>"Goonies vs. Contempt. Movies I both admire a lot. Would I
>rather watch Goonies? Sure. Would I say that Contempt is the
>better made film? Sure. Now who would I want to run the
>country and who would I want over to my house for dinner? I
>don't think that's hypocritical because dinner at my house and
>the highest political office in the nation don't require the
>same qualifications. Does that make sense?"
>
>But we aren't talking about two different things like having
>dinner or running the country. A better comparison would have
>been: who would you rather have a President - John Kerry who
>has the required resume and background but not as much
>personality or John Edwards, who doesn't have the background
>but is much more likable and a more charismatic leader? I
>think this works with film because "film snobs" would take
>Kerry (Contempt), film fans would take Edwards (Goonies), and
>most of America would take George W. (Van Helsing)

Okay, but it takes close inspection to run the country, you need to meet a very stringent examination and be held up to high standard (all cynicism aside). In the analogy, some movies are better equipped because technically and artistically they have less flaws and hold up to that inspection. For dinner at my house, you just need to be family, flaws accepted because of the unique relationship shared. That's what I'm trying (and failing) to say.

>Also, this brings up the purpose of movies. Should the first
>priority be to go out to make a movie that is well made or to
>make a film that people will like? It's a tricky question,
>and I don't know if I have an answer to it.

That's a very big question. I couldn't say well enough now.

>"B. I have a borderline obsession with making lists."
>
>Well then let's see your favorite movies list (although I will
>admit that making a Greatest list is a lot easier because your
>favorites can change on any given day, any given mood swing.)

Give me 24hours.