame it on a lot of things, but it isn't an individuals fault that they've never heard of Fellini and thus never seen a film by him.

I've got a pretty varied selection. I'm not in college, but I'm of the college age (23). When girls come over to watch a movie, they're usually not on the same page when I tell them Annie Hall would be great to watch, or say even Amelie. I've got over 600, so when someone wants to watch something, chances are I've got it.

That was kind of my point...that it's a shame that these guys aren't as well-known as Spielberg, Coppola, Hitchcock, et.al. "A shame" probably wasn't the right phrase, but it's the first that came to mind.

Perhaps Bergman is George Mikan to Hitchcock's Wilt Chamberlain, but on the same token, I'd expect people on a film site to at least recognize the name and the contributions he made to cinema...in the same way I'd expect somebody frequenting an NBA site to say, "Oh yeah, Len Bias...sad story."

I think my analogy came off as saying, "Bergman is as much a household name as Kubrick, so you're crazy for not knowing who he is." My intended point was this: "Bergman contributed as much (if not more) to cinema than Kubrick, so it's crazy that a majority of society doesn't know who he is."

Therefore, those of us who are (and pardon me if I come off as condescending, it's not my intention) well versed in these areas shake our collective head at the fact that the majority of citizens don't recognize names like Renoir and Kurosawa. Likewise, Dvorak and Grieg should be as well-known as Beethoven and Bach...and so on and so forth.

-JP

...I don't know who he is.

But hey, that's what this forum is for.

1. Yeah an art credit is required - so film from the 20th Century is more important than the great artist and composers of the last severla hundred years. I don't think so and you are going to have a hard time changing any minds. Even if they taught a little, obscure works like some you are mentioning would never get covered only the superstars like Hitchcock would get covered - that is the way art is handled.

2. Very, very few films offer the kind of art and expression you talk about. The majority of films are made to simply entertain and make a return on investment. For every Schindler's List there are a ton of Pluto Nash. You can learn historical lessons from sports just as you can film, so your assertion that it is more does not hold for me. Looking back on anything can teach you about the past. With very old sports footage at least what your seeing is real and a realistic assertion can be made fom what is seen (what people where, how they act, number of minorities, etc). A film is someone's vision of how something is, not exactly historical documentation.

3. If someone is not interested in cinema, why should they know who these people are. Really, one reason to know who Bergman is. Its nice to know trivia, but if they are not a movie person why should they know. I am never surprised when I say something about a famous athlete and I get puzzled looks. It usually doesn't happen with the likes of Babe Ruth, but it has. I don't think anything less of that person or "shake my head." I may try to inform them briefly to further there education or basically so they will understand why I made reference. In the same respect, I don't look down on people that have no classic in there collection. It's entertainment pure and simple to the majority of people. Elitisit film fans are the only ones that care about stuff like this generally. I put myself in the middle. I care enough to explore notable names and older movies, but not nearly enough to say I am a well informed film fan. Oh, and you do come off with a very arrogant "everyone should be as educated as me" attitude. You say most of us, but there are like maybe 20 posters total in this thread - there are thousands of DVDTalk members.

4. The post above me is nice, a person that does not know but is willing to find out. Be careful not to scare people like this away when you are busy looking down on them for not already knowing who Bergman is.

I thought I'd throw out there for the college student not already in the know that university libraries are great places to borrow and view classic films, including Criterion titles, at no cost. If you are lucky, your library also has a laserdisc collection, allowing you to listen to the Taxi Driver commentary and other exclusives.

First to those saying film could be a great art credit, film is not counted as an art credit at every school. When I took Film Studies in high school, it was an English elective credit, the same category of classes had I taken Creative Writing, that's in south Florida (Miami-Dade Country) though, it may be different in other places.


Speedray - I'm going to strongly disagree here with your idea that only 'the superstars' get covered. Here are some examples of films we watched in my high school film class: A Trip to the Moon (Melies), Bronenosets Potyomkin (Eisenstein), Intolerance (Griffith), Nosferatu (Murnau), Sunset Boulevard and Double Indemnity (Wilder), The Searchers (Ford), City Lights (Chaplin), Cinema Paradiso (Tornatore), The Day the Earth Stood Still (Wise) and a bunch more that aren't coming to mind, this was about 3 years ago. We even watched Plan 9 From Outer Space (Wood); some teachers care more about covering the importance of even those films that aren't 'the most popular.'

Now granted we did do a few auteur studies on Hitchcock (Rope, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Rear Window) and Woody Allen (Husbands and Wives, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Manhattan and Bananas). In a high school setting though, you have to touch up on some of the more popular directors, because honestly at that age (15-18) a lot of kids might not be ready to handle Godard and Cocteau and Fellini. Obviously every single program is different, but there are certainly teachers in high school who care about teaching the history of film, and not just focusing on 'superstars'

Absolutely. Our library has about 200 or so Criterions, including most of the OOP's which I'd otherwise probably never get to see. Outside of the CC's, they don't have the biggest library of films, but it's definately better than nothing, and free.

Here...here.

Very well said.

I too couldn't care less what others like. Talk about a film that's a classic? Is it a Criterion? Who gives a rat's ass? I look through Amazon's listing of Criterions (do a search for 'Criterion Collection') and I don't even recognize 5% of the titles.

I went to school, High School and College, to learn what is necessary in the real world. My major ended up being in History, after two failed attempts in engineering and computer science. By having a History degree, I know more of what's going on in the world today than what any knowledge of some Ingmar Bergman film would ever teach me.

This is why "Hollywood" is so out of touch with the real world. They have their collective heads so far up their "fantasy film world" ass that they have no clue on why the US invaded Iraq or who the real threats are to world-wide freedom.

The problem with today's youth...yes, I'm talking to the majority of the participants of this thread, is that when you have to teach you folks '90s history, there's a fucking problem. Why did Bush invade Iraq? Remember what happened in '90 and '91? When you were 4-6 years old? Yep, that's what I thought so...No you don't. Well, I was 17 years old and a senior in High School, when that happened. Yep, I missed the opportunity of being a Gulf War veteran by one year. In fact, one of my classmates joined up right after graduation and serves in the Gulf during the post-war period. Well, my point is, that if half of the "anti-war protesters" of today were out of diapers when the last Gulf War occured, then maybe they'd understand why we're doing today what we're doing.

I don't think having vast film and director knowledge back to the beginning of film history is that damned important when it comes to real life. BTW, I hated English Lit class. Don't even ask me about having to read, "Wuthering Heights". I could have shot my teacher over that one.

Now, give a good movie about the struggle and fight between good and evil, with lots of explosions and high body counts, I'm in. Well, just kidding...sort of.

With that, now where's my copy of 2 Fast 2 Furious..

Your first point was already addressed, so I'll start here.

Half of what you said is true. Today, there are a dozen films like "The Pacifier" for every Schindler's List. Which makes it all that much more important for filmmakers like Fellini, Bergman, Kurosawa and company to be recognized and remembered. These are guys who consistently made a statement with their work...there are no "Pluto Nash" type titles in their filmographies.

Beyond that...I'd debate your notion that "you can learn as much about the past from old sports footage as you can from film," but I really wouldn't know where to start. Let's just say that I wholeheartedly disagree...but if somebody is willing to make a statement that you find wholly outlandish, there's really no sense in even attempting to refute it.

In regard to your "why should they know about such and such" question...you answered it for yourself: "I may try to inform them briefly to further there (sic) education." It's important for the same reason that we have high school literature classes in which students are required to read and analyze works of fiction from years past. Simply put, I feel it's necessary that citizens become more cultured and knowledgeable about a wide variety of subjects past and present (not just film, though that's become the foundation for my little tirade). You apparently don't see the necessity. I suppose we'll just agree to disagree.

There's a whole slew of information about these guys on the internet. If somebody is actually scared away by an ongoing internet forum conversation, well then I don't know what to say other than they can easily find the information they're looking for elsewhere.

-JP

Three cheers for broad generalizations about today's youth.

-JP

To add to colador's analogy to music, I agree with that as well.

When I was in High School, hard rock and heavy metal was the popular music of the day. None of this boy band shit and just the very beginnings of rap...Run DMC and Vanilla Ice ring a bell? Anyway, I became a heavy metal fan when I was a freshman. And through-out my highschool years and then a little less so, even into my college years, I bought several metal albums by groups that hardly anyone had heard of. Some of it was alright, some of it was great...by metal standards. So when I would open up my cassette tape cases, and show people my collection, they would say, "Who is 'Testament' or 'Death'?", or whatever... Those are some pretty common well known band names for heavy metal fans, but for the casual fan of music in general, they just hadn't heard of them. Did I chastise them for it? Did I say, "It's ashame that you haven't heard of, or heard any of Testament's songs, because they are like Metal Gods". No, I just said, "OK, that's fine...I like them"...."Now go listen to your 'Back Street Boys'". Nah, just kidding.

Today, one of my favorite bands is Iced Earth. They're like Metallica and Iron Maiden combined. A high speed progressive metal band.

Now if you were to ask me today what the most popular musicians are, I wouldn't be able to name you any. I haven't heard of a fraction of the musicians today. But give me a classic Van Halen or ZZ Top album anyday.

Who?



-JP

Well, look at the TV footage of the anti-war protests. The majority of the participants are ill-informed highschool students, college-aged hippies, and their 50-ish year old professors.

But seriously, I was listening to a radio talk show where the host had to educate the 19-year old caller about '90s history, starting with the '93 WTC bombing. Mainly concerning that how the liberals in teaching professions have attempted to indoctrinate their students into believing that there were no problems with terrorists during the "peaceful" Clinton Administration. When the fact is that there were around 10 separate terrorist attacks on US interests during the Clinton Administration. The difference is that Clinton more or less ignored them, and Bush is dealing with them in the only way the terrorists understand...strength.

Hey Mike Lowrey-
Bravo for making a generalization about some 40-50 million kids, who obviously don't know anything about this world right? You studied history, so you, who as you so eloquently put it - failed in engineering and computer science, are a master of current events and world politics? You have got to be kidding me, I don't believe anyone invited you into this thread to tell myself and every other roughly 16-23 year old in here that we are idiots when it comes to the news, and that you apparently are god because you studied history. I started this thread so some college aged kids could talk about their DVD habits, unless in your failure to understand literature, you also failed to learn how to read and somehow missed the first 40 replies in this thread. Congrats for "graduating high school and college" so you could learn everything in the "real world" because it is obvious that according to you the arts mean jack. There must be some very interesting dinner discussions in your home about political crises around the world. Until you go survey each and every person in my age group, do not generalize what we know. Do not generalize what I know, because you are not in any way "supreme" for the fact that you almost served in the Gulf War, that isn't going to impress any of us. I'm sorry that you fail to see any historical value in film and literature, I guess that's what comes from growing up in the disheartened early 90's as a punk eh?

If you knew me, I never lash out at anyone like this, but what right do you honestly have to make a generalized statement about my generation being ignorant? With age does not always come knowledge buddy.

Well, he might be making a very broad generalization, but from my experience it is dead on for a large percentage (not all - you are proably an exception) of that age group. I am barely out of that age group being 25 and feel sad the lack of knowledge those younger than me tend to have when it comes to world events and politics. I am no fountain of knowlege - but do have a general knowledge base I have developed over the last few years. I recently went back to college to take some classes as I am starting my own business and I am around the age group daily. That is why I feel I can make an educated assumtion about the majority of the age group at least in this area.

Yeah, they may know art, and they may know movies, and they may know music, but they in general are lost when you get into a conversation about politics, money and world events. Is art, films and music important - YES. More important than history and the world around us - NO.

I go to a media school - one of the best in the country - especially for Recording Industy. I meet people all the time that are marvels (extensive knowledge) when it comes to the arts. I still veiw them as lost because they don't know what is really important - I assume they will figure it out just like I did when they graduate into the real world. I have a media design degree - art degree - so don't think I am just some art hater. I don't mean to hijack your thread so I will try to resist saying anymore, but he does have a point about who attend these rallies, etc.

And what exactly do your political diatribes have to do with the subject at hand? Obviously you are pro-Bush and a supporter of the Iraqi invasion - fine, so be it. But painting the "majority" of those protesting the war with mindless generalities (your specialty, I've noticed) does nothing to enhance your point of view.

If you recall, before your misdirection and sidebars on how wonderful your musical taste is, how stupid anti-war people are, etc, - the topic was/is about whether or not todays college/high school students have any appreciation for things not of their own generation. I mentioned earlier that I was appalled by this thread, and it has been heartening to see several people subsequently post about their efforts to find something of interest beyond the summer blockbuster.

Simply the act of realizing that there is more in this world than what you already know, and being willing to explore beyond your current knowledge is the true sign of an "educated" person.

can someone tell me if my collection is the typicle teenage collection kind? lol ill admit i got my fair share of mainstream..