How do I become a movie lover

What type of film lover are you? Or: typography of the film crazy

There are so many movie lovers in the world; and no two movie tastes are alike - one would think. But there is an interesting fundamental division of all film lovers into three groups. Within these groups, these film-crazy people view, criticize and evaluate the films in a surprisingly homogeneous manner, especially since they also prefer to seek exchange with their own kind and sometimes do not even know about the existence of the other groups.

Of course, it is daring to make such a strict classification as the following. It goes without saying that it does not claim to be universally valid, it is greatly simplified and I also use clichés. Of course there are also mixed forms between the groups. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the classification as a certain basic scheme cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Type A: The movie freak

"Movie freaks" (that's what I call this, can also be called differently) are the most common type among film lovers. Her favorite films are always the same: Pulp Fiction, Fight Club (these two films NEVER be missing, under no circumstances), Memento, Love Exposure, Oldboy, The Dark Knight, Requiem for a Dream, as well as "classics" like Spiel mir das Lied vom Death, the Godfather, Goodfellas, The Twelve Jurors, Lord of the Rings - Trilogy etc. etc. Again and again these films are praised again and again, even if thousands of them already exist with exactly the same content.

The quality seal of a film for this group is that the film comes up with dialogues that are as original as possible (here one raves tirelessly about Tarantino), that it has a cool, new storyline (the storyline is very important to them); ideally you should NEVER have seen such an act. Then it is important that a film has characters that stick in the memory, and which should be as cool as possible (the dude or Walter Sobchak is used as a role model; that's exactly how a film character has to be, right? Have a hard shell inside but be a nice guy). These characters should also be decent in the film introduced one should learn something about their background. It is also important not to get bored; for this the film should have a bit of thrill, something that makes you stick to the (cinema - (?)) armchair. In addition, the film should have a great, groovy soundtrack, and under no circumstances should it be humorless - if a film takes itself too seriously, it can ruin even the greatest premise, according to the film freaks.

Directors such as Tarantino, Fincher, Scorsese, Cronenberg, Lynch, Coen brothers, Kubrick, often also Malick, Kurosawa, Wes / P.T. Anderson, Wilder, Hitchcock, Michael Mann, dePalma etc. are very familiar to this group and are adored beyond the masses; yet for them they are actor at least as important as the directors. One is of the opinion that a good actor significantly enhances a film, no matter how weak - for them - and at least makes it worth seeing.

It is also interesting that this group never tires of emphasizing how idiotic all German-language films are, whereby they have no horizon that extends beyond Schweiger / Schweighöfer films and "wetlands", and they remarkably show no interest in this horizon to expand.

Type B: The film lover (or: literature cinephile)

For this second group, Group A is too mainstream. Type B are very well-read people with a high general educational background who, while watching a film, want to be encouraged to reflect on their worldview as much as possible. Your favorite directors are very clear: Tarkovsky, Bergman, Bresson, Antonioni (these four usually rank above all others), then also for example Fellini, Kiarostami, Tarr, Kaurismäki, Haneke, Welles, Truffaut, Godard, W. Allen etc.

It is particularly important to this group that the film has no clichéd plot, that all characters are well worked out, that philosophical topics are addressed, etc; in short, exactly the same things that are important to them about books.

In this group there are often certain subject areas which are of particular interest and others which are not at all of interest; therefore, what the movie is about is an important factor, whether it is watched or not. However, this stubborn attitude leads to the fact that the discussion is limited to a few films, just like with Group A, and that certain films are misunderstood, which, although dealing with a supposedly "lower" topic, are extremely artfully made.

Type C: The Cinephile

The third group in turn regards type B as "too mainstream". Group A usually takes no notice of group C, group B is mostly confused by group C. There are only a few of this group on Moviepilot (they used to be mainly on the platform Mubi, today often on Letterboxd to find). For them there are exactly two factors in watching a movie that are totally uninteresting are: first, the act / what it is about (This plays 0 role as an indicator of whether a film should be viewed or not) and, secondly, the actors. Nothing in the whole world could interest this group less, which mostly astonishes the other groups, as e.g. for group A these two things are extremely important.

Highly esteemed directors in this group include: Abel Ferrara, Michael Mann, Godard, Pedro Costa, Claire Denis, Maurice Pialat, Straub / Huillet, Rossellini, Ford, N. Ray, Raoul Walsh, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Tsai Ming-Liang, Rivette , J. Tourneur, Carpenter, DePalma, etc.
Interestingly, many of these directors are loved by other groups too, but for the wrong reasons, according to Group C. And mostly those films are then selected by Group C as the best works by these directors, which are otherwise considered the worst. For example, not about Bad Lieutenant or King of New York - king between day and night, two works, as Abel Ferrara's masterpieces, but the New Rose Hotel (which is universally celebrated as one of the best works of the 90s) and Go Go Tales, and not because of the nerve-tickling tension and cool dialogues, but because of the proximity of Ferrara's imagery to that of Murnau. De Palmas' "Scarface and Die Unbrechlichen are clearly considered to be his weakest works; the best, however, are Femme Fatale and Death Comes Twice. Likewise with Godard: His masterpieces are less, as found by Group B, Jean-Luc Godard: Die History of Nana S. and The Contempt, but rather works from the 80s such as Passion, King Lear or Notre musique.

For this group, the formal construction of a film is extremely important. It is investigated how exactly aspects of the mise-en-scene and montage something about the text or State the subtext of the film. According to Type C, the complexity of a character cannot be measured by standards taken from the novel, but rather manifests itself in the way in which the characters are presented in the picture. This explains why Miami Vice, Public Enemies and, most recently, Blackhat are unanimously counted among allegedly avant-garde masterpieces and are considered "the most radical Hollywood films in a long time". That's why you keep saying to Group B: "Film is a visual medium". Group B see films too much as a mere illustration of a book, but ignore what is intrinsic to the film. The annual top lists of this group look strange at first glance: films by the ultra-ultra "Arthäusler" Pedro Costa (Horse Money), Jean-Marie Straub, or Lisandro Alonso (Jauja) are right next to the supposedly "brainless", "Totally stupid" (as declared by Group B) works by Paul WS Anderson (Pompeii 3D), Farrelly-Brothers (Dumb and Dumber) and Eastwood (Jersey Boys).

In German-speaking countries, professional critics usually belong to group B, in the USA they often belong to either A or C.