Fandom: Experiencing the Same Thing Differently
I like films. I have done so since I was a young child, mainly because we watched them as a family. Furthermore, both my parents weren’t just casual viewers. They were fans who were knowledgeable about their hobby. Plus they came from a generation where going to the cinema was a major part of their life and a very accessible pastime. Hence my love of film, filmmaking and analysis. But like any form of fandom, it can often be a very broad church. For example, I may be at a social gathering such as a dinner party or a fundraising event for the Humber and District Catholic River-Wideners Club and I strike up a conversation with a stranger. The stilted conversation turns to film (or more informally “movies) and for a brief moment, there is the possibility of a shared interest. However, if the other party then indicates that they are a committed advocate of the works of Ben Stiller, then that common ground evaporates like a politician's promises after election day.
Belghast wrote a very interesting blog post today about “subculture and gatekeeping” and how fandom is often very personal as we seek to define ourselves during our teenage years. Hence it can lead to a sense of ownership and even gatekeeping. Tangentially, one sentence in the post stood out for me and is relevant to the theme of this post. "RHCP (Red Hot Chilli Peppers) had sorta been one of those arcane signals of belonging that helped us find more members of our tribe. Even though that “tribe” was contorted as fuck because none of us actually had the exact same ideals or beliefs or even hobbies". That is a succinct description of the point I was making earlier. E.g. “I like movies. You like movies as well? Oh, you like those movies”. Again we return to the concept that fandom as a broad church and that a shared interest does not guarantee that you and the other party will have lots of other things in common. Something I discussed at length in a post about a shared love of Tolkien and how I was surprised when I found out that his work found traction with politicians I’m “at odds” with.
However, differing opinions can be a good thing and provide an alternative perspective upon a shared interest. They can also provide an opportunity to reappraise something. Film criticism is not pure science. One can make comments made upon objective facts, such as how well a film is edited, the quality of the cinematography and other technical aspects of the production. But whether a joke is funny, a character is likeable or a story arc is engaging or not is ultimately very personal and subjective. It comes down to taste and one’s own expectations. Which brings me to the point that sparked this post in the first place. The 1978 conspiracy thriller, Capricorn One. Blogger and writer Syp shared his thoughts on the film over at Mutant Reviewers. They differ from mine and it would appear that the aspects of the film that I specifically like, Syp does not. I like the seventies hard boiled dialogue and focus on verbal exposition. I also didn’t have an issue with the pace of the film.
I briefly spoke to Syp via Twitter regarding this, not to instigate a fanboy bunfight but to determine his perspective and it highlighted some very interesting points for me. Contemporary film and TV has a particular idiom and certainly a very fast pace, compared to material from the eighties and older. Hence if you are watching a TV show from the seventies or a movie from the forties, then it requires a form of mental recalibration so that you’re prepared for the obvious stylistic and technical differences. That is fine if you are approaching the content in a scholarly fashion or for an in depth critical analysis. If you’re simply watching for entertainment, then having to make that shift in perspective is quite a big ask and not necessarily one that is conducive to having fun. It is important to remember that we don’t all have the same relationship with a shared fandom and that we don’t all approach it with the same intent.
Every form of fandom has its own set of self appointed gatekeepers. They’re often also responsible for perpetuating an apocryphal dogma and trying to convince us it’s somehow legitimate. For example, in film fandom there is the cult of Stanley Kubrick in which any deviation from the consensus of his genius is deemed as heresy. Although I will strongly argue positively regarding the technical and thematic talent of the filmmaker, I would not say that all his work is accessible to everyone. The “detonator” for this particular debate being 2001: A Space Odyssey. As far as I’m concerned it is perfectly acceptable not to like a so-called “cinematic great”. I don’t care for Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner. I recognise the skill inherent in its making and I understand it’s cultural significance (like certain literary classics) but I don’t warm to the film.
So today was a timely reminder that the only universal constant in fandom is the inherent difference between fans themselves. I shall continue visiting Mutant Reviewers specifically because they will continue to offer an alternate view to my own, on many films that I love. Furthermore, those views are backed up with valid arguments, which is good because reviews that aren’t are ultimately just a series of unqualified statements. I will also continue to gently encourage people to step outside of their personal boundaries and to give wider material a try. However, I won’t give them a hard time if they do so and subsequently don’t enjoy the experience. Fandom is about shared enjoyment and enthusiasm, although paradoxically, that itself can be used to reinforce hierarchies and can lead to preposterous gatekeeping and the nonsensical “true fan” fallacy. Stay clear of all that. You do you. And if you really like the work of Ben Stiller, then so be it.
