Which movies do you feel could be considered Spinach Cinema?
The term apparently refers to movies that are not very exciting or interesting, but that one feels
one must see because they are educational or otherwise uplifting.
QUOTES: “If you
haven’t seen the movie because it sounded too much like spinach cinema, I’m
here to tell you not to miss out.”
– wrote one reviewer recently
*** The use of the word “spinach” here is meant to remind us that these
movies, like the vegetable, are good for us, but not particularly
palatable. (This will no doubt seem a libelous association to those
of you who enjoy spinach.) The “spinach” modifier is fairly common:
for example, “spinach television” (1996) and “spinach book” (2001).
It’s sometimes seen in longer form as “eat-your-spinach” (for
example, one writer described the Norwegian dramatist Henrik Ibsen’s
work as “eat-your-spinach literature.”)
Ingmar Bergman (any of his movies that I’ve seen. existentialist angst, moaning philosphically about death, yeah yeah yeah zzzzz)
Fellini’s 8 1/2
Ghandi (actually most of the films of that genre are - Biko, etc.)
Most Stanley Kubrick movies, except for Full Metal Jacket - 2000 a Space Odyssey was one of the most boring, extremely slow and drawn out movies I’ve ever seen. I suppose it might have been impressive for the special effects back in the '60s but these days it looks like a NASA training video.
Three words: “Merchant/Ivory production” (meaning it’s going to be some boring-ass, “tasteful” vaguely Victorian-era ‘chick flick’)
Stuff like Birth of a Nation that’s “historically important” filmmaking and probably wowed my great-great-grandma back when she and her flapper friends caught it at the nickel pictureshow but is too dated to make watching it anything other than a chore (those Buster Keaton movies from the same era really hold up, though - what a talent! And the Battleship Potemkin was awesome. So were Fritz Lang’s Metropolis and M. Some stuff dates and some stuff remains timeless).
Philadelphia (the one with Tom Hanks as the AIDS victim) - any one of those “social issue of the week” movies trying to raise our “awareness” by sending us on a guilt trip. Most of Jodie Foster’s movies fall into this category as well.
None, because I don’t FEEL I should see anything that is expected of me as far as film goes.
But if we talk about films that OTHERS thought were so wonderful and insightful, I’d say:
Moulin Rubbish
Anything by Peter Greenaway (puke)
The Hours (and hours and hours of misery)
Sea Brisket (what WAS that?)
[quote=“Alien”]None, because I don’t FEEL I should see anything that is expected of me as far as film goes.
But if we talk about films that OTHERS thought were so wonderful and insightful, I’d say:
Moulin Rubbish
Anything by Peter Greenaway (puke)
The Hours (and hours and hours of misery)
Sea Brisket (what WAS that?)[/quote]
Lol, ALien! Moulin Rubbish indeed!
But i did like the Peter Greenaway one about SHanghai, I think, The CHina Box. And I loved the Hours.
I guess we all hate different vegetables in diffferent ways, taste bud wise…
But I did like the Peter Greenaway one about SHanghai, I think, The China Box.[/quote]
No, “The Pillow Book”. I haven’t seen it. If it’s anything like his others, I’d prefer not to. So I guess I could call that Spinach, then! Because I just may hap upon it some day and have to sit through it!
Titanic.
I took me ages to get round to seeing this film. I just wasn’t interested - overhyped and all the rest - but I felt I had to see it anyway. I watched the first disk (was on VCDs at the time) and couldn’t be bothered to watch the 2nd one.
I know what happens anyway. It sinks. The End.
I think those kinds of greens present a whole different thread as far as tolerating movies goes. I know South Park the movie was even funnier with a healthy dose of “spinach”.
An example of a spinach movie to me was Bedazzled, the one with Elizabeth Hurley and Brendan Fraser. At first I refused to see it because it was a pox on the genius of Peter Cook (and Dudley Moore), but I had to see it so that I could rightfully say what an injustice it was to the original. And it was. Special effects, schmecial effects. Dudley Moore as a lesbian nun who realizes that he cannot be with the love of his dreams is deep. Brendan Fraser as a gay intellect (with a sterotypically effeminant lover) was not. It was okay, but it tried too hard to be funny and therefore makes the point seem more like an afterthought. Besides, the chemistry between Cook and Moore was simply magic.
