New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

I have had an epiphany and it came while watching TNT on a Sunday night. No matter how well you educate yourself in the language of cinema, when it comes to your opinion on a movie, nothing is set in stone. It's not about anything but circumstance and perspective.

Looking back, I've always known this to be true on some level. I can think of countless times when I have had my initial opinion of a film do a complete 180 upon repeated viewings. If I went back in time and had a conversation with myself coming out of Michael Clayton, my former self would say it was the usual thriller walk-through starring George Clooney and his perfectly furrowed brow, while my current self would insist that Tony Gilroy deftly crafted a satisfying thrill ride that simultaneously possessed subtle complexities that effectively and fascinatingly subvert your run-of-the-mill courtroom drama.

On the same coin, if I were now to run into myself in latter half of summer 2006, no doubt we would eventually start to shake our heads in disbelief over the other's position on Little Miss Sunshine. "Ensemble acting at its absolute best!" declares 2006 me. "Contrived formulaic waste of time," replies a smug Mr. Present Day.

Very embarrassed I am, too, about my first impression of Passion of the Christ. That movie, however manipulatively absurd I claim it to be today, pulverized me back when I saw it in the theater. But come on, I was young and impressionable. Mel Gibson took advantage of me!

Eventually, I've begun to stop trusting my opinions, or not place too much stock in them the first time through. This is frustrating because as a cinephile, while I enjoy watching movies, I enjoy debating them more – well, debating with people about them, not the movies themselves. They're just celluloid - which is not alive. So when I find myself shifting positions, it becomes increasingly difficult. I keep saying things like, "Yeah, I've seen Bob le Flambeur but only once and it was so long ago." Sometimes I wonder why I'm even bothering to fill these gaps in my film knowledge when I'm going to have to see them three times before I know what I actually think? Gah!!!

Yes, this is nothing new. It's par for the course, even. You can't see every film ever made all at once, let alone multiple times. A complete understanding of the world of cinema and its history is something that must be accumulated. I am reminded of this every time someone who I consider to have an inferior understanding of cinema leaves me in the dust by the breadth of films they've seen just because they had the advantage of being on earth 20 years longer than me. To comfort my cine-ego in these mortifying occurrences, I tell myself to relax, that one day I will have the time to watch Bergman's canon three to five times over. Eventually, all the films will be checked off and there will be no stopping me. With my formidable bedrock of knowledge I will be a film buff to be reckoned with. And when the time comes to take a stand I will be able to defend my position with unwavering confidence.

Continued:       1       2       3