Tuesday, August 07, 2012

Ask JKM a Question #20: What is a "Guilty Pleasure?"



A reader, Robert, writes:

“Last September, APOLLO 18 debuted in theaters.  Critics lambasted the film.  It fared poorly at the box office, failing to capitalize on the success of other films in the found-footage horror subgenre, like the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY movies. APOLLO 18 might have played for about two weeks at my local multiplex, and then it was gone.” 

I loved it.  Of course, the movie has many flaws.  For one thing, the plot is pretty weak.  But it was the production design of the film that captivated me.  The filmmakers did an incredible job of recreating the technology and equipment of the Apollo program, right down to the grain of the film they used to make the movie.  

I recommended the movie to three or four different people, and they checked it out during its brief run.  None of them enjoyed it as much as me.  After reading various reviews of the film, I started to believe I was the only person in North America who liked the movie, and it got me thinking about the idea of “guilty pleasures.”  Did the term apply to APOLLO 18?  Was I supposed to use the guilty pleasure label to defend my enthusiasm for the movie?

I’ve always been annoyed whenever someone refers to a film or television show as a guilty pleasure.  If you enjoy a movie or a show, why do you have to feel guilty about it?  Do people label a movie or show a guilty pleasure because they’re too lazy to search for redeeming qualities with which to defend the film or program in question?   Or does the expression come from an innate, knee-jerk elitism at enjoying something deemed lowbrow by mainstream critics?

What do you think?”

Robert, this is a terrific and thoughtful question, and I am gratified to learn that I am not alone in my appreciation of Apollo18.  I loved and admired that movie -- despite the critical brickbats -- and reviewed it positively here.

Now, to the meat of your question: how to countenance the “guilty pleasure” nomenclature in terms of movie and television appreciation/criticism? 

I actually feel I am well-qualified to answer this particular question, because early in my writing career -- in 1997 -- I used the term, myself, to describe Battlestar Galactica (1978 – 1979) in my book, An Analytical Guide to Television’s Battlestar Galactica. 

I felt at the time that the term “guilty pleasure” was an adequate way of describing a program that had obvious, up-front flaws, but also was incredibly enjoyable and entertaining.  In the same book, I also came up with a better way of describing the series by noting that the original Battlestar had tremendous potential but didn’t always achieve or realize that potential. Today, I wish I had used that paradigm throughout the book rather than the “guilty pleasure” one which I featured in my introduction.

Honestly, looking back today -- as a far more experienced writer -- I feel that to describe a film or TV program is a “guilty pleasure” is to write from the unfortunate position of a defensive crouch.

Having used the term “guilty pleasure” myself, I can confirm that some writers label a movie or TV show as such because they know that their (positive) conclusion is going to be met with cries of disagreement and disapproval from the critical community or a segment of the viewing audience.   By throwing out the term “guilty pleasure” a writer reduces some of the heat, and throws a bone to the naysayers.

I suppose I outgrew, at some point, the need for approval from critical peers, and realized that “guilty pleasure” was a kind of a weasel expression that doesn’t really say anything about the work of art. 

It says much more, in fact, about the writer reviewing it.

I think you are absolutely correct that utilizing the term “guilty pleasure” is an easy way of not really addressing or excavating the reasons why you approve of a film or TV series.  It’s an easy shorthand or substitute for deep thinking, to be certain.  What I have come to understand is that I can -- if I gaze deep enough -- find the reasons why I feel as I do about a work of art.  Now, others may disagree with my conclusions, but if I explain those reasons well, at least they understand why I’m making the case, and whether or not that case is internally consistent. 

Labeling something a “guilty pleasure” is just, finally, a way of hedging your bets and deflecting (feared) criticism for one’s conclusions. There are many better ways of describing works of art, in my opinion.

11 comments:

  1. It really is a lazy way of describing. The very notion itself, regardless of going into detail about a work of art's flaws (which work doesn't have at least one?), is ridiculous. One shouldn't feel guilty about deriving pleasure from something ostensibly harmless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Randal,

      Well said, as is par for the course with your comments. I couldn't agree more. I really feel that writing about something as a "guilty pleasure" is about, truly, coming from a defensive crouch. If you like a work of art, there are reasons for your feelings. Examine those feelings, and make your case. That's how I try to operate these days, instead of falling back on platitudes such as "guilty pleasure."

      best,
      John

      Delete
  2. Agreed, sir.

    Pleasure always derives from something, so why cast a false sense of shame over it?

    Let's all enjoy what we enjoy with pride. Labeling works of art as "guilty pleasures" only helps create a homogenous critical consensus, which is never the most productive or fruitful criticism to work with.

    I'm not guilty for my enjoyment of Lifeforce, Slumber Party Massacre II, or Destination: Truth-- I simply have particular tastes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeffrey,

      I love your comment, and find that I am in total agreement with your sentiments. Why create a false sense of shame. Others may quibble with our selections, but -- finally -- who cares? I think the term guilty pleasure comes from a feeling that comments aren't going to be received well by other critics. They shouldn't get to control your portion of the dialogue.

      I love Lifeforce too, and proudly so, by the way. Great movie!!

      And a great comment...

      best,
      John

      Delete
  3. John,

    Add me to your list. I too found myself being the only one in my circle of friends who enjoyed Apollo 18. It kept me glued to the television the entire time. As you said in your piece, it has its flaws, but overall, an entertaining film in my opinion. I definitely felt the isolation those two must have felt being on the moon....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Troy,

      Another Apollo 18 fan! Outstanding! The film was really great from a production design standpoint, and scary enough, in my opinion, to pass muster. I don't understand all the outright hatred for it.

      Glad to know you feel the same way, my friend.

      best,
      John

      Delete
  4. Anonymous11:06 AM

    John since I have your excellent reference book An Analytical Guide To Television’s Battlestar Galactica, I know what you mean. You are right, I always thought of the term “guilt pleasure” as a first strike against opposition waiting to attack.

    SGB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SGB:

      You are a good friend, sir. I appreciate you supporting my book and championing its virtues. But -- indeed - the term "guilty pleasure" is a defensive strike against opposition waiting to attack. And attack it does, but we have to be strong enough to weather the storm.

      Thank you for an excellent comment...

      best,
      John

      Delete
  5. I either read or heard somewhere that there is at least one redeeming quality in every horror film. Whether it be a gory kill, a atmospheric set, or a well-executed jump scare. While that comment is most decidedly untrue, I do believe it applies to the found footage films. Even the worst found footage film that I have seen, 'The Amityville Haunting' had one and (only one) genuinely creepy , well crafted scene. I am sucker for found footage and 'Apollo 18' is one of my favorite examples, clearly a cut above the rest, the production values as noted, are excellent. If you are going to have the moon as the setting for a found footage, you must put money into the production and I think 'Apollo 18' pulled it off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trent:

      Another supporter of Apollo 18! I'm happy to see it. I agree with you that the film is a cut above many in terms of the production values and the fidelity to the film's setting (the early 1970s). I can't see why critics didn't point out these excellent qualities.

      All my best,
      John

      Delete
  6. Hi John.

    I've always considered the term for a "guilty pleasure" is something that you don't really watch or like...or if it's just plain bad but in a so bad it's good kinda way.

    So, I guess I could call my stint watching pretty much all 10 seasons of Beverly Hills a few years ago a guilty pleasure. I could almost say the same thing about Sliders when it got really bad.

    And then there are those flicks you can watch with your friends and have a fun time laughing your ass of, like Bud Spencer movies.

    I remember seeing Roger Ebert on a talk show long ago, or just on some clip online, that he mentioned The Hidden (1987) with Kyle MacLachlan as a guilty pleasure. Still, he gave it 3 stars, so why call it a guilty pleasure...?

    ReplyDelete

My Father's Journal, Epilogue: "My Cancer"

My friends, we have reached the final entry in my father’s journal of his battle with cancer.     I want to thank all the readers who have c...