Are Entertaining Films Always Good?

I've just finished watching the Guardian's round-up of the year's films, and it was clear that Xan Brooks and Jason Solomons are both of the unprogressive school of film critics. Solomons decried the entire comic-book adaption genre, including perhaps this year's best film Kick Ass and the rather flakier but nevertheless entertaining Scott Pilgrim, while in the 'Guilty Pleasure' category Hot Tub Time Machine and Piranha 3D were the nominees. Both were convinced that their choices were 'rubbish', and yet they both enjoyed them immensely, sidestepping the thorny issue of whether an entertaining film can be considered good even if it wallows merrily in the mud of the derivative or the self-consciously schlocky. I am going to explore whether a film that prioritises viewer pleasure over artistic substance can be judged to be good, or accurately judged at all.

Nearly every film ever made was made with the intention of being entertaining (why are there no decent synonyms for entertaining?), and nearly everyone goes to the cinema with the intention of being entertained. Even the most journalistic of genres, the political documentary, will be presented in such a way to actively engage with its viewers. Almost nobody has more than a basic knowledge of film theory with which to analyse cinematic technique, and even most film students such as myself judge a film mostly on how absorbing it is. The whole film industry is built upon making films that engage their target market, and the more successfully this is achieved the greater the box-office receipts. When critics like the aformentioned Brooks and Solomons bow under apparent critical peer-pressure it's indicative of the tendency of film writers to try and evaluate films in the manner of literary and music critics (who are both also guilty of the same tendency), when film is an entirely different medium and so should be judged after it's own fashion.

But. 'Entertainment' is impossible to quantify. It is entirely subjective. I really enjoyed, say, Cloverfield yet most of my friends were put off by the herky-jerky camera; another of my friends really hates Forrest Gump. How is a critic supposed to intrinsically judge the collective mood of not just the audience in his or her screening, but the mood of every audience in every cinema in every country? Would it not make more sense to analyse a film based on its more concrete elements such as cinematography, script, acting, themes etc? Furthermore, if a film is entertaining but contains questionable material, for instance homophobia or political insensitivity, it would be a poor critic that fails to dock marks. I think it would be fair to say that critical analysis of films with cultural and political pretentions is possible along the lines of how well it achieves this, but this group would be a minority. Likewise would an attempt to judge films by how well they achieve their primary objective fail - many films just want to be fun, which brings us back to square one.

So, the original questions is still unsettled, but how about the inverse: Are good films always entertaining? I've used it in arguments for the past several blogs but I'm using it again here: Citizen Kane (despite being flawed) is still technically decent, yet no one I've ever met has actually particularly enjoyed it. In fact it could be the epitome of the hypocritical attitude I bemoned earlier, and in the previous blog - declaring it to be less exaulted than previously thought would be seen as an attempt to undermine critical theory as a whole, such is its position as a vaunted text. Other than this, I'm struggling to think of further examples. Jackie Brown was dissapointing, as was Vertigo, Ratatouille and The Untouchables, but I think broadly speaking film critics get it right.

The Baffling Case of Videogame Nostalgia.

"We drank dandelion wine and we reminisced

About the moment when we first met that day.

(I'm trying to watch TV)
Then we reminisced about how we first reminisced
(Oh yeah? Sounds a bit gay)" 

Brett McKenzie, Rambling Through the Avenues of Time

Us humans love a good, regular dose of nostalgia. Remembering the good times brings us closer, whether you're a few old pals re-living wild parties before the knee, backs and livers gave way, or if you're that boring kid clinging desperately onto that one time when they were actually involved in something worth remembering ("see, I am funny!"). 

This classic 'rose-tinted glasses' syndrome applies not just to memories, but to more or less anything that we like - literature, films, music, wars even - and for the most part this is fine. Nostaglia comes in two forms, however: critical nostalgia and popular nostalgia. Popular is entirely harmless; it's my generation getting excited by Blink-182 - they were great when we were 14 but looking back they're basically shit (complaints in the comments section please) - but there is no arrogance around it, no air of superiority nor snooty intellectualising. No, these traits are found instead in critical nostalgia. They see classic cultural touchstones through blinkers, and while there will always be revisionist thinkers if something is perceived as great it will take a huge amount of re-evaluation to knock it off its perch.

Sense and Sensibility is unspeakably boring; Citizen Kane is far from the great character-study film that it is seen to be; the Beach Boys are excessively annoying (Good Vibrations aside). All these would presumably get five-star reviews, when one, three and three respectively, would be more appropriate. I get the impression that a large part of this nostalgia comes from the youth - or at least the critics of the future - having it drummed into them that things such as these are 'great'. 

Nevertheless, the three mainstream cultural schools can be evaluated, rightly or wrongly, in the same way today as when they were released - that is the tools with which they were made haven't changed much in the intervening years. The English language of today is much the same as when Sense and Sensibility was published in 1811; the classic cinema techniques of shot-selection, editing etc. used now were established before Citizen Kane was filmed; musicanship hasn't improved since Pet Sounds. There is one nostalgic trend that I've yet to mention, and that is of videogame nostalgia.

Videogame nostalgia toes the line between cultural and popular nostalgia. People now approaching middle-age can look back with affection, but there are videogame critics who think Space Invaders and its ilk are genuinely good games. That the hardware on which it was developed was pathetic compared to the behemoths of today doesn't change the fact that it is bad. As adorable as they are, baby steps are still less assured that an adult's stride. Like Kane et al, Space Invaders was good upon first release, but unlike Kane it can't defend itself against the test of time - the rules have utterly changed in the 32 years since. 

Bafflingly, developers are still trying to emulate that 8-bit style. Dark Void Zero, released this year, is a nominee for Gamespot.com's Platformer of the Year award, despite being shite. It runs entirely on the fumes of nostalgia: the soundtrack is made of those 8-bit bloops and blops that only the Mario theme can get away with these days, the graphics are deliberately pixellated ( read: made worse) - and the gameplay is creaky at best. 1980s emulation can be done well: 3D Dot Game Heroes is a great modernised pastiche of early Zelda titles, but it is very much the exception. When complex and challenging games like Heavy Rain and Shadow of the Colossus are being made, 8-bit gaming is just a candle in the wind.

The Day We Caught The Train

At the end of the '90s, after the Brit-pop hubbub had calmed down, it was Oasis who reigned supreme over the decade. Their two monster albums, What's the Story (Morning Glory) and Definitely Maybe spawned equally monsterous hits, and were as well recieved by the public as the critical press. Then in the mid '00s, revisionist music critics realised that it wasn't Oasis, or Blur, or Radiohead, or Suede that had made the best album and written the best song, but in fact, Pulp. I'm not saying Common People wasn't loved immediately and intensely after it came out, because it was, but critical appreciation for it seems to have increased over the years. Perhaps this is because it remains as relevant today as during the 90s, in contrast to Oasis and Blur who now feel slightly dated.

However, not even Common People was the best Brit-pop song. No, this title goes to Ocean Colour Scene's The Day We Caught The Train. OCS are decidedly second tier as far as 90s bands go - their best album, 1996's Mosely Shoals has two brilliant songs (The Riverboat Song being the other), and the rest are just fine. Common People and TDWCTT (what a shit acronym) are distinctly different: one is smart, witty and observant while the other is punchier and catchier. Common People may actually be the better song, but TDWCTT (for God's sake, there's not even a key word I can use like Oranges in the last blog) captures the hazy optimism that I associate with the 90s, where England could still play football, summer holidays always seemed to be hot and the economy was in rude health; in other words, its message is diametrically opposite to that of Common People.

TDWCTT is just a perfect pop song. It clocks in at just over three minutes, but in that time it manages to cram in a whole load of great melodies, none more so than the glorious outro, 'When you find that things are getting wild / Don't you want days like these?' It's sing-along perfection, but the sort of thing that other bands would have stretched out over five minutes such is the strength of it (see: Hey Jude), but Ocean Colour Scene keep it tidy. The reference to The Beatles is no mere coincidence, TDWCTT could easily be one of theirs; indeed, before I knew who the band was The Beatles was my first guess.

It's a camp-fire song, an escapist song, a song for the good times right up there with the very best.

Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit

I've got no idea where this blog might go so it could we be a load of shite. I await the result as eagerly as you. (Looking back, I should probably say spoilers ahead)

Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit (Jeanette Winterson, 1986) is the sort of book that made me want to study literature. Forget Sense and Sensibility, Mary Barton, even Jane Eyre - Oranges, for me, is what literature should be about.

First of all, it's funny. Not just funny, but hilarious at times - one of the funniest books I've ever read, in fact. I can't remember who said it, but to paraphrase, they said all great literature should have comedy: life is funny, and what is literature if not a reflection of life? The aforementioned Sense and Sensibility is supposed to be funny, but let's get this straight - it's not. Not even close. There does seem to be a dearth of wit amongst the mid-19th century. Maybe the period just wasn't particularly funny; in all walks of culture there are celebrated artists from that period, except comedy. Had it even been invented? Who knows. I digress.

The star of Oranges, at least in comedic terms, is undoubtedly Jeanette's Mother. It's not just her puzzling religious beliefs that are funny (she at one point declares Jeanette's sudden deafness to be aresult of Jeanette being 'full of Spirit' and leaves it at that), but she is also clearly batshit crazy. Jeanette returns home once to find a letter from her mother that reads: "Dear Jeanette, we have gone to the hospital to pray for Aunt Bessie. Her leg is very loose. Love, Mother". What in God's name is a 'loose leg'?! Of course, she becomes less funny once she exiles Jeanette for being a lesbian, bitch.

While other study books this semester deal with themes in a broad way, for example the comment on the educated middle-class male in Jekyll and Hyde, Oranges is very much more focused. It took me a while to understand what the title related to, but once I had done it was very staisfying.

"Oranges are not the only fruit?" said my friend. "That's a pretty obvious statment isn't it?"
"No", I should have replied, "It may be obvious to us, but for someone that's been raised in a household where orange is the only fruit, where God is the only way of thinking and heterosexuality is the only possible sexuality, then the realisation that orange is not, in fact, the only fruit, is a powerful one". However I didn't say that because I suck at thinking on the spot.

One thing I didn't expect was the mother's realisation that orange is not the only fruit. Eventually she welcomes allows Jeanette back into the house, and uses an enormous amount of tinned pineapples as the primary foodstuff for a mission to an un-named place where coloured people live in the blind assumption that black people must like pineapples. It's a start, at least.