|
Post by Jedan Archer on Jan 30, 2018 18:19:49 GMT
No, there's objectiveness to their badness.
… Leaving aside any discussion of Snyder for a minute (as I’ve noted above, I don’t think I’m qualified to evaluate the quality of his work), I can’t understand this argument for the life of me. How are we possibly supposed to derive absolute objectivity in something as suffocatingly subjective as film analysis? There are, naturally, widely-agreed principles, but even they are subjective: take, for example, shot choice and camera movement. Is Melford’s Spanish-language Drácula superior to Browning’s English-language version because Melford uses fancier camera movements? If we had some objective principle here, there would be a single, undeniable answer to this question, but there isn’t. Most critics say “yes”; I and several critics I know would say “no,” for other reasons. I think The Room is lousy; I’m sure that a majority of critics agree with me. But there’s no diktat or revelation from on-high that states, absolutely, positively, and objectively, that it is bad; it is our judgment in response to it. Moses did not come down from Sinai with the 11th Commandment proclaiming the goodness or badness of motion-pictures. Hypothetically, you can find someone who thinks any work is good. Even more realistically, the majority of critics think Congo (1995) is bad; I love it for a number of reasons. Who’s right? (The answer is simpler than may first appear: “In the long run, we are all dead.”) About other subjects, we may aim for objectivity; I happen to believe, philosophically, in an objective right and wrong. But this is film criticism, not moral philosophy. It’s subjective, guys. Well put. I might add that the distinction between objective and subjective, good and bad, thus between value judgement/opinion, fact and informed assessment is one basic building block of rational intelligence. And at the core of any intelligence testing I know of. I'm a lawyer and do not have the luxury of dealing with natural sciences and provable cause and effects. Thus, it is all the more important that you can distinguish between mere opinion, fact and assessments. This means the difference between liability and success. If a person fails at that basic distinction, it's a red flag. IMO.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 30, 2018 19:53:02 GMT
It's true there are no perfectly flawless movies. But in those cases, the movie's positives will far outweigh the negatives. And even then, the dropped elements are not as jarring as in badly made movies. Movies that are good/well made mask their flaws. Bad movies have them front and center.
Plus, no one element can determine concretely whether a movie is good or bad. It's a combination of many things. The dropped elements was just one example.
I have to disagree. If it is not present in the movie, there is no reasonable doubt. A lawyer cannot claim reasonable doubt by merely saying, "Someone else could've committed the crime." That's not reasonable when compared to a mountain of evidence saying his client did commit the crime. Possible cannot trump probable. As you said: "a logical, well-reasoned opinion." Hypothetically has no weight without some evidence to support it.
Hypothetically, what if Dracula was an allegory for the fall of the Roman Empire? Ok, well, what's the evidence for that? What if's don't work if they can't be supported.
Yes. I would say yes. That is how novelists, writers, artists, musicians, etc have created running themes in their works. A concept is mentioned or brought up, and then we see how the work pays it off. The Shawshank Redemption is a good example of movie that mentions hope and then pays it off in a way that is true to the story/plot.
Another way would be if the movie falls into the genre it's trying be. An action movie with slow pacing, bad choreography, and cheap special effects would be a bad movie because it did not accomplish what it set out to.
But is that something that was actually presented? Too many directors have tried the old, "Well in actuality..." It just doesn't fly. The work must be judged by what is presented. And there are in fact objective ways of doing it.
This is why I differentiate between good/bad and entertaining. If someone finds a movie entertaining, that's great. That is absolutely subjective. I've never liked National Lampoons Animal House. I laughed maybe once or twice throughout the whole thing. It's not for me. I don't find it entertaining. But I can't say it was bad. It wasn't. It was well-made, with classic characters that resonated with a generation of comedy fans, and there's nothing I can truly pick apart about it. My subjective opinion doesn't affect my objectivity.
I absolutely understand. However, my point is that there are ways to measure movies objectively. Whether you like a movie or not is subjective. Whether it's good or bad can be objective. But there is no one metric that says it's one way or the other completely. Just as movie making itself is a combination of many elements, so too is whether it's good or bad.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 30, 2018 20:33:28 GMT
I think we’re actually agreeing more than disagreeing here, and that disagreement is probably more a matter of nuance than it might have seemed at first. The bolded line is, more or less, the case I’ve been trying to make.I read PreachCaleb ’s post far too quickly and utterly misunderstood his point. It’s my mistake, and I take full blame.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 30, 2018 20:49:56 GMT
PreachCaleb I think we’re actually agreeing more than disagreeing here, and that disagreement is probably more a matter of nuance than it might have seemed at first. The bolded line is, more or less, the case I’ve been trying to make. Forgive me if I'm confused, but I thought you'd made the claim the there was no way to objectively say whether something is good or bad. If I misunderstood, please let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 30, 2018 21:40:20 GMT
PreachCaleb Apologies; I had to run out to an appointment and completely misread what you wrote. I thought you wrote that “whether it’s good or bad can be subjective” and then went on to say that our tools for determining its quality were, however, objective. Sorry about the confusion. Mea culpa. Let’s take this, as I think it gives a solid example to our most central disagreement. First of all, there have been a wide variety of scholars who have seen Dracula as an allegory for ( inter alia) sexual awakening, Gnosticism, colonialism, class-struggle, and God only knows what else. ( Vide, for example, Dracula: The Vampire and His Critics.) You and I may find some of these concepts awfully silly, but the point stands: intelligent, rational scholars have formed intelligent, rational opinions that they base on the text. They cite the text at length to support their arguments. Are they wrong? Can we claim that with absolute certainty? If so, then we have objectivity. If not, then we have subjectivity. Directors have argued that they have put themes into their own work. We may or may not see them. Are they wrong? Are we? This is opinion. I have read criticisms of Whale’s Bride in which the fake backdrops are criticized severely. Nearly everyone who worked on the picture states that was on purpose. I say it was on purpose. I say the movie would still be good even if, hypothetically, the phony-looking backdrops were merely a mistake. Others will say it proves the movie was badly made. That’s subjective. Apropos of comedies we don’t like, I think Brooks’s The Producers looks terrible; I think it’s terribly made. Others, I suppose, either don’t mind (which is what you’re saying) or think it’s well made (what Ebert, for example, once wrote—he thought it was all on purpose). OK. That’s subjective. It’s a combination of things, yes, subjective things. What’s an objective criterion for deciding a movie? Not theme, not appearance, not mise-en-scène, not even, God help us, acting ( vide Béla Lugosi and Tod Slaughter). This isn’t just enjoyment. The late film critic Ken Hanke made a persuasive argument that Lugosi tailored his performances to his material and was, actually, more intelligent in his acting decisions than the oft-praised Boris Karloff. Hanke did not just like Lugosi’s performances better, he thought them superior. Barring an undiscovered part of, say, the Natural Law, it’s subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Jan 30, 2018 21:46:53 GMT
Hes a great director not a great writer tho Wholeheartedly disagree here. He is a horrible director in long form narratives. He is an EXCELLENT director in 3 minute snippets. His opening credits sequences are flawless. The first 5 minutes was without question the best part of Sucker Punch.And the credits sequence of Watchmen was inspired. 300 was made of amazing 3 minute snippets. But as amazing as they are, there's very little character depth and the story is extremely linear. Dawn of the Dead had a similar conceit...really cool mini-sequences with little character depth all strung together. Watchmen was scripted to within an inch of it's life, so he couldn't really deviate. And most people will say that the most successful parts of that are the action sequences, even if they occasionally err on the "cool" side over the narrative and character arc side. Those are generally considered to be the 3 that people point to when they say he has talent. But everything else since then has been a steaming pile. Sucker Punch should have been good, because it was 3 minute snippets with little character depth and a linear plot...but in that case it became too mired in a concept that didn't work and was just the same thing over and over. He has a great eye for action and "epicness" (if that's even a word) but he is a horrible long form storyteller.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 30, 2018 22:02:41 GMT
Actually, I don't think that's central to our disagreement. I fully agree with what you say. My point regarding that is that "What if's" are meaningless without something behind them. There is no right or wrong when analyzing a work if it can be supported with something.
Exactly. And that's why there is no one element that makes something good or bad. Even as a mistake, The Bride of Frankenstein stands as a good movie. Had it been filmed with awkward dialogue, bad line readings, plot holes, mismatched continuity, etc. Then it would fall as a bad movie.
I have to disagree that mis-en-scene is not objective. It certainly can be. As Ed Wood so lovingly proved with his terrible understanding of it. Movies with lighting equipment, boom mics, stage hands in the background, staging that can't be followed, eye lines in the wrong direction, and no continuity between shots throughout would qualify as objectively bad mis-en-scene.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 30, 2018 22:13:31 GMT
I hate to go on and on, PreachCaleb, but if you want proof of weak mise-en-scène in a strong movie, look up the works of Tod Browning and critics’ opinions—Everson, Sarris, Ebert. I can point to directors other than Browning, especially in the late ‘20s and early ‘30s, but he comes to mind. I truly mean no offense, especially about a subject so ultimately minor, but every time you tell me that it’s not just one element, you respond about only one element. If I may repeat my question: “What’s an objective criterion for deciding a movie?”
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 30, 2018 22:23:02 GMT
That was my earlier point. The positives outweigh the negatives. Weakness in one element, can be offset by strengths in many more to still produce a good movie.
No offense taken. As far as I'm concerned, this has been a civil discussion between two people with strong but differing opinions.
If I'm responding about one element, it's merely to stay focused. I do not feel the need to list off many elements. Though I did mention others: "awkward dialogue, bad line readings, plot holes, mismatched continuity, etc."
And even within the my mise-en-scene example, there are various elements.
That "an" is misleading. As I've said, there is no one objective criterion.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 30, 2018 22:57:38 GMT
Thank you. Much appreciated.
Let me try to summarize what I believe you’re saying, briefly, and you can let me know (if you don’t mind) if it’s fair and accurate for your position.
Thus:
1. There is no single objective criterion that determines goodness or badness. (We fully agree on this.) 2. There are many criteria, however, that can tell us if a movie is good or bad. (We agree here too.) 3. These criteria—e.g., dialogue, line readings, plot, continuity, mise-en-scène, acting—are objectively good or bad. (Partial agreement, partial disagreement.) 4. However, a movie may lack several of these objective criteria and still be considered good; similarly, the inverse of this statement is also true. (Agree for all but the word “objective.”) 5. We can objectively determine goodness or badness based on the presence or absence of these objectively good or bad qualities, irrespective of personal entertainment value. (Disagree on everything but that last clause—we both agree that we’re not talking about personal entertainment value, which is something quite different.)
Would you consider that schema fair? In that case, it is only Point 5 on which we diametrically disagree.
Also, in this case, would it be a checklist, then? It has good dialogue—check. It has good continuity—check. But the direction is bad. Well, that’s five demerits…
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 30, 2018 23:06:50 GMT
I should note again that this does not extend to moral, ethical, or even some aesthetic judgments; I’m not a relativist. I’m talking purely in terms of film criticism (or, more simplistically, “good movie,” “bad movie”). As I noted above, I’m wary of going too far with this argument.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 30, 2018 23:18:09 GMT
Thank you. Much appreciated. Let me try to summarize what I believe you’re saying, briefly, and you can let me know (if you don’t mind) if it’s fair and accurate for your position. Thus: 1. There is no single objective criterion that determines goodness or badness. (We fully agree on this.) 2. There are many criteria, however, that can tell us if a movie is good or bad. (We agree here too.) 3. These criteria—e.g., dialogue, line readings, plot, continuity, mise-en-scène, acting—are objectively good or bad. (Partial agreement, partial disagreement.) 4. However, a movie may possess several of these objective criteria and still be considered good; similarly, the inverse of this statement is also true. (Agree for all but the word “objective.”) 5. We can objectively determine goodness or badness based on the presence or absence of these objectively good or bad qualities, irrespective of personal entertainment value. (Disagree on everything but that last clause—we both agree that we’re not talking about personal entertainment value, which is something quite different.) Would you consider that schema fair? In that case, it is only Point 5 on which we diametrically disagree. Also, in this case, would it be a checklist, then? It has good dialogue—check. It has good continuity—check. But the direction is bad. Well, that’s five demerits… Right now, I'm terribly upset I used the wrong "two." But overall, I'd say that summary's quite accurate. So it seems to me (let me know if I'm wrong) that the only real point of contention is you do not consider these elements/criteria to be "objective" as that's where we seem to branch off in our agreements.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 30, 2018 23:35:13 GMT
Oh, I didn’t even see the wrong “two” unless just now! I disagree that we can determine an objective “goodness” or “badness” based on objective “good” or “bad” criteria. Again, Ken Hanke considered Béla Lugosi’s acting in The Raven as good. I think it’s a lot of fun and goofy but, at the end of the day, bad acting. (Personal entertainment value again.) OK—if Hanke, a reasonable and intelligent film critic, saw it as good, and I see it as bad, it must be (barring some single, absolute, objective principle) subjective. That’s one quality. What you’re saying is that we can consider a film objectively bad based on an enumeration (or checklist) of objectively bad elements. If we put all these bad elements together, in other words, we have a bad movie. I can’t make that leap. I don’t know how many “bad” elements there must be for it to be considered an objectively bad movie. I don’t know how we can consider even each individual element objective if sensible people disagree on it. That would be like saying that the statement “we should lower taxes for everyone” is objective. Of course it isn’t, as sensible people disagree on it, and there’s no single compelling moral principle that governs the statement. (I don’t mean to delve into politics; it’s just an example!) I think It’s a Wonderful Life is a superb, emotional, heart-wrenching movie; others think it mawkish and just plain bad, irrespective of entertainment value. OK. How can we say what it is, then? Does it fulfill all points of the checklist? No, because we’re undecided as to what each point really means. One man’s “badly-directed, boring, slow-moving” is another man’s “pensive, challenging, reflective.” (T.S. Eliot, of all people, though Hamlet facile.) And so we return to where we began.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 30, 2018 23:59:21 GMT
Ok, I can see and absolutely understand where you're coming from. I know mine is not a popular perspective. Heck, it's one that took me a very long time to come to. But it is one I strongly believe in. There is objectivity in how we can judge things.
I can see what one considers good acting, another might consider bad acting. But in the context of the movie, is that all there is to negatively say about it? Are there more objective elements to judge.
And here's the crux of my point. Some elements are in fact objective: lighting, eye lines, audio, continuity (as far as the emotion and flow of the scene), misse-en-scene (as far as what should be in frame), line readings (as far as emotions, not necessarily the acting), costuming, and others I'm sure I'm forgetting.
The reason a film has such a large crew is because they are in fact checking things off. So there is a check list.
I think it's the old handful of sand conundrum. If I put a grain of sand in my hand, do I have a handful of sand? What if I put in another? And another? It's hard to say exactly how many grains are needed, but at some point, I'll have a handful. Just as at some point, a movie becomes bad through it's failure to use both subjective and objective elements to achieve its purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jan 31, 2018 0:02:51 GMT
OK, and I disagree. At the risk of a cop-out after all this, I’m afraid neither of us will ever convince the other. You may have the last word if you’d like it. (And, to everyone reading—if anyone else is reading—I hope you enjoyed it!)
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 31, 2018 14:07:07 GMT
Well I'd say this discussion ended with civility and respect. I would welcome another with you.
|
|