Drooch
Posts: 129
Joined: 31/5/2006
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army
quote:
I've repeatedly said that I welcome and want to hear anyone's opinion, including the reviewer's. The problem is that a professional critic should ALSO be able to determine the quality of the film - much like how I said I didn't like Pan's Labyrinth (subjective response) but could detect that it was a good film (objective judgement based on an awareness of what constitutes good and bad filmmaking). To refocus, my point is that Scream 4 does not deserve two stars, and if you REALLY believe that it does, then you need to make a very good case, which this reviewer didn't in his sloppy, unfocused review. Two stars is damaging and this film doesn't deserve it (incidentally, if it continues to under-perform it will kill the franchise). Kim Newman would be better qualified to review this type of film, he's well versed in the genre.
Here, Drooch, let me fix this post for you.
I've repeatedly said that I welcome and want to hear anyone's opinion, including the reviewer's. The problem is that a professional critic should ALSO be able to justify his opinion - much like how I said I didn't like Pan's Labyrinth but could detect there were some elements that were technically accomplished. To refocus, my point is that I believe Scream 4 does not deserve two stars, and if you REALLY believe that it does, then you need to justify your opinion, which I don't think this reviewer did in his sloppy, unfocused review. Two stars is scathing and this film doesn't deserve it. Kim Newman would be better qualified to review this type of film, he's well versed in the genre.
That's a reasonable post, because there is no such thing as an objective opinion when it comes to assessing the quality of films. This is because how you react to a film is entirely subjective - you may like Pan's Labyrinth's cinematography, whereas another may find it murky and unattractive; I may find Pan's Labyrinth to have an emotionally enriching and captivating story with a sublime twist on fairy tale storytelling, whereas you may find it leaves you cold or whatever. That's fine, because that's your opinion. The 'empirical' things you seek are either dry and add nothing to an assessment of the film (like what kind of camera was used or how many beats there are to a bar in the part of the score played at 1:24:12 of the film) or are based in theory that is built on subjective readings of what gets a positive reaction from audiences (such as framing theory, colour theory, three-act structures and other narrative theories, etc.) and is thus in itself subjective. However, reviewers aren't Film Production Lecturers and for them to say "I disliked this film and thought there were a number of issues but objectively it is good" is to be patently dishonest, particularly because there's no way to objectively measure the quality of a film - they're not measured in megahertz or whatever.
You're allowed to question the review - that's fine, we encourage debate. What you're not allowed to do is shut out debate by arguing that maths and empirical evidence is on your side and then present subjective opinion as said evidence; you're also not allowed to accuse reviewers of having not done their jobs because you disagree with them.
But then, the chances of you grasping this are incredibly small, so v v
You haven't 'fixed' my post, you've distorted it based on your misguided idea that quality cannot be measured. Your own magazine has a 'Masterpiece' section - what is a masterpiece if not a film that is objectively better than most? Some films stand the test of time and continue to resonate for audiences decades after they were made, others seem to evaporate while you're watching them and are quickly forgotten by culture - the former are said to be 'good' or even 'great' films and the latter are 'poor'.
There are elements that make a film 'good', and they go beyond the 'technical accomplishments' you mentioned. Artistic integrity on the part of the filmmakers, the extent to which a director elicits a good performance from an actor, three dimensional characterisation - these are also things on which to judge the quality of a film (given it's genre and what it ultimately strives to do). Eraserhead has few of your 'technical accomplishments' but it is a very good film because it is unique and effectively uses the language of cinema to render the abstract imagery of the subconscious, and is an uncompromised artistic vision. Merit in filmmaking can take many forms (transcending mathematics and 'megahertz') but some films have more merit than others, when one zooms out and holds it up against all other films, or films in it's genre. Professional critics should have this greater awareness and be able to pass judgement on an individual film accordingly (or 'justify their opinion' to use your words - it essentially means the same thing in this case). Readers pay to read professional reviews over amateur ones because professionals are educated enough to make these quality judgements (using a star rating system in Empire's case).
I didn't accuse the reviewer of not doing his job - I said that I was in doubt as to whether he had seen the film or not. If it turns out he had seen it, I wouldn't be surprised, and if it turns out that he hadn't seen it, I also wouldn't be surprised - I haven't made a direct accusation but I am suspicious based on how he curiously avoids talking about Scream 4 in his review of Scream 4, and have every right to express that doubt.
quote:
But then, the chances of you grasping this are incredibly small, so vv
I grasp what you're saying just fine, it's just that you're mistaken if you think it's impossible to judge the quality of a film, which is odd because you work for a magazine which does just that. How about you get back to your job of moderating these boards instead if abusing it's users.
|
Printable Version
RE: That's it!! - 
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