Pigeon Army
Posts: 14611
Joined: 29/1/2006
From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.
|
Alright here we fucking go
quote:
ORIGINAL: Drooch
objective (comparative more objective, superlative most objective)
1. of or relating to a material object, actual existence or reality
2. agreed upon by all parties present (or nearly all); based on consensually observed facts [quotations ▼]
3. not influenced by irrational emotions or prejudices
1. Clearly in favour of what I said
2. Selective quoting (because the second part is clearly in favour of what I said, hence the word facts), also implication of a consensus which cannot apply to whether a film is good or well-made because people have wildly differing conceptions of what good or well-made is. Somebody may hate Wong Kar-Wai's use of step-printed slow-motion because it's indulgent and garish while another may love it because it makes the colours pop and brings emotions alive. You've yet to show the existence of a consensus on anything in film to justify this tag.
3. Without emotions and prejudices, film is nothing. Film cannot be analysed because that would destroy all meaning on a human and a political level and would render anything 'technically proficient' hollow and not proficient because it is not being done for a reason, it just is.
The 'possible definitions' you're angling for don't exist without stripping of film of its entire reason for existing and basically equating it to a toilet brush or some other functional but heartless object.
quote:
See, what you do is you go with the definition that clearly relates to the user’s usage of the word. Not focus on definitions which are not appropriate to the user’s usage, and suggest that they are the only valid definitions, and that the user is mistaken about the meaning of the word. Your comprehension will improve a hundred-fold with this new understanding.
I am - unfortunately, your usage of the word is all the way in Robot-Land and ignores the inherent subjectivity of opinions, because opinions are prejudices in and of themselves, albeit mostly benign ones.
quote:
No, I am being objective in saying that Amacord deserves praise and respect, because subjectively, I was irritated and bored by the film YET I was able to be ‘undistorted by emotion and personal bias’ ie. ‘be objective ‘and detect that it’s considerable merits as a work of art deem it worthy of praise and respect.
Tell me why you think it's worthy of praise and respect when you were irritated and bored by it. What about it makes you think that, objectively, it deserves praise.
Then tell me why this isn't an opinion. Tell me why it's a fact. Because opinions are prejudices and even your definition of objective doesn't cover them.
quote:
Critical evaluations, by their very nature, are not purely subjective. Their raison d'etre is to provide an external model against which works can be evaluated, hence objectivity is necessary in order to execute one properly. There will be an inevitable subjective element, since any act requires a subject to perform it, but one must ‘be objective’ to critically evaluate a work.
Now see this here is just a basic misunderstanding of film as an academic past-time. Nobody who writes critical analysis of film thinks they are writing facts beyond pointing out what is happening on the screen. In writing a critical evaluation of 8 1/2 as being about the death of masculinity I can point to the angles used and the facial expressions the actors make (if only in their most inhuman, biological terms) but anything beyond that is subjective, because a high angle doesn't always import weakness in everyone's mind every time, a low angle doesn't always import power in everyone's mind every time, and dialogue doesn't always mean one thing to all people.
You're basically peddling a rudimentary authorial intent model here and trying to mash it crudely together with the idea of critical analysis divorced from authorial intent and it's just not working, especially considering your argument is nothing but "critical evaluation is objective because people talk about the film."
quote:
No they are not. The first example is my objective critical evaluation of the film PLUS my subjective reaction, concluding in a 4 star review. The second (‘between 3 and 5 stars’) is what a competent critical evaluation should conclude, MINUS any subjective response, that door is left open.
So are you going to tell us what is objectively good about it? Or, if I've missed it, reiterate exactly what it is that is objectively good?
quote:
If the reviewer thought so then he should have justified his opinion in his review, instead of ignoring the film and leaving very reasonable grounds to question whether he had indeed even seen the film. Guts for all the other people he misled in his lazy, unfocused review.
I'm not defending the quality of the review in a vacuum - yes, Hughes spends too much time on the previous films and it is a bit tedious - but he justifies his opinion pretty well here -
"Scre4m tries hard to show us what a Scream movie might be like in the age of Facebook, iPhones and YouTube, and there’s sporadic fun to be had wondering who’s behind the killings, and why, and how many new Twitter followers the murders will get them.
Today’s audiences, jaded and impatient, are likely to be way ahead of Williamson, making the outcome predictable or tiresome, or both. It’s not entirely witless, but after the imaginative contraption-killings of the Saw septology, watching multiple knife murders, however ironically intended, is about as thrilling as standing in line at the butcher’s — without a bag of sausages to make it worth your while."
Basically - it's irrelevant in that it doesn't actually move to meet the genres it tries to satirise in any effective way, it's dull as a result and it does very little with the social media themes it cultivates.
Also keep banging that "he didn't see it" drum, because I've already warned you once about libelling Empire reviewers by accusing them of not seeing the film and that's not going to look good when Area 51 passes judgment on your continued libel.
quote:
quote:
Subjectively, you find Carrie 'a gaudy and dreary watch', but are you able to see why it is considered an important horror film? What rating would you give it?
I'm not able to see why it's considered important because I think it's gaudy and dreary and not scary at all.
Then you are unable to ‘be objective’. No wonder you’re confused by the concept and experiencing headaches.
Perhaps I should be more specific - I can see why the themes of female sexual empowerment that Carrie works with are important and influenced filmmakers down the line, but its influence has nothing to do with its quality and ultimately should not factor into a review of a film because a review shouldn't be making allowances for how big an impact a film had in certain areas in film. Because it's awful, I'm not able to see how Carrie could plausibly be important beyond those themes - which are still not objective facts because they are based on the readings of individuals, albeit the evidence in favour of those readings is highly persuasive. I'd still be open to an argument that Carrie's anti-feminist, though, as long as the critical analysis was argued persuasively. I wouldn't be open to it if someone asserted that it was objectively correct, as I would not be open to a pro-feminist reading or any type of reading of Carrie if it was objectively correct because that's not an argument, it's an assertion without basis.
quote:
quote:
Intention is nothing. People don't win brownie points for wearing their heart on their sleeve - they should be assessed on the work itself, not external factors, and particularly not external factors no-one but the filmmaker is privy to.
Wrong. If a filmmaker uses the medium to communicate a personal truth or illuminate an aspect of the human condition, or tell a meaningful story, that is worthy of merit. Whereas Michael Bay loses points for cranking out soulless and meaningless Transformer films designed purely to turn giant profits with scant regard for storytelling or characterization beyond the actor’s visual appeal.
Michael Bay does not lose out because he is soulless, he loses out because his work is soulless. Pearl Harbour has a soul - it's unforgivably schmaltzy, but it has a soul - but that's my subjective reading of it; The Rock has a soul, an arrogant, all-American soul that belies a certain insecurity about aging and becoming irrelevant, but that's still my subjective reading of it. If Michael Bay turned around tomorrow and said "The Rock is about Communism", I would nod and factor it into my reading of The Rock, for two reasons - one, because the artist's intention is not always reflected in the work, and two, because the 'artist' in cinema is rarely, if ever, the sole artist and while the auteur theory has certain merit in terms of identifying common technical or thematic trends across a director's work, it is not the be all and end all.
Also, if the filmmaker uses the medium to communicate what you say but fails, that work is not worthy of merit because it has not communicated anything. That's not a question of meeting intention - that's a question of whether the work itself communicates that truth or illuminates that condition.
quote:
quote:
How do you objectively assess the "accurate rendition" of a character? How do you objectively assess the intent behind a character's trajectory?
By reading the character description and detecting what the narrative requires of that character and then observing to what extent the performer fulfills that requirement.
But how do you analyse, objectively, that the performer has fulfilled that requirement? How do you analyse, objectively, what the themes and the narrative require of the character?
quote:
quote:
How do you objectively assess the intent behind a character's trajectory?
By detecting the purpose of the story and seeking to understand why the character makes a transition in service of that story.
But is the ultimate understanding you come to not subjective? Is the purpose that you detect not subjectively-detected?
quote:
quote:
quote:
Characterisation so detailed and credible as for the character to be indistinguishable from a real being.
So what, objectively, is "detailed and credible" characterisation? Would you say Ben Stiller's Derek Zoolander (which I personally think is a great performance) is "detailed and credible so as to be indistinguishable from a real being"? Because I can tell you no real being pouts like that, no real being acts like that.
With Derek Zoolander, Stiller is not striving for three-dimensional characterization, Zoolander is deliberately a comedy caricature.
So characterisation is not objectively about attaining realism. What is it about, then? Is it about meeting the 'intention'? How do you objectively assess whether Marlon Brando's performance in The Godfather is good characterisation? Because whether characterisation meets intention is inherently subjective because it's based on your opinion.
quote:
quote:
I am asking you to define them because these are elements of a film, and if you believe a film can be objectively assessed, it therefore follows that you think that the elements of a film can be objectively assessed and then added up to quantitatively create an objective 'good' or 'bad' film. That you actively picked out those elements as ways of objectively assessing a film makes it even better.
There are good examples of the filmmaking craft and bad examples, and everything in between, why are you behaving as if that is a preposterous notion?
But they are subjective. I can look at a bus scare - a combination of filmmaking techniques - in Apollo 18 and go "that's shit" and someone else can look at the same set of techniques and go "that's amazing" and we have our own reasons for thinking that! The same can be said for Cloverfield, the same can be said for The Godfather, the same can be said for The Phantom Menace! That is subjective! What is good and what is bad is subjective! It is opinions, that is what it is!
quote:
No, it’s the basis on which one can determine the quality of a film.
You're fucking with me. You have to be. This tells me nothing, you have told me nothing, all you have offered are a bunch of 'ways of assessing objectivity' that you have not only shown to be wrong (because lo and behold some performances aren't striving for realism) but that you have loaded with subjective assessments. "Detecting purpose" is subjective because people don't always detect the same purpose; "observing to what extent the character fills that requirement" is subjective because people have differing opinions on to what extent that requirement has been filled; "detailed and credible characterisation" is subjective because people have different ideas of what constitutes a 'detailed and credible' performance. This is SUBJECTIVE.
quote:
The subject is ‘being objective’ when they divorce themselves from whatever personal response they have towards the film and use this system of measuring filmmaking merit on which good film criticism is founded. As previously mentioned, the subjective response should still be recorded, in addition to the critic being objective. This is the ‘objectivity’ I’m talking about.
But film is inherently about personal responses. Filmmakers aren't producing datelines, they are about eliciting emotion and provoking personal responses in audiences, that is what good filmmakers do. Good filmmakers strive to touch the subjective, good filmmakers elicit positive responses and deep thought. But what is a good filmmaker? NOBODY KNOWS, that's the beauty of it! Why? Because, at the end of the day, we all respond to things in different ways. Yes, Shakespeare has influenced more works than The Da Vinci Code in the long term and artists are more likely to cite him as an influence than Dan Brown, but that doesn't mean that when I argue with someone about whether Othello is better than The Da Vinci Code that I am objectively right because it's Shakespeare. Influence is influence, it is how many people read it and liked it - it is fed by subjective judgments. A work's great influence - which is what you seem to be getting at - does not automatically mean it can be asserted as objectively qualitatively superior to a less influential work because you cannot assert quality objectively. All you can do is be persuasive in your subjective arguments.
quote:
If we don’t accept that quality can be measured objectively then we have a situation in which the collected works of Shakespeare could be argued to be of equal or poorer quality than The Da Vinci Code, as pieces of literature. Going forward, by arguing that great works have no inherent value over junk, since they can be argued to be of equal quality, this will lead to more junk being created, because it is easier and usually more profitable, and few people striving for greatness, which damages the art-form.
Okay so this is just you being elitist now. That's fine, but you could've been honest about that, we would've understood. Hell, we probably would've sat in the stalls with you and thrown peanuts at the cheap seats together.
quote:
This can only be made worse by people arguing that there is no objective difference on quality between, say, The Godfather and Paul Blart: Mall Cop, since it undermines the efforts of those striving to improve the quality of the films filling our cinemas.
Acknowledging that art is subjective does not damage art - what it does is allow for a greater discourse on pieces of art and for a greater depth of discussion on the elements that constitute the whole. Sticking by the whole "art is objective" bullshit only drives folk away from critics and the films they champion because of this impression of 'elitism'.
quote:
Again, remember to include all definitions of the word, not just those that conveniently support your position. I know it’s tempting to go for the easy win and protect your ego, but a proper discussion means embracing the whole reality of the situation.
As dealt with before, your 'definition' of the word objective does not exist in any human dictionary and is a crock of bullshit, so shut up with that 'open your miiiiiiind, dude' crap.
quote:
Depends on the genre.
Why?
quote:
Hamlet, for example, is a Shakespearean tragedy. It should, therefore, dramatize the trajectory of a hero who is undone by a tragic flaw.
Oh so it sticks to a formula that makes it objectively good, THREE STARS TO HAMLET FOR TICKING OFF THE CHECKLIST
Picking that definition apart further - What is a hero? What would you deem to be a tragic flaw? How do you assess whether the hero is undone by the flaw? Does dramatization require the depiction to be 'effective'?
quote:
Scream 4 strives for self-referential slasher horror with a heavy dose of largely satirical comedy, and should be judged on it’s effectiveness in those areas.
Picking apart this -
- What is comedy? Should it not be funny? How do you objectively assess 'funny'?
- How heavy is this dose of satirical comedy? How much is too much? How little is too little? How much do we forgive it for that due to it being only 'largely' satirical and thus having other concerns?
- Does a horror require fear to be elicited in the audience? how do you objectively assess 'fear'?
- What is 'effectiveness'? How do you objectively assess a movie's 'effectiveness' at doing something?
quote:
Yes, there is such a system, it allows for varying standards of filmmaking,
A hard-and-fast set of rules pertaining to "what makes good cinema" does not allow for varying standards of filmmaking because it hamstrings filmmakers into filling a checklist and hinders experimentation and emotional elicitation; it is not the foundation of film criticism because film criticism is founded on varying ideas of what made a film good and the variance in opinions on what makes a good film (note: opinions) still exists today; it is not why people strive to improve in their filmmaking craft because their endgoal is never objective, it is what they, subjectively, think they should be striving for.
quote:
Criticism is an outgrowth of a realisation that a spectrum of quality exists and that works can be placed on that spectrum, and filmmakers can now strive to be ‘better’ for this spectrum reveals what ‘better’ is.
Criticism is also an outgrowth of a realisation this spectrum of quality is subjective because people have differing responses to every film. This is why Meet the Spartans can top the box office while being derided as bad cinema, because enough people disagree. Do I agree with the people who took it to the top of the box office? Absolutely not, and I can yell they're wrong til I'm blue in the face, but that will always be my opinion. I can just argue it more persuasively than they can.
quote:
The critic who comes along and argues that Paul Blart: Mall Cop is a finer example of the craft than The Godfather is a poorer critic. They might prefer Blart but they lack understanding of the craft.
So if a critic who loved The Godfather because "it had mobsters and guns innit" and a critic who loved Paul Blart because of its continuance of the Laurel and Hardy school of slapstick comedy and the Chaplin-esque acting of Kevin James - and can point to examples within the work backing up that praise - entered a room and you had to choose which one never worked again, you would choose the latter.
Let's put this on a more even playing field - if two critics entered a room, both of equal talent and education and knowledge of the cinematic form and all the canons you can think of, and one gave Precious one star and the other gave Precious five stars, which is objectively right?
quote:
I genuinely doubted whether the reviewer had seen the film, that is all. How would you have phrased that doubt?
I wouldn't have phrased it at all because it is alleging that he is defrauding his employer by not doing his job, which is libel and is illegal.
quote:
The subject is being objective by engaging with an external system of measurement from which a judgement is derived.
Except you have not shown what this external system of measurement is. You keep saying "oh, it's there" but your attempts at establishing its existence have been laughably facile, internally contradictory and, most importantly, incredibly subjective in the assertions they make.
quote:
But you didn’t say that, you said ‘some films have more merit than others, and you’re right, because The Godfather has more filmmaking merit than Paul Blart, regardless of your subjective response.
No, because of my subjective response. Paul Blart's merit or lack thereof is an entirely subjective assessment for reasons I have expounded above. Merits cannot be tallied up and compared against one another because that's not the reality of the filmmaking, it's a far more nuanced, personal, emotional beast than that. You're basically advocating stripping out the humanity behind a work of art because you can't stand people liking Paul Blart.
quote:
But who knows, I might react in the same way if I was arguing a point that I knew deep down was a lie and was having to create straw man arguments to save face while actually evading the truth. Just let all that go and you won’t feel frustrated any more.
Hahaha. Classic.
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rinc
She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though
quote:
ORIGINAL: MonsterCat
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army
Stop being mean to Deviation
No.
|
Printable Version
Scream 4: Review - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread