Pigeon Army
Posts: 14611
Joined: 29/1/2006
From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Drooch
I never said it was 'objective fact'. I use the term 'objective' to distinguish from a purely subjective reaction to a film.
objective (comparative more objective, superlative most objective) - of or relating to a material object, actual existence or reality
- agreed upon by all parties present (or nearly all); based on consensually observed facts [quotations ▼]
- not influenced by irrational emotions or prejudices
The word objective means dealing in facts. You are using words you do not understand.
quote:
Subjectively, I was irritated and bored by Amacord, but I can 'be objective' and detect that it is a meaningful and deeply personal film which deserves praise and respect, and could even warrant the title 'Fellini's masterpiece'.
It is objective to detect that Amacord is a deeply personal film for Fellini. It is subjective to say that it deserves praise and respect and may deserve to be called a masterpiece. The subjective elements of that statement rely on personal reactions - one may say that it does not deserve praise and is in fact a bad Fellini film. That would be one's subjective opinion.
quote:
Professional criticism of art requires this ability to temporarily 'switch off' subjectivity and objectively appreciate the entirety of the piece, contextualise it within the history of the craft, and provide critical evaluations of it's merits or lack thereof;
Critical evaluations are subjective, which is part of the wonder of them - they may be drawn from different sources, but people can have different evaluations of a work. That's why some people see Sucker Punch as sexist tosh and others (such as myself) see it as a deeply important statement on the role of the female in modern Hollywood cinema. Those are still critical evaluations, but they are based on subjective readings of what the film is made up of.
quote:
I didn't say that Scream 4 was a 4 star film (although that is how I, personally, would rate it) but a competent reviewer would detect that it deserves between 3 and 5 stars
Those are basically the same thing. Congratulations.
quote:
It does not barely rise above the lowest swill of the genre - which is what a 2 star rating implies (and caused the person mentioned a few posts above to avoid the film, leading him to feel misled when he finally saw it and thoroughly enjoyed it).
The reviewer thought it did, so guts for you, son.
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. My review from a while back -
quote:
The most disappointing thing about Carrie is how much better it probably would have been if somebody had seen fit to get a director in who was actually subtle about his work. Say a lot of things about De Palma, he has never been a particularly subtle director - and that's really what Carrie cries out for, De Palma's camp aesthetic undermining the quiet and compelling central performance by Sissy Spacek. Spacek is excellent as Carrie, playing her as a one step forward, two steps back kind of girl - as she slowly begins to assert herself, it's clear she's not comfortable doing so, and she slowly draws out Carrie's development of self-confidence, only for it to be cruelly smacked back down during the infamous prom sequence. Everything else around Spacek, however, is loud, cheesy, and badly-developed. Piper Laurie's performance as Carrie's dogmatic mother belongs in another film, De Palma's direction is intrusive and filled with sudden movements (he loves his zooms) and inappropriate touches, the music is frequently mixed louder than the dialogue, and the whole story seems badly-paced, jerking along without any goal other than reaching the prom scene. The prom scene is, admittedly, quite well done (though it could've done without the split-screen), with its garish neon colours and slow build to the feverish peak, but it's not enough to save what is, essentially, a blunt, misjudged film. 2/5
quote:
It may not be enough in itself to make the film 'good', but Daniels' noble intentions are nevertheless a merit and should not be ignored in a professional critique of the film.
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.
quote:
A performance by an actor which accurately renders one or more characters and their respective trajectories over the course of the piece, given the intentions of the piece.
See what you've done here is made a subjective definition. How do you objectively assess the "accurate rendition" of a character? How do you objectively assess the intent behind a character's trajectory?
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.
quote:
These are definitions one could use, but why are you asking me to 'objectively' define them?
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.
quote:
Good, you've now accepted that 'some films have more merit than others',
Yes that is the entire basis on which liking films more than others exists
quote:
so you have accepted a system in which objective criticism is possible, for you are now able to say that 'film A is better than film B' because one has more merit than the other.
What no
Did you not read what I wrote? " Which films have merit and which do not, and how much merit each film possesses, is still a subjective judgment. There is no hard-and-fast set of rules and guidelines to what makes a good film, which is what you're arguing by continuously dropping the word "objectively"."
I think The Godfather has more merit than The Boondock Saints. That is a subjective judgment, and it is why I cannot fail someone who writes an essay asserting the opposite. This is not maths.
quote:
(I am certainly not suggesting that such a set of rules and guidelines exists - if you think that I have been then that's your misunderstanding of what is meant by 'objectively', which you seem to think only relates to something existing in the physical universe, or something).
No that's you completely misunderstanding what the word 'objective' means. To quote the definition above - "of or relating to a material object, actual existence or reality."
quote:
The fact that two different critics may award different ratings to the same film does not invalidate that system - much like how the possibility that two examiners might award different marks to the same essay does not make essay-marking a meaningless and useless enterprise. For the most part, the examiners will agree upon what constitutes 'good' and 'bad' essay writing.
That is because a professor can tell you, objectively, what an essay should do. Tell me, objectively what a piece of fiction should do. Tell me what, objectively, a film should do.
quote:
I welcome the film critic's subjective response to a film, which is an art, after all
You clearly don't because you don't understand criticism.
quote:
Where have I agreed to that? To 'justify their opinion' the critic must measure their opinion against the system (of measuring filmmaking merit) on which objective film criticism is based.
No they what are you arrrgh
To justify their opinion they must show why the film worked for them - yes, that means pointing to elements of the film and saying "this is good this is not," but this is not objective, because another critic can come along and say "I think you are wrong this is not good this is." That is because there is no hard-and-fast set of filmmaking guidelines (or, to put it in your words, a "system of measuring filmmaking merit").
quote:
Doubting that he had seen the film indeed carries within it the possibility that he may not have been doing his job. Nevertheless, I was not making an accusation, you've just seized upon that possibility and have skewed my suggestion of it into an accusation.
Oh no of course it isn't an accusation you were just thinking aloud how silly of me of course think aloud potentially libellous thoughts as much as you want.
quote:
what is a judgement of quality if not an objective measurement of the film's merits of lack thereof?
Why, it is a subjective measurement of the film's merits or lack thereof. That is why it is a judgment of quality and not quantity.
quote:
Then how can you say that 'some films have more merit than others'?
Because I can say "I think this film has merit and this film doesn't" and that is a subjective viewpoint. Your insufferable arguments are based entirely on some demented vocabulary that does not exist in the English language - the word 'merit' does not connote objective merit, just merit. That includes subjective merit.
quote:
If that is true then films A and B have more merit than films C and D, the moment you agree that merits exist and that they can be counted, you are being objective.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
quote:
The level of abuse is irrelevant, as a moderator you should not be engaging in any abuse.
If you do not like my attitude in this argument, then please, contact James Dyer and tell him how mean I'm being. But when faced with someone who is simply unable to grasp the tenets of criticism or, indeed, the English language, I don't see what choice I have other than to get frustrated.
_____________________________
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
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