"Pretentious"

[QUENTIN]

This has gotta be the single most misused word when it comes to movies. Greater than 9 times out of 10 when I see someone describe a movie as pretentious, I have to consider they don't know what it means. And I'm not just talking about schmoes or your average movie fans, but professional critics too. This word is SO commonly misused, I think its real meaning is almost unknown because of its prevalence in describing things that aren't pretentious.

Here's a dictionary definition of the word:
Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious. See synonyms at showy.

You know what some of the most pretentious movies of modern times are? Armageddon, Moulin Rouge, Bad Boys II, Natural Born Killers, Requiem for A Dream, The Island, Snatch, City of God, etc.

Some are good (Love Requien, City, and NBK), many are bad, but they're not the type of films usually labeled as pretentious. I find it very funny that the most pretentious producer alive, Jerry Bruckheimer, is considered to be the opposite and so many quiet little arthouse movies, which are the antithesis of pretension, are slandered as such. Pretentiousness has nothing to do with being boring, or quiet, or having a message. The least pretentious filmmaker I can think of is Yasujiro Ozu, with Robert Bresson close behind. The vast majorit of Bergman's work is utterly unpretentious, yet I hear the world slung at him all the time. If 2001 is pretentious, it is because of the light show and the emphasis on visuals, not because it is slow or "nothing happens." If JFK is pretentious, it's because of its editing style not because Stone is pushing an agenda. If Waking Life was pretentious, it's because Linklater emphasized the rotoscoping animated visuals, not because of what the characters talk about. Bad Boys II is the definition of pretentious because it's nothing but fast, over-edited explosions and gunfire.

Pretentious movies are those that are flashy, showy, have that MTV style. "Ironically" enough, the most pretentious genre has gotta be the action movie, which is considered by most to be the opposite of pretentious. So, to summarize, Ballistick: Ecks Vs. Sever: the height of pretention, the Gus Van Sant's quiet little film about nothing much happening but some inner turmoil: the antithesis of it.

Glad I got that off my chest.

[Kevin Lockard]

I tend to agree. NBK is labeled that because of the overload of demonic images and such. To a certain degree, I guess I can agree with that one. I'd rather they treated the demonic images just every now and again, like how Mickey gets the quick violent flash at the first when the fat guy makes fun of Mallory at the first but it is an overloaded effect. NBK is one of the favorite films, though. Both of Asia Argento's films, Scarlet Diva and The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things, are a bit pretenious, especially THIDAAT. I like Scarlet Diva, though.

[APzombie]

In that cae, the only time I've ever used it I was right. King Kong is pretentious.

Good rant, it seems to be misused alot.

[sAtAn666]

Showy, eh? Then I guess I'm a fan of pretentious camerawork - the opening to Touch of Evil is pure filmgasm.

And there's a second definition in the Dictionary - "Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified." When most people use the word "petentious" they mean, "The film is pretending to be better than it actually is", and the film doesn't always do this with its visuals, but with storyline. Some action movies just openly admit they want to be good, dumb fun (but I find Bay pretentious, because of the showy stuff like you said - it wasn't necassary to put in that 360 degree camera-spin at the end of every freakin' trailer for Bad Boys 2).

[Beeblebrox]

This rant, ironically and not-surprisingly, is using the wrong definition of the word. When critics/audiences refer to a film as "pretentious," they usually mean this definition:

Expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature.

There are unquestionably many, many arthouse films that qualify. Naturally, the importance, worth, or stature of a film are subjective, but a film like 21 Grams or Requiem For A Dream could be considered pretentious.

[The Postmaster General]

You're right about the misuse of the word, Que. I have to slightly disagree with you though that the definition stops at showy.

Assuming the reaction an audience will give - this, I think, best explains what is pretentiousness is films.

You are right, Bad Boys is pretentious, but not because it is showy. It is pretentious because it is apparent that Bay wanted to make a film that would knock audiences balls to the wall. Bay set up a pretense of what the emotive reaction to his film would be.

I think the opposite of pretentious would have to be humble, or understated.

Look at the first two Evil Dead films. I would say they are very showy, however they have a certain self degrading quality about them. They are humble in many respects. I don't think anyone could call these movies pretentious, despite them being very showy and over-the-top. Raimi didn't seem intent on striving for a certain reaction from the viewer. However, with Army of Darkness, Raimi by that time knew what people loved in the movies, and jammed the third movie full of this. He demands a certain reaction in this film, which I think it could be argued that this is the most pretentious of the Evil Dead trilogy.

While I do not totally rule out that pretention means the artist is saying, "Hey! Look at me!!" I think it should be distinguished that it may be that they are saying, "Hey! Look at me, and this is what you'll get:"

I'm glad you brought this topic up. To me, this, along with the "don't get it" thread should be compiled into a guideline book about discussing films.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
This rant, ironically and not-surprisingly, is using the wrong definition of the word. When critics/audiences refer to a film as "pretentious," they usually mean this definition:

Expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature.

There are unquestionably many, many arthouse films that qualify. Naturally, the importance, worth, or stature of a film are subjective, but a film like 21 Grams or Requiem For A Dream could be considered pretentious. My hero. I agree.

I use this word a LOT, ya. Still . . . I was pretty sure I was using it right.

. . . Pink Floyd The Wall is the most pretentious piece of cinematic garbage ever.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
This rant, ironically and not-surprisingly, is using the wrong definition of the word. When critics/audiences refer to a film as "pretentious," they usually mean this definition:

Expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature.

There are unquestionably many, many arthouse films that qualify. Naturally, the importance, worth, or stature of a film are subjective, but a film like 21 Grams or Requiem For A Dream could be considered pretentious.



Nice that we both chimed in at the same time, saying essentially the same thing - with your take being less all over the place.

Something though, is I don't think it is uncalled for to warrant a movie that is, say, toilet humor, as being pretentious. I've had many people disagree with me, and fewer agree, that Kevin Smith has an air of pretention - I'd say Dogma fits the bill. Even if a movie is totally goofy and juvenille, I don't think it is disqualified as taking itself very seriously and seeming self-important.

I think at one time, pretention was reserved only for what could be seen as upper crust, or high-brow, but I think at this point in time, it can apply to all sorts of --um - classes of films.

I'd also like to add --- I don't think pretention is a negative criticism of a film. It just describes how the movie comes off, or strikes you. People sometimes say "pretentious" as just a way of saying the movie bored them, which is where I agree with Quentin.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I'd also like to add --- I don't think pretention is a negative criticism of a film. It just describes how the movie comes off, or strikes you. People sometimes say "pretentious" as just a way of saying the movie bored them, which is where I agree with Quentin. [/B]

I think it's more or less negative, but subjective. Just like "overrated" or "underrated," which are inherently comparative terms. As such, i won't quibble about which films are or aren't pretentious.

My issue is simply that the rant was defining "pretention" by intentionally or ignorantly excluding the most commonly used and legitimate definition of the word, and then accusing others of not knowing what they are talking about.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Pretentious is overused, but it can be used to accurately describe some films, I Heart Huckabees. comes to mind.

[The Heart Collector]

Bruckheimer's movies aren't pretentious, because I'm sure when Bruckheimer makes them, he isn't thinking 'goddamn this is a magnificent work of art i'm making here'. Seriously, wtf. That's like saying the white sox game I just saw was pretentious because there were some fireworks.

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Bruckheimer's movies aren't pretentious, because I'm sure when Bruckheimer makes them, he isn't thinking 'goddamn this is a magnificent work of art i'm making here'. Seriously, wtf. That's like saying the white sox game I just saw was pretentious because there were some fireworks.
That's just the thing - I think that in some cases, he does. I've seen last year's little gem The Squid and the Whale labelled as pretentious, and I don't see at all how someone can say that. It's a tiny, tiny film that tells a story so utterly personal, it's amazing the film even had any appeal outside of Baumbach's own immediate family. I've seen Wes Anderson movies being slated as pretentious and, again, I don't see why - In The Royam Tenenbaums, for example, Anderson is simply telling a small and quaint story ofa bunch of interesting characters in a wayward family. He isn't trying to solve world hunger or deliver a message to the leaders of the world or anything like that. On the other hand, movies like Pearl Harbour and The Patriot are the PEAK of pretentious... celluloid dreck directors like Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich directing these touchy, historically important subjects and just crapping all over them with their explosions, action scenes, CGI and one-dimensional mentality. Boo to them.

When a film like that knows when not to take itself seriously, such as the case in Pirates of the Caribbean, it's fine. But when a movie comes along like Independence Day with the president's "today is our independence day!" speech, or The Day After Tomorrow with its Al Gore agenda... now THAT'S pretentious to me. I agree 100% with Quentin's rant.

[Abuckley89]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Bruckheimer's movies aren't pretentious, because I'm sure when Bruckheimer makes them, he isn't thinking 'goddamn this is a magnificent work of art i'm making here'. Seriously, wtf. That's like saying the white sox game I just saw was pretentious because there were some fireworks.

That made me laugh really hard.

Thought you should know.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Monotreme
When a film like that knows when not to take itself seriously, such as the case in Pirates of the Caribbean, it's fine. But when a movie comes along like Independence Day with the president's "today is our independence day!" speech, or The Day After Tomorrow with its Al Gore agenda... now THAT'S pretentious to me. I agree 100% with Quentin's rant. [/B]

Quentin's definition of "pretentious" is "ostentatious" or "showy". Period. That would make Pirates every bit as pretentious as ID4 or The Day After Tomorrow, by that definition.

Again, he is misconstruing the word by excluding the most common usage of the term: "exagerated importance." I think The Day After Tomorrow would qualify, but not Pirates under that definition.

In other words, you actually agree with the more common definition, not Quentin's.

[BadCoverVersion]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Pretentious is overused, but it can be used to accurately describe some films, I Heart Huckabees. comes to mind.

My Hero!

I have to agree with Beeble and Heart Collecter here.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by THC
Bruckheimer makes them, he isn't thinking 'goddamn this is a magnificent work of art i'm making here'.


I think, though, that when you are assuming how the audience will react, or thinking that your film will manipulate an emotive response, that this qualifies as pretentious. It is demanding that you film be given certain merit.

Like I remarked before, with absolutely no feedback, I think we've come to a point with art that high-brow and low-brow flicks aren't indicators of if it is or isn't pretentious. Namely because we've come to a point where making low-brow movies is an art form unto itself.

Why can't it be possible for something to demand merit without looking like high-art. The root of pretentiousness is assuming your art will be given a certain merit.

Going back to Michael Bay - Many scenes in Armageddon, where it is apparent that they were filmed with Bay saying, "Man, I bet people will cry when they see this." REGARDLESS of how cheesy or corny the lines are - that is text book case pretentiousness.

It doesn't matter if you film looks like its shit doesn't stink - that's not what pretentiousness is, which regardless of Quentin's misuse of the word, was the bane of his rant -- people act like only art films can be pretentious, and that's not the case.

[bankholdup]

I think alot of pretentious material lies within dialogue. Pretentious here meaning having less meaning/importance that the filmmaker thinks it does.

I'm looking at you, American Beauty! Fucking plastic bag scene anyone?

Okay, so I didn't exactly add alot to what some were saying, but I hope my point is there.

[Beenthere]

Quentin,
Is a word Kitsch describes some "pretentious" movies you mentioned or not? I use this word when I try to make a point about some movies that are rather "an inferior copy of an existing style" or "in bad taste, and also commercially produced items that are considered trite or crass."

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Beenthere
Quentin,
Is a word Kitsch describes some "pretentious" movies you mentioned or not? I use this word when I try to make a point about some movies that are rather "an inferior copy of an existing style" or "in bad taste, and also commercially produced items that are considered trite or crass."

When I think of the word kitsch, I think of the movie Radio. I thought that was a disgusting movie in the way it condescendingly used oversentimentality and syrupy goo in order to get people to like it, thus implying that all moviegoers are idiots.

[JCPhoenix]

Originally posted by bankholdup
I think alot of pretentious material lies within dialogue. Pretentious here meaning having less meaning/importance that the filmmaker thinks it does.

I know this isn't some dictionary definition or something but I generally use a definition/rough guideline that is a combination of the one bankholdup mentioned above combined with Beeblebrox/Bubba Strangelove's definitions...

A movie that comes to mind immediately for me that I found pretentious personally was The Village - and this is where bankholdup's def'n applies more as I just found Shyamalan trying to make his tale more important than it really was...(the whole allegory deal)...bah. And I can totally see Huckabees as pretentious despite my love for that film.

Interesting rant though. It certainly made me pause and think about how I use this word.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by Monotreme
But when a movie comes along like Independence Day with the president's "today is our independence day!" speech

Hahahahahaha, I forgot how much that movie RULES.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Going back to Michael Bay - Many scenes in Armageddon, where it is apparent that they were filmed with Bay saying, "Man, I bet people will cry when they see this." REGARDLESS of how cheesy or corny the lines are - that is text book case pretentiousness.

But his target audience DOES cry when they see that.




I think the problem here is that some people are using 'pretentiousness' as applying to EVERYTHING, but it hardly applies to Armageddon. Now, if Roland Emmerich said that he hoped The Day After Tomorrow would start a movement for better environmental policies, and even change a few major politicians' minds, then yeah, I think I can safely say the man is pretentious.

To be pretentious, you've got to actually be shooting for something high. Michael Bay shooting to make some retarded 14 year old girls cry isn't shooting high. The guy who directed The Jacket saying he's some brilliant director and his movie ruled balls and is deep is shooting high.


Pretentious implies that whatever it is is PRETENDING to do something, but not doing it. That something HAS TO BE SOMETHING MAJOR, OR NO ONE WOULD CARE.

Is Timbaland a pretentious producer for assuming a song he wrote could be a dance club hit because it has a good beat? I think that's a good example. You can't say a bunch of producers are pretentious because they think their songs have good beats and might be hits at the dancefloor, COME ON. What the fuck are they 'pretending' to? Nothing. Now, if Timbaland said his production work was groundbreaking, and on par with the greatest innovators of music in the 20th century, I think we can safely say the man's being pretentious, because she's SHOOOOOOOOOTING HIGH.


Ultimately that's the key here. Shooting high. Michael Bay, by definition, can't be pretentious, since he's aiming for the lowest common denominator. Lowest Common Denominator. Things accused of being pretentious are those things that seem made to appeal to very few people, people that can then stroke their beards, talk a bunch of big words about what they just saw, and conclude themselves art masters. A movie can't, practically by definition, be made to appeal to most people and be pretentious. In fact, when most people say a movie is pretentious, they specifically mean the movie is made to appeal to not many people.

STOP SAYING MICHAEL BAY IS PRETENTIOUS. HE ISN'T PRETENDING TO DO ANYTHING.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
But his target audience DOES cry when they see that.




I think the problem here is that some people are using 'pretentiousness' as applying to EVERYTHING, but it hardly applies to Armageddon. Now, if Roland Emmerich said that he hoped The Day After Tomorrow would start a movement for better environmental policies, and even change a few major politicians' minds, then yeah, I think I can safely say the man is pretentious.

To be pretentious, you've got to actually be shooting for something high. Michael Bay shooting to make some retarded 14 year old girls cry isn't shooting high. The guy who directed The Jacket saying he's some brilliant director and his movie ruled balls and is deep is shooting high.


Pretentious implies that whatever it is is PRETENDING to do something, but not doing it. That something HAS TO BE SOMETHING MAJOR, OR NO ONE WOULD CARE.

Is Timbaland a pretentious producer for assuming a song he wrote could be a dance club hit because it has a good beat? I think that's a good example. You can't say a bunch of producers are pretentious because they think their songs have good beats and might be hits at the dancefloor, COME ON. What the fuck are they 'pretending' to? Nothing. Now, if Timbaland said his production work was groundbreaking, and on par with the greatest innovators of music in the 20th century, I think we can safely say the man's being pretentious, because she's SHOOOOOOOOOTING HIGH.


Ultimately that's the key here. Shooting high. Michael Bay, by definition, can't be pretentious, since he's aiming for the lowest common denominator. Lowest Common Denominator. Things accused of being pretentious are those things that seem made to appeal to very few people, people that can then stroke their beards, talk a bunch of big words about what they just saw, and conclude themselves art masters. A movie can't, practically by definition, be made to appeal to most people and be pretentious. In fact, when most people say a movie is pretentious, they specifically mean the movie is made to appeal to not many people.

STOP SAYING MICHAEL BAY IS PRETENTIOUS. HE ISN'T PRETENDING TO DO ANYTHING.

When it comes to movies being pretentious, though, it's not so much what the directors/producers say as much as it is what the film says. Earlier I mentioned I Heart Huckabees as an example, and I stand by that. The whole film in it's 1 hr 50 min entirety acts on what it considers to be existential brilliance...and it shows because the plot itself is so loose and the film is so boring that none of the self-proclaimed existential brilliance is justified. You don't even have to read what David O'Russell says about it, you just know it's a pretentious film. Michael Bay isn't pretentious because he's a popcorn director, and nothing more. He knows his films aren't going to increase the I.Q.'s of his audience, because he's more of a businessman than a director, and that's better than being a self-proclaimed genius.

[The Postmaster General]

You guys are giving the points I already questioned in my initial post - like you are one post behind me.

My whole stance is that there is no difference between saying, "Hey, look how important my art film is." and saying, "Hey, my popcorn flick will be a staple of great action films."

I just think that we are at a point in filmmaking where snobbery isn't an indication of pretentiousness. There are so many filmmakers out there that shoot for the lowest common denominator, so why can't they be pretentious about it? Like I said, again with no direct feedback, it doesn't matter what your target audience is when you are being pretentious. THC keeps throwing out the word 'pretend' as if he thinks it's the root word for pretentious, so let's just go with that one --- Do Michael Bay's films seem to aim for more than they are capable of accomplishing? When he stages a scene about the destruction of earth, and two lovers are having a heart-to-heart, does he say, "Wow. People are going to think this is really corny!!!" I doubt it, and are you seriously telling me that's what he has in mind?

Like Beeblebrox says, this is all subjectivity, and the way I see it, Michael Bay thinks his shit doesn't stink no less than... I don't know - Robert Altman. Just because one makes films featuring ellitism, and one makes popcorn flicks makes no difference as to the pretense that they put into their film.

I"m saying this solely as if reflects on films. I've never heard anyone EVER refer to a musician as making pretentious music - maybe the musician in their behaviors, but not directed at their music. So the Timbaland analogy is out there even for me.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Like Beeblebrox says...

Every post should begin this way. :)

I've never heard anyone EVER refer to a musician as making pretentious music...

Really? I hear it all the time.

[jackson13]

Right as I clicked on this thread to read it, George Costanza called his girlfriend 'Pretentious' on an old Seinfeld episode on my tv.


Cue Twilight Zone music.

[echo_bravo]

Is Timbaland a pretentious producer for assuming a song he wrote could be a dance club hit because it has a good beat? I think that's a good example. You can't say a bunch of producers are pretentious because they think their songs have good beats and might be hits at the dancefloor, COME ON. What the fuck are they 'pretending' to? Nothing. Now, if Timbaland said his production work was groundbreaking, and on par with the greatest innovators of music in the 20th century, I think we can safely say the man's being pretentious, because she's SHOOOOOOOOOTING HIGH.

Kayne West

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
Really? I hear it all the time.

Yeah, I overstated that one -- don't hear it all the time, but I forgot about many conversations regarding Pink Floyd.

[bankholdup]

Pink Floyd's not only pretentious...they're dull.

Anyway, I always get tempted to call Bergman's films pretentious, particularly The Seventh Seal and Winter Light (which I actually love). However, I think there is a deeper meaning to Seventh Seal than I can really open my eyes to (not including what's already there)...just not ready, or just not that interested.

Then there are the films that are made pretentious by the [pretentious] fans. I saw this short film at the MoMA last year, where it was an observation of three drunks and how they react while being filmed in a room. It was generally fascinating to see these homeless people and how they interact with one another. But afterwards, I swear to God, I heard the most typical (in the worse way imaginable) conversations for New York museum enthusiasts. Can't tell you exactly what they said, but it wasn't pretty, folks.

Films like that, I'm not sure there is that deep meaning that people dig desperately for to try to sound smarter.