>The physiognomy of a film connoisseur is indicative connoisseurism

File: 1401457432348.jpg (22KB, 300x279px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x279px

>The physiognomy of a film connoisseur is indicative connoisseurism and the art of film as a whole. I'm not talking about fans of film I'm talking about the obsessive- the type of person who makes their love for film a self-defining characteristic. These people are the most vile human beings on earth in every sense of the word. Show me a self-proclaimed film-buff or cinephile that's in good financial and physical shape. No one has ever been able to answer this question and that should tell you something. When you look at someone like a Roger Ebert you immediately recoil into a fit of pity and disgust. What a sad fate that old man endured but it's just nature and biology taking its course. It applies even to this new wave of YouTube 'critics' who purport to be connoisseurs despite never having heard of Peter Greenaway or Jean Renoir. They will all share Ebert's fate. It's built into their molecular structure. Do you know a single CEO of a fortune 500 company who is into film? What about successful politicians? This is biodeterminism taking its course. Film as an art appeals to the weak, the ostracized, those that are desperately trying to make use of the dysgenic cards they were dealt at birth. They have nothing else going for them. It's a coping mechanism. There's a reason why a connoisseur of the arts is not appealing to the opposite sex. It's nature ensuring the strong that only they will survive.

Is he right?