My criticism was probably aimed more towards RoderickUsher than towards you. I never expect to change anyone's opinion on a film, and when I'm given recommendations by other people on what films to see, and I don't happen to agree with them, I never write back to criticize them on their choices.

I guess I'll stick with less controversial subjects.

I nominate you!
:p kidding, kidding.

No, no- I would definitely be a top contender!

I feel that a title such as "pretentious" especially with film making isn't really something that can be handed out unless you pay close attention to the person. Just because someone made an artistic movie, or something along those lines doesn't make them pretentious, or at least that is how I feel about it. I have always felt someone like Stanley Kubrick was pretentious for how he treated everyone else and how he acted on set. I've never heard of so many incidents from one director, but I guess to each his own, in whatever way that might form in this thread.

I'll agree with this. With stories of Kubrik slapping people to get them to act scared properly it gives him this holier than thou attitude where not only are his movies the shit, but he must be too to think he could get away with that.

I was really only talking about the film's content (and the average movie critic's overly enthusiastic reaction every time one of these directors releases a new film), but you're absolutely right about Stanley Kubrick (Alfred Hitchcock was like that too).

Wouldn't the content of a film being pretentious depend on the views of the person watching it? Like If I like Darren Arronofsky's movies, I myself am pretentious for thinking so?

It's a matter of opinion whether a film is pretentious, but if a person likes a film that other people consider pretentious, it doesn't make them pretentious (whew).

Looking up Webster's definition of the word pretentious, I see I'm not using it correctly; I apologize. When I said pretentious, I didn't mean that these directors were arrogant or ostentatious. What I meant was, their films tend to be full of incomprehensible symbolism, a non-linear plot, and extremely slow pacing. Don't get me wrong; there are some films of this type that I do enjoy, just not these.

Whether or not symbolism in a particular film is incomprehensible or not, depends on the viewer, so let's just use the term symbolism. Symbolism, non-linear plots and slow pacing are all things that intrigue me. I enjoy films that challenge me and ask more from me as a viewer than just staring slack jawed at a screen full of fast action, explosions, and superficial plots.

Yes, I'm exaggerating to make a point.

I do enjoy all your "pretentious" directors. Watching their films has enriched my life.

And no- I will not explain the symbolism behind any film.

As I have said several times, I do enjoy some "pretentious" films; for instance 2001 A Space Odyssey. I will not even pretend I understood what the overall point was, but sometimes a movie is so beautiful and mesmerizing just to look at that questions of what it all means cease to matter; and people can criticize Stanley Kubrick and 2001 all they want; I would completely understand why they would. It was slow, incomprehensible, and (dare I say?) pretentious, but I loved it all the same.
I always admire anyone who tries to do something different (these days, with all the remakes out there, it is desperately needed), but sometimes being different just isn't enough.

P.S. I'll cut David Lynch some slack, but not the others.