lifesoli.blogg.se

Relatedly, it has been claimed that the cult fan practice of conscious counter-interpretation demonstrates the ‘intentions’ of readers or taste communities prevailing over the intentions of filmmakers. Discussions of evaluation and badfilm regularly argue that such films confirm the inherently unstable, discursive, and/or socially-determined nature of aesthetic value. What we suggest in this paper, however, is that the badfilm is also capable of prompting a reconsideration of two very old, but vital, questions for aesthetics. Scholarship addressing the terms ‘bad’ and ‘good’ in relation to such films has unsurprisingly tended to focus on the important issue of reception. As a conclusion, the meta-level emotional responses called "artifact emotions" (Tan, Plantinga), due in no small part to "schadenfreude" (enjoyment derived from the troubles or failures of others) provide a basis for the collective appreciation of badfilms.Ī cult film valued for being ‘so bad it’s good’ – in Jeffrey Sconce’s terminology, ‘badfilm’ – is championed via a form of interpretative competence which values incompetence. They make viewers think of the films as artifacts rather than story-worlds. Neil Breen's films are championed by virtue of their massive failures. Through analyses of textual and extratextual features of Fateful Findings (Neil Breen, 2013), in conjunction with its various receptions, the badfilm appreciation will be investigated. In order to elaborate on this paradoxical case, this article suggests that the cult interest in badfilms relies to a great extent upon emotional engagement. Despite being positioned at the lowest end of film industry, badfilms are mostly embraced by cinephiles who seem to believe they have good taste. Badfilm, which constitutes a form of subcultural counter-aesthetics, overthrows traditional hierarchies of taste. technical flaws, lousy acting, cheap special effects, baffling storylines) are called "so bad, it's good," "goodbad film" or simply "badfilm".

The films embraced by the viewers due to their formal and/or aesthetic incompetence (e.g.