It did make a great difference seeing it as it was meant to be seen. We tried to get there as early as we could & still
-
theuserformerlyknownasfrantruff — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 02:51 PM)
[pretentious]
I have no idea. Since it's an "objective standard", theoretically anyone could come up with it, and then would have to be able to make a strong enough case for it that everyone (and I mean everyone) could agree that a movie that fits it is better than a movie that doesn't fit it, even if it might not be more appealing to them (this would be the first highly questionable idea here: that "better" is different from "more appealing"). It would also have to establish what is the most important thing in a movie: plot? Visuals? Themes, characters and character development, performances, influence or innovation? And then would have to establish in what order of priority these things are.
Sounds more and more ridiculous the more I go on, but the "it's all subjective" argument taken to its logical extremes just sounds more ridiculous to me. I mean, can anyone truly argue (and I don't mean if someone could do this rethorically, I mean if there's actually someone out there who
would
) that a 2 hour recording of a dot in the wall is a better movie than "The Conversation"?
One idea I've been thinking about would be to assess a movie first by how it develops its ideas, without assessing the value of the ideas themselves, and then contrasting it with your own preferences and biases. The first part would be a somewhat "objective" appreciation (because it is possible to argue about the logic and methods used to communicate and develop an idea) and the second one would fully embrace subjectivity.
[/pretentious] -
theuserformerlyknownasfrantruff — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 03:39 PM)
Yeah, we all, consciously or most likely subconsciously, have a standard (or twelve) by which we judge movies. Some are more structured, some are more vague, and sometimes a movie comes along that you enjoy despite being completely against your standard, so you set a new one. I just mean that, if everyone can agree that "Terminator 2" is a better movie than the dot-on-the-wall film, then doesn't that mean it might be objective? And if it is, then doesn't that mean there just might be an objective standard, and we just haven't found it?
-
archibald14 — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 04:13 PM)
theoretically anyone could come up with it, and then would have to be able to make a strong enough case for it that everyone (and I mean everyone) could agree that a movie that fits it is better than a movie that doesn't fit it, even if it might not be more appealing to them
But agreeing on what the objective standards should be is just as subjective as anything else. Do you seriously think it would be possible to have everyone agree ? People are different, so any discussion on matters of aesthetics is inevitably going to have divergences of opinion.
Also, the big thing is, why would people want to agree that something is better if it's not more appealing ? I mean what would be the point ? Let's say people manage to agree that movies that use the color red are defined as "better" than movies that use blue. What do we gain from that ? Absolutely nothing. Everyone still will have their own preferences as to which movies they like, and this "better" label will just be an abstract construct which doesn't actually mean anything.
I mean, can anyone truly argue (and I don't mean if someone could do this rethorically, I mean if there's actually someone out there who would) that a 2 hour recording of a dot in the wall is a better movie than "The Conversation"?
Well, someone who hated The Conversation and/or is into experimental stuff could.
Also, it seems like you're unclear on the meaning of "subjective". The word means that the quality of the movie is relative to the person watching it. Even if everybody in the world agreed that a movie is good, that still wouldn't make it an objective fact, since at the end of the day it was a subjective reaction that people had in front of the movie. -
lukejbarnett — 3 years ago(June 07, 2022 07:12 AM)
you captured something that i have been claiming is true for a long time. it is that great films and other great things are objectivly, provably great.
i know they are bc critics like ebert have their jobs, careers bc they went to film school or film studies appreciation school and got degrees in film study. then they use their artistic rules on what films are great to decide what films are great.
so they are authorities on films' worth. bc if they weren't authorities on films qualities then why do they have their position, prestige and why do people care so much about what film critics say when it comes to deciding on if they watch a movie?
the only thing that makes this objectvity hard to prove is that some critics disagree about how great a film is.
lukejbarnett -
lukejbarnett — 3 years ago(June 07, 2022 07:31 AM)
i love what you wrote movies should induce a gut reaction not an academic one. bc if you went by the academic way of watching a movie so evaluating its quality as you watched it you wouldn't be able to enjoy it.
by the way when you watch a movie, just bc you understand a movie that is great and understand why its great doesn't mean you will like it.
also just bc you are used to a certain era of movies like '40s doesn't mean you will like this movie.
lukejbarnett -
archibald14 — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 10:16 AM)
I'd say yes. It's not like it's a particularly hard movie to get. Since it has influenced so much, it works and feels very similarly to recent movies.
They won't be able to really assess its influence and innovation, but those things shouldn't be factors when it comes to how good a movie is. -
megaruda — 9 years ago(January 19, 2017 05:37 PM)
Oddly enough I did not think it was thaaat dated, but the incoherent portrayal of a male powerful narc left so much to be desired, she let the blonde go away too easily, almost as if he loved her, the most incoherent character I have seen, it seem like Orson Welles was playing the part of a woman.
There are examples of films that are dated and I find to be great, directors like Yasujiro Ozu, movies like
J'accuse!, M, it happened one night, among many many others. This film on the other hand lacked knowledge about the characters it was trying to portray, it tried too hard and fell flat, the film is offensive because it sucks. If you are gonna talk about something, it should be something you know about, and I dont mean that for you but to Welles, he made a pretty movie sure, but it sucks. -
Rittenhouse The Righteous — 3 years ago(June 07, 2022 07:16 AM)
I'm not by any means a critic, or an art-house snob, but it seems to me that most movie goers simply aren't equipped with the proper tools to evaluate movies like this.
It's yet more evidence of the decline of civilization. Art from the past is far superior to art from the present. People today need to be spoon-fed. When a movie pays its audience some respect, and challenges it, if it's not panned by critics first, it's mocked by the idiotic public.
Check my block list because you're probably on it. -
MortSahlFan — 2 years ago(January 02, 2024 06:09 PM)
Yes… Personally, I never noticed/cared about any technical ****.
https://www.patreon.com/LoyalOpposition