[I see that Jeff has already responded with a similar post, but I've already written all of this so I may as well post it. Now I check again and see that Lis has already responded to Jeff. Well, I'll still try to get everyone riled up again instead of letting the happy dust settle. :)]
What it comes down to is different styles.
"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."
I enjoy being antagonistic with friends. Arguing back and forth is one seriously good way to learn how and what and why I feel about something. Doing so with friends means that it's always friendly. There is an assumed respect. This doesn't need to be affirmed every time we have a conversation.
"The reason I'm saying the conversation gets ended is that it feels like instead of actually entertaining what I'm saying and maybe thinking, "that might be an interesting point about this one individual film," or, "that's a different way to think about things than I do," or, "yeah, ok, maybe that might be worth considering for half a second even if I don't agree with it, I see what you're saying but here's what I'm thinking it might be instead," the response is "this is why you're wrong and this is the right answer and here is all the literary and historical and film criticism proof to shut you up.""
I'll never be that sensitive. Sorry. I think that my style assumes all of these things, though, without having to say them. If I didn't think that your point was "interesting" or "worth considering for half a second," then I wouldn't spend any time at all interacting with it. The very act of continued interaction implies these things. And as Jeffrey has already stated, no one is trying to shut anyone up. We responded as we did because we wanted more loud shouting, not a whimpering statement of "you haven't properly recognized my feelings."
Again, it's different styles. I get it. I'm still half making fun of you (because I think you can take it) because that's just my way of having fun while arguing. Even though I'm an insensitive lout, I can still understand that you engage in conversations in a very different way than I do. Neither one is right or wrong. Just different.
"And I still pushed to get to the discussion about accessibility and then got told why I was wrong,"
Right. I tried answering this. I guess I don't understand the "accessibility" complaint.
American Idol has millions of viewers. Yet it is completely inaccessible to me. I've tried watching Glee to understand this cultural touchstone. Inaccessible.
Why can't Idol occasionally throw a Dead Milkmen song into the mix so that I can relate? Why can't Glee be about antisocial bookworms instead of pop-chorus nerds?
I don't get the "accessibility" complaint. There's nothing inaccessible about Tree of Life. It welcomes all. People who complain about "accessibility" are usually just saying that they don't want to watch something that doesn't have the same structure as their favorite police procedural on Tuesday nights or whatever.
I know that I'm the only one in film club who really wants to see James Benning's RR (though this will likely never happen since there is no DVD release). I'm our resident snob. I value educated critical opinions. I rarely laugh at fart jokes.
But, there I go arguing again.
"John said, "he's not stupid, he's wrong.""
To be fair, I had a big ol' smiley face after the "he's still wrong" to indicate that I was joking. In that specific example, I understand why only 2 out of 10 people will enjoy Ruben & Ed. It does have a weird sense of humor and a far-out non-conventional plot and strange character conflict. I still think it's a masterpiece and would fight to the death over it. My problem is that no one wants to fight about it. It gets dismissed because it's weird and there can be no discussion. The exact opposite of what you're saying.
More about inaccessibility:
"Inaccessible" seems to be codespeak for "This isn't what I'm used to and I don't want to think in a different way."
I understand that most American Idol junkies won't like Tree of Life. Most Tree of Life fans won't like Idol. They represent two different ways of looking at the world. The Way of Accessibility and The Way of Inaccessibility. Always These Two Will Struggle Inside the U.S. Soul.
Despite my reservations about the film (and I was the first to bring up emotional sterility - though I think that Jeff has successfully countered this charge in his recent post), I'm firmly in the Tree of Life is Important, black and white is good, talkies ruined the movies, comedy isn't what it used to be camp. I'm here waving my snob flag.
P.S. Lisa, you don't want Brandon arguing for you. He likes Crank. And he's stupid.