What are we even saying when we call movies "self indulgent"?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- Mentioned in this video:
The Fabelmans
The Brown Bunny
Caveh Zahedi
Follow me on Letterboxd - letterboxd.com...
Main Channel - / makingshorts
Support -
Patreon: / joelhaver
Paypal: bit.ly/2ZI7uff
Merch - joelstuff.store
Social -
Instagram: / joelhaver
Twitter: / joelhaver
Drawings: / joeldrawsandwriteshaver
I love movies
"The Fabelmans" was a great movie. Art is inherently self-indulgent. I know some artists who feel that once they have created their art, it no longer belongs to them but belongs to the public - to the ages. It's like the idea that every artist should do at least one self-portrait. It's inane to believe that all artists should disassociate themselves from their art.
Art dissociation is a corporate world phenomenon where companies want the emotional appeal art has to its' audience, but wants as few complications from obligations to the artists who made it. It helps companies to convince artists that art isn't personal, just business and that they are merely building a product on an assembly line.
(IMO it shouldn't be that way. Or at least, there should be more room for personality in art rather than expecting it to always be "professional" to the point of being bland.)
I do think that though art should be intensely personal, the idea that it no longer belongs to you after it is made public is actually one of the best things about films. Once the public reacts to the film and begins to form their own emotions, theories, and nostalgia for the film, it really becomes more than just your movie, it becomes a memory in other people's lives. So at a certain point it's like you don't own the movie anymore.
If you're successful and you make art for yourself, you're self-indulgent. If you're successful and you make art for an audience, you're a sellout. The moral of the story: Stop being successful. You're making everyone else feel bad.
Sort of related, I have similar feelings about the way people use the word "pretentious." Pretentious literally means pretending, pretending you have some level of insight or wisdom that you actually don't. And it's pretentious enough when some blowhard artist sets out to write the Great American Novel or whatever, but so often people use the word to describe artists who are being personal and genuine, just because they use symbolism or whatever. Kinda stinks.
I’ve been saying this for so long and I’m glad someone else finally agrees with me on this. The word ‘pretentious’ is just such a shallow criticism and it’s so overused. Not everything can be pretentious.
Thanks Joel, I feel like you gave us all permission to make art without being scared that we'll be told we're too self centered.
❤️❤️❤️
THANK YOU I've always been so annoyed by people calling works "self indulgent" or "masturbatory". Always feels like "why are you making the kind of movie YOU wanna make??? You should be making one for ME."
I forget who this quote belongs to, but it's something along the lines of "if writing it down scares you, it's exactly the thing you need to write". And in my experience, the scariest things to put into your art are the bits scraped from the soul. I have so much respect for artists who dare to make (honest) work about themselves. It's one of the scariest things there is.
& The idea that an ego document is bad by default is so inane, we all spent 90% of our time consumed with thoughts about ourselves. It shapes how we see the world. It seems more transparent to me to be honest about our inward focus than to pretend it doesn't exist.
Still listening to you talk here but wanted to answer the question before hearing all of your take.
If a movie is self indulgent to my eyes, it means it’s obvious to me that it was made to satisfy the creator. The person behind the ideas made it with themselves in mind, but not as a disregard to anyone else, but with a love for the craft & art of expression. Some movies are made because those behind it know it will do well and make a profit immediately. Self indulgent movies do well because it’s obvious whoever made it loves what they’re doing. It’s a beautiful thing when those movies do well, too. I thoroughly enjoy watching someone create something for themselves with no regard. It turns out great when they know what’s good (what’s good to them, if not everyone). And those who know what’s good, know that that creator isn’t disregarding the audience, that creator is hooking their arm for a stroll and saying “watch this!”
There is a certain amount of shame placed around "self indulgent art" as if we *have* to make everything for everyone else. I've been doing some personal thinking on this for a while actually. I'm working on a story, and its very self indugent. Ive been using it to help me understand and cope with my lonliness. And as its evolved ive become very proud of it but i feel hesitant to show the world because its very apparent that its self indulgent.
Even when you look at commercials, they portray this romanticism of buying yourself something and having to enjoy it alone and in private. Like you have to hide that fancy chocolate, god forbid anyone knows you enjoy chocolate! I understand that some things that are self indulgent are very personal and some do enjoy having that privacy but our society kind of shames anyone who wants to show it off.
I cant even say its tied to people shying away from selfishness becuase look at our society its practically based on be selfish. But rather ive seen a pattern...
Those who throw shade at self indugence tend to be the same people who wont self reflect on themselves and are constantly look to escape.
Self indulgent art makes them uncomfortable because it just reminds them of everything they maybe dont like about themselves, or need to work on. It gets too personal and they feel uncomfortable because they haven't done the work to try and heal. And it should be said, only ever try to work on yourself and healing when you are ready. Theres no shame in not being ready to face your demons. Its okay to want super heroes and explosions and fantastical worlds. Art that shows that everything is going to be okay in the end.
But its not okay to shame someone who wants to use their experiences to make art, who want to share their escapism to the world, who want to be the hero in their own story (or villian). Sometimes (most often in my opinion) its their way to heal and who are these critics to scoff and say "a little too self indulgent" to someones healing process?
As a final thought, what i love most about self indulgent art, is that somewhere out there it will resonate with someone. And it will help them in the same way it helped the artist.
Anyways, thanks for coming to my TED talk. Lol
This resonated with me, thank you 🤍
I feel like the term "self-indulgent" cuts both ways, just like anything does when dealing with "ego" and sense of self. I think for a lot of people it is a way to dismiss the artist's raw, genuine expression of emotion, because they don't want to see it or don't relate to it. But I think there's some truth in what you were saying about "self awareness," where the person trying to express their life can be standing in their own way. I've been blessed to find that I can make art, and put it out there, and people get something out of it. It's a mystifying process to me still hah. I don't think it's easy to determine who's "clear-headed" and who's "deluded," in the realm of our very own emotions and lives. And ultimately there is no one to stand off in the distance and declare who's right or wrong. We are all swimming in the very ocean that we're trying to paint.
When you said that you love art that feels like work that the artist needed to make rather than wanting to -- that they were to explode if they didnt, I completely agree. That's some of my favorite kind of work too.
If you're a fan of poetry there is a Charles Bukowski poem called "So you want to be a writer" that I think you would like Joel. It's weird because for a long time I felt that it was "gatekeeping" art, which it sort of does and I disagree with. But I think that's what Bukowski exaggerates that to get the feeling of "work that bellows through you" across
I teared up when he said that
I'm proud to be in your soup.
I think some people conflate self-indulgence with self-aggrandizement. Any hint of arrogance coming through is going to spawn haters.
Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio is a recent movie that deeply fascinated me when it comes to an artist's personal connection to their work. Having seen a lot of behind the scenes interviews and footage with him, it's clear that his Pinocchio was made by Guillermo FOR Guillermo, but I rarely see as many people call his movie "self-indulgent" in the same way the Fablemans is criticized.
I get the impression that some who criticize art for being "self-indulgent" become uncomfortable when an artist portrays their honest self or ideologies for the audience. It's almost like they want to have art exist in a vacuum seperate from the artist only to be viewed for personal interpretation void of any personal expression by the artist. I see the uncomfortableness as part of the artistic experience, and what is the creation of art if not a method of expression by the artist?
Well said. I also get confused by this phrase! I think a lot of people are self conscious about anything that feels earnest because it's vulnerable and "cringe" or they're afraid to show excitement in general.
I saw Beau is Afraid last week and loved it and was surprised by the extreme reaction from some critics who hated it, in part because of how “self-indulgent” it was. Sure I don’t have all the same hangups as Ari Aster, but to the extent that I related to the protagonist and his mental struggles it really moved me, and to the extent that I didn’t relate as much (I have a good relationship with my mom) I appreciated it. Just because something is self-indulgent and personal doesn’t make it bad art, and when the audience member can relate to it even just partially they bring so much more to the experience, even if they don’t identify 1:1 with what’s depicted or the things the film represents. Things don’t have to be universal to be relatable, and the specificity of a “self-indulgent” piece of work makes it unique
A film can be personal without being self-indulgent, of course.
Hey Joel. Here's my two sense for what it's worth.
I always understood the criticism as meaning, not that it's too personal but that there is very little effort made to welcome the audience in and guide them through the piece, or really take them into account at all.
For example, when I'm alone I like jamming away on my guitar in all kinds of ways that I'd never subject another person too. The act of doing it is pleasurable to me in the moment but features many flubbed notes, repition of bits as i try to figure them out, random changes between ideas. It wouldn't be coherent to anybody else as it's not designed to be. If i was to release an album of me noodling away like that I think it would be an example of art that is self indulgent.
I know we sometimes like to think art should only be for the creator, if anyone else likes it it's just a lucky coincidence. But outside experimental art this is never really the case. If you are trying to communicate something to your audience then taking their experience into consideration isn't a concession but a necessity.
100%. There’s no point in creating art if the only person who likes it is going to be you. If you’re just wanking, go home. Fabelmans is self-indulgent, for sure, but at least he’s trying to share something. It’s objectively still a piece of entertainment.
I still don't really think "self indulgence" makes sense as criticism. Someone could paint a beautiful, planned out, hyper-detailed portrait just for themselves. The idea that you could release a piece of art and other people might not like it applies to literally every piece of art in existence. Someone criticizing a noodly guitar album for being "self indulgent" seems more like they just don't like listening to noodly guitar music. (Sorry I tried wording that in a way that comes off less aggressive but I couldn't figure out how)
@@theonlyigg4811 I appreciate your intention to not be aggressive.
I don't know... When I think about self-indulgence in a movie I think about the filmmaker choosing to do things to please themself rather than expressing and being true to themself. I relate the term to something like eating a candy from a vending machine instead of cooking. It's not necessarily bad, but depending on the context it will connect with some people and alienate others. That's my interpretation of the term.
Love your insights 😁✌️
I mostly agree with your point and I don’t think the fablemans was self indulgent, but I think when people say that about a film, it usually implies a sense of self mythologizing that feels disingenuous. Like self indulgence isn’t just making a movie about yourself, it also involves being uncritical of yourself and painting yourself as a hero.
1:54 "Artist-Audience Soup" is my favourite Andy Warhol painting
That was a very self indulgent burp at the end, Joel...
I’m sorry Louis, I will be better
To me 'self-indulgent' as a criticism means the artist putting their own pleasure/satisfaction far over that of the audience to the detriment of the work. I think this does happen, but it's also another one of these terms like 'pretentious' that gets misused AND overused. I didn't like Fablemans much but to think of Spielberg as a director who doesn't have the audience in mind seems silly. For me the problem with the Fablemans was (like you hinted at) more a lack of self-awareness wrt the verisimilitude of his story and its perceived value; but this is such a subjective thing. I'm not surprised at all that some people loved it.
For a recent autobiopic that's about filmmaking and does a lot better in this respect I'd say Joanna Hogg's "Souvenir" pt.1 & 2. For an example of genuine eye-rolling self-indulgence, Kim Ki-duk's "Arirang".
THIS! Ironically, I think calling art "self indulgent" is inherently self-indulgent itself.
It means "I can't connect with that, you just made it for yourself, you self-centered person! I want you to make it for ME!"
Also even if people might not connect to a work of art, others might, someone surely will. You can't extract the viewer from the viewed, our interpretation and connection always has something to do with ourselves, its our personal mind which interprets based on its own knowledge and experience. It#s highly subjective if you can connect to a work of art or not.
Last but not least: I read "If someone refers to an element of a film (or other creative work) as “self-indulgent,” they generally mean that they believe that element was inserted (or presented in a particular way, or given a particular degree of attention) in order to gratify the filmmaker, rather than to serve the needs of the work."
But that is the critics vision of what the work would need in order to be "better". Its still an egoistic criticism.
Brown Bunny is the most self-indulgent movie ever made. The last ten minutes is basically him blowing himself.
Your definition of self-indulgent was spot on. I definitely feel like that term is used as a scapegoat term a lot more than it's really necessary.
Whether it's movies, music, paintings, poetry, books, whatever it is, the more personal it is - the more emotionally attached I become. I want to know what it's like inside the heads of others. To consume art is to gain the power of telepathy lol
Love that! To consume art is to gain the power of telepathy
I don’t know if you’ve seen any of my movies, Joel, but one thing I’ve noticed when I show them in one-night shorts fests is that the emotional intimacy I show in them is often extremely overwhelming for people who were watching lots of silly comedies early in the night. But while I know we both love innocent fun in movies, I feel like the most important thing I can do as a filmmaker is show a perspective different from anyone else’s.
Just a simple note, but that cut to the cassavetes poster was SMOOTH!
Phrases like self indulgent and pretentious aren’t much different then saying it’s bad. Vague words that aren’t helpful, especially for artists. These words are so often used in isolation when in isolation they have no meaning. Honestly I think it’d be more honest to just say you find a movie annoying if you don’t intend to spend the time to clarify what the actual criticism is, at least it speaks to something honest about the person making the critique.
Im so glad you started this channel joel, its so sweet seeing you so genuinely talk about things youre passionate about. Thank you for sharing it all with us!!
Been following your channel and your letterboxd for a long time, but i have only now discovered this channel, and i have to say i am insanely hyped to hear one of my fav creators talk about cinema
Self indulgent: savouring creative license.
"Artist audience soup" wow wow, take it easy, Gendou
Great take, Joel. In addition to what you mentioned about the personal nature of art, my problem with calling things indulgent is that it's too vague a criticism. The critic should instead focus on the aspects of the film that they thought were negatively affected by the perceived indulgence. Did it extend the runtime and hurt the pacing, did it seem unnecessarily obtuse, etc.? Instead of just writing it off as self indulgent, they should do a bit more work and specify those concrete aspects of the filmmaking that they didn't like.
Thank you for daring us to indulge in expressing ourselves 🤍
Love the little cat drawings
Thank you! My friend Audrey did them!
Not to use a catchy phrase to ignore the nuances of reality but in my opinion if art isn't being made for the artist, i.e. self indulgent art, than it's really more of a product.
You can create as a means of expressing yourself, of course, but there has to be some consideration of an audience, even if it’s secondary to the self-expression. Particularly with film, a profoundly collaborative medium, to divorce yourself entirely from your audience is just a dick move. It can’t be just for you if you’re asking thirty people to give their time and effort creating it.
@@GregorBarclay But why can't it?
@@dopaminecloud Because it's collaborative. If you want to make art that's 100% personal self-expression, go do a painting or write a poem. Once you're asking other people to get involved, it's not just about you any more.
@@GregorBarclay Collaborative art is definitely made for more than just the artist, that's a good point. I think it's still in a way self indulgent though, but more collectively. A movie is made by many people and it's not one person's vision or credit but you can still tell the difference between something that has the heart and fingerprints of many people sharing their visions together vs a movie that was made by a bunch of people mainly to try and please a big audience.
I've only referred to one movie as "self indulgent" in an article. And that was Zardoz. I chose the term "self indulgent" because it is a film that is more interested in expanding on its own ideas than it is in conveying those ideas to the audience. And I made sure to specify that Zardoz's self-indulgence lends itself to an uncanny earnestly that makes the movie captivating
It instantly became my favorite Spielberg too! *I HAVE A MONKEY AT HOME THAT'S SMARTER THAN YOUU!!* Loved it.
This is fully unrelated to the video but I find it neat that Joel's photo for this RUclips channel as well as the cover art for Mac DeMarco happen to look a bit alike. The Mac cover is like a doodle version of Joel's picture or something hahah
I'm not exactly a filmmaker, but what you have to say about art is always inspiring to me. Thanks for sharing, Joel!
joel what if i said I love movies what then????
Let’s talk about this later…
My other favorite wholesome Joel who talks to me about things
As someone who used to make videos with his friends as a kid, I loved Fabelmans because it spoke to me. Also, it was a pretty neat movie to see from someone who usually makes blockbusters.
The last time I used the term "self-indulgent" to refer to film was when I watched The French Dispatch. You yourself described on this channel that Wes Anderson's been getting a little too involved in his own style. It was a deeply self-indulgent film because so often the movie would grind to a halt for 20 seconds so Anderson could have yet another monochrome diorama setpiece, whether it fit in the moment or not. Several times during the movie I said aloud, "What is happening... come on Wes, come back to me. Wes, don't get distracted, we're in the middle of a movie, buddy!"
When the art is so much _for the artist_ that they lose sight of expressing themselves and their message _to other people,_ that's self-indulgent. An artist doesn't need to take investor/studio money, nor publish their work, nor have it marketed and try to get people to see it; but once an artist _does_ those things, it's not 100% about just making whatever you want; it's also about trying to make something that _some_ kind of hypothetical audience has a reasonable chance to connect with. When the artist is obviously losing sight of that, I call it "self-indulgent".
And that's fine, and I hope the artist likes it; just don't expect _me_ to like it.
thats cool but I'm gonna excercise my legal right (and responsibility) to tell you you're wrong about the french dispatch
Yo, I’ve been on a Joel movie watching binge and realized that Kurosawa’s film Dodes’ka-Den might be really powerful for you. It’s bold and very, very human.
I agree with Joel on “self-indulgent” movies actually being honest movies made by artists who are exploring things for themselves. The only time I really think “self-indulgent” art is bad is when it’s sole purpose is created to pat themselves on the back and just bring an audience to be in aw of the artist rather than the idea they may actually want to communicate.
I wish more Directors would be self indulgent so we might get to see more of what we are expecting from specific directors instead of some random film they have their name on.
Self-indulgent to me means that the artist didn't pay much attention to how the viewer will receive the art, and instead made it more for themselves, like a diary. Like Alejandro Jodorowsky's movies and comics, which seem to me to be his unedited dream sequences, valuable to him perhaps, but incomprehensible to others.
Extremely well put, bravo ❤
On the note of “I love movies that are so directly personal,” what are your thoughts on “Woman of the Year” considering the love connection between Tracy & Hepburn? Slightly different because the movie wasn’t directed by either of them, plus the ending was rewritten against the actors best wishes, but knowing their history together off set, wasn’t it wonderful to watch them fall in love on camera?
Off topic sorry I’ve just recently gotten reallllly into films from the 40s & before. To be honest I romanticize the shit out of that era & constantly wish I were alive back then.
I haven’t seen Woman of the Year but I definitely want to now! Added to my watchlist! Classic Hollywood tickles such a special spot.
@@joeltalksaboutmovies I’m excited to see if you share your thoughts on it one day. Like everything, it has its flaws, but I have a pretty strong ability to look past them and focus on the things I enjoy about it. One of my keys to happiness right there
I don't like calling anything made by someone else self-indulgent, since it is about intent, and I can't see into a person's mind. However, it is a good thing to carefully examine in ourselves. It does not mean doing something personal or fun. Self-indulgence is to knowingly sacrifice the quality of a product, and the experience of the people who are purchasing it, for the sake of some base part of ourselves such as our ego or desire for easy money.
An example would be a speech that you think up that is very powerful. You cry as you think through it and imagine standing on stage accepting an award for it. Wow, it's good. As you write the movie and it evolves, you realize that the speech no longer makes sense for the character. It is not how they speak and it does not fit who they are or where they are in their journey. So, you have a choice. Do you serve your ego and put it in anyway or do you put your feelings aside and make a better movie? One serves yourself and the other serves everyone else. I am not placing a moral judgment on it either way. Just clarifying what I think the term means and why it is significant.
Personally, I love when a piece of art gets so personal that it becomes kind of bewildering and obtuse, and I have to actually, effortfully contort my brain squiggles into what I can only hope are the approximate patterns of the artists's own brain squiggles when they made it. Human beings are so strange and varied and wonderful and you're doing yourself a serious disservice if you consign yourself to a little slice of the world that makes perfect sense to you.
Self-indulgence has its negative connotation, and perhaps for the right reasons, but I think there is a kind (maybe with better wordage) that should be sought after and celebrated in a thriving society, in which we the people can enjoy certain excesses - the kind that brings great music, paintings, film, etc, into existence. It should be a goal in any culture, to my mind, to elevate society to a level in which our basic needs can overflow at least a little, so that at least some might 'indulge' deeply in their interior lives in a medium that expresses themselves (explicitly or otherwise) in such a way that might enrich the public.
That said, I haven't seen the film. However I don't foresee a possibility of Spielberg's new release changing my opinion on this ambiguous term "self-indulge" that Joel Haver brings to the forefront in this video. I desire that all of us can have the resources and time to gaze inwardly, observe patiently, and reflect some sort of universal message out from within ourselves to the world that shapes us. Okay, I should probably go watch the film now though...
Heck yeah this video made me wanna indulge in some art. Been really wanting to try writing a book. Thanks man
typically the pejorative use of "self indulgent" is when the writer doesn't consider his audience or even has contempt for it. They use ideas that are excruciating/boring, wall of text dialogue, ideas that don't work, but the reason they go with these ideas is because they "think it's cool" or they'll say "because I like it."
In this sense, the negative side of indulgent is just kind of spoiled and lacks empathy. I think art should be an empathetic communication between artist and audience. Even if frivolous genre films, if they're made with respect for the audience and respect for the script, they can be genuinely good art.
"art films" can be exhilarating, heartbreaking, and super interesting, and it could be a pure honest expression of what the artist wanted/needed to tell. This isn't "self indulgent" in the usage we most come across.
I think the most classic examples of self indulgence are mary-sue fiction where the main character is nauseating to everyone except the author. We all roll our eyes at this character who clearly serves as wish fulfilment or power fantasy for the author.
i've always thought that "self-indulgence in art" is when the artist prioritizes something that they like so much that it hurts the overall quality of the film. It could be slow-motion, it could be acting, it could be crazy wacky wierd angles, it could be dramtic lighting, it could be boobs. self-indulgence is forgetting prioritizing showing off boobs in your movie because you love boobs so much so that it starts to make people a little uncomfortable.
Nice video.
Yeah it’s absurd that personal films are called out as self indulgent when the literary world is booming with memoirs autofictions, and our prevalent social media is usually centred around the self. It’s quite sad that audiences are so conditioned to commodified popcorn movies, and that Hollywood holds itself so high above its audience, that even film reviewers are distanced from the awareness that films can be personal works of art made by human beings!
Not everyone hates "The Brown Bunny", but I know it sure left a bad taste in Chloe Sevigny's mouth.
I haven't really thought about it before, but I always took it to mean the movie gets bogged down with one particular aspect with the result of unraveling the greater message or themes. Like you put the poster of Blue is the Warmest Color in the thumbnail which is a film I've heard people call self-indulgent because it aims to be an thought-provoking story about queer love and many have lauded it as such, but then there are several learing, explicit sex scenes that feel like the director is fetishizing lesbians which is just completely contradictory to the intended message. It's good to remember not to be afraid to make personal art, though
I feel similarly about the "pretentious" criticism. It just discourages the exact traits that actually serve to push art into the masterpiece tier.
You should watch Beau is Afraid. It got some similar crticisms and a lot of hate but I thought it was fun as hell.
I agree that a work of art being self indulgent is no bad thing.
However, i think what people call self indulgent is when a creative makes something only for their sensibilities rather than for a broader audience. Not necessarily indulging in autobiography or auto-depiction.
And again, i agree with you it’s not bad. Rather, I would get the term being used to explain why something isn’t making a lot of money.
the only movie i can specifically remember thinking of as "self-indulgent" is the french dispatch- but maybe what i mean by that is "style over substance"
oh- tarantino featuring feet in his films is definitely self-indulgent in a literal sense 😆
@@sleepypilled_zz So true. Anyone who has ever seen any Tarantino interview knows that he makes his movies FOR HIM. We're just fortunate enough to have a part in viewing them LOL
Proof that finely tuning the same pitch can be more breath-taking than the initial raw wonder.
The four faces watching the camping film?
The hairspray scene?
Boris, the prophet?
Come on.
I've also run into the phrase "it insists upon itself" haha. Couldn't figure it out but it seems related.
I think people say 'self-indulgent' when really they mean 'self-serious'. Some artists can definitely take themselves too seriously, but I've found that audiences aren't even that good a judge of whether that's even happening or not. Like if they have some sort of bias against the artist, or they're uninitiated to their tone, the small brushstrokes of humor or self-awareness as levity might be invisible to them. Someone who loves Vincent Gallo will see so much humor in Buffalo '66, or even moments of humor in The Brown Bunny, but to someone who doesn't get him, they'll just see dreariness and self-seriousness. It's an interesting phenomenon, in that if anyone is being too serious, it's the audience, not the artist.
I think people are just used to big movies made by huge corporations with tons of people working on it rather than a raw, unsaturated artwork. I think calling a movie self-indulgent is a compliment in disguise
Jaws is the best movie Spielberg ever made
Self indulgent means that you are so focused on yourself that you’re not communicating to anyone.
Consider a movie about a Christian that is upset with his culture and religion slowly dissolve and become commercial. While that might speak to American Christians. Europeans, Asians, etc. Would not necessarily related to such a movie at all, which is fine, you can make movies for smaller demographics. However, take that concept to its logical extreme. You make a movie that is SO personal that you alienate EVERYONE. All the points and references are so specific that it only makes sense to yourself. Specifically you are the only demographic you’re targeting and you’re not attempting to communicate to anyone other yourself. That movie would be completely self indulgent wouldn’t it? So the more a movie attempts to communicate to a smaller and smaller demographic that is reflective of the directors own life is MORE self indulgent and the less, the less self indulgent.
I think when I say something is “self-indulgent,” I am saying that it carries with it a level of insincerity or performance. Like instead of the artist wanting to bear their soul, their agenda is actually to convince the audience that they are really cool, or really smart, or that whatever they have accomplished is inherently really impressive. It takes for granted that the audience who is choosing to see their movie is already on their side and is willing to exploit that for unearned clout, be it during award season or otherwise.
I find that when people say "self-indulgent" what they actually mean is "pretentious and disingenuous". I haven't seen The Fabelmans so I can't say if that analysis would seem accurate to me, but I could definitely see modern Spielberg making something that rubs people in that manner. Like the feeling evoked by George Lucas's "Red Tails". Art made by someone who genuinely loves the smell of their own farts.
In a similar vain, im curious what you think of the criticism that something is pretentious? What do you think makes art "pretentious"?
To me self indulgent means a lack of self awareness in filmmaking, not necessarily a movie that is too personal. I don’t think Fabelmans was self indulgent at all.
People are insecure about a lot of great art, because it reminds them that they couldn't create something as great themselves. I think there's this weird expectation that artists create art almost by accident, like they weren't even trying, because it reinforces the idea that there's always hope for anyone to create something great too. But if an artist genuinely knows they're great and knows what they're creating is great, many people see that as arrogant, and want to hate them for it.
Brown Bunny sucks.
Buffalo '66 was brilliant.
This is a secondary peeve, but those people really need to look up the word "self-indulgent" in the dictionary, because it doesn't - at all - mean what they think it means.
I think what people mean by self indulgent filmmaking, and for the Fablemens in particular, is that he made probably his best film in years and it's all about him. It's a vanity project. Like, he didn't have that kind of storytelling left for West Side Story, Ready Player One, The Post, The BFG, Bridge of Spies, Lincoln (like seriously how do you misdirect Daniel Day Lewis?), War Horse, The Adventures of Tintin, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, War of the Worlds, etc. but he had it for the movie that's about himself. That's self-indulgent.
To me that sounds like someone who has grown tired of making popcorn mainstream films and has been wanting to make a personal film for a while, maybe trapped by his own reputation? It's not self indulgent.
@@invoicequaint Right, the mainstream popcorn film "Lincoln."
@@kdolo1887 What I said doesn't apply to every film you mentioned but it does to quite a lot of them. Also I thought he did great with West Side Story.
@@invoicequaint You don't think that not adding English subtitles to the Spanish language parts was self-indulgent, indulging in his interest in social commentary at the expense of the audience?
@@kdolo1887 Is there an interview where he states that?
There seems to be a misconception that self-indulgence can be anything but negative. I see comments saying art is inherently self-indulgent but that is simply wrong from all points of view, be it literally or semantically. The definition is explicit in that self-indulgence relates to the excessive and gratuitous fulfillment of whims and desires. There is NO forethought when being self-indulgent so there is no case where self-indulgence should be used neutrally let alone positively.
If something is NECESSSARY (which art is to the artist) then it isn’t self-indulgent.
This isn’t a critique of the video or it’s ideas but simply the wrongful usage m of the term.
Reminds me a lot of the way people use irony for anything.
When is desire fulfillment excessive? All I can think of is when it comes at the expense of the well-being of others. But when can that apply to someone watching a movie of their own free will?
all art *should* be self-indulgent. it’s supposed to be a reflection of the self
@@thomasengel1459 yepp
@@LetoZeth I think that even if you don't intend it to be, any art or expression in general is a reflection of the self because it comes from you, it can't be avoided
@@thomasengel1459 What do you mean "nope"?
@@LetoZeth I’m curious what you think art without the self looks like. Even a blockbuster is a reflection of the needs of the self (or rather selves) and the desire to appeal and homogenize. Marketability is tied directly to the survival and quality of life of those doing the marketing. And as an audience we dive into ourselves no matter what, even in pure escapism there is an unavoidable thing that wants to be escaped.
I wouldn't say The Fabelmans is self-indulgent, but unfortunately my issue with it was I felt the section where he shows the movie at his school graduation and has that moment with the bully felt very self-righteous, and at the same time, SUPER hokey. It really deflated the movie for me and I'm not sure it ever recovered. I also found his mother was portrayed in a very unsympathetic way and she came off as just kinda reprehensible.
It’s all pretty hokey. His analogue in the movie is named fucking FABLEMAN - he’s literally calling himself MR STORY ffs
The analogue would be a U2 biopic musical, written by Bono, in which his character was named Patrick O’Songperson
where am i?
I'd just like to say that, The Fabelmans is one of the worst trying to be good movies I have ever seen. The only good parts were when the kid was actually making the movies.
From my observations, people who call films 'self-indulgent' usually want to be served to in some way. They want to be entertained or pandered to in some way, and when the film is focused more on itself rather than the audience, people take that as 'self-indulegent'.
My definition of self indulgent is the Moana remake
Indulge in this video ❤