Author Topic: What I Learned Today  (Read 1463981 times)

Holly Harry

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2222
  • Bite my shiny metal...Well, you know.
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5490 on: November 04, 2009, 02:23:39 PM »
In film criticism it's also about subjective opinion, but the (good) criticism always arrives at that opinion by examining the objective aspects the film presents.

Except film doesn't present any objective aspects, only subjective ones.

What? All films have objective aspects. If a film's aesthetic uses zooms, tracking shot, jump cuts, etc. These are objective, non-negotiable qualities.

Not when they are judged, and that's all that really matters as far as criticism is concerned. You can objectively say that a movie uses a tracking shot, but that says nothing about the quality of the film. That same tracking shot however can be viewed as a great looking shot by one person while another can look at it and see a badly composed shot. Film as criticism stands is completely subjective.

It's not as cut and dried as you're making it out to be. It's subjective to a point, but it throws out intention, and context. A tracking shot's worth isn't dictated by whether it's poorly composed or not(which would be, in most cases, objective. If a film looks like shit, it looks like shit) but in it's place in the context of the film. To sum it all up to gut feeling throws out all theory, all examination and all intention. Whether or not someone likes a film is completely subjective, and can't be proven right or wrong, and there's no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" when it comes to art anyway, but how much someone knows or gave the time of day to a given film can be suspect.
"Political questions, if you go back thousands of years, are ephemeral, not important. History is the same thing over and over again."-Woody Allen.

Bill Thompson

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17561
  • DOOM!!!!
    • Bill's Movie Emporium
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5491 on: November 04, 2009, 02:36:31 PM »
In film criticism it's also about subjective opinion, but the (good) criticism always arrives at that opinion by examining the objective aspects the film presents.

Except film doesn't present any objective aspects, only subjective ones.

What? All films have objective aspects. If a film's aesthetic uses zooms, tracking shot, jump cuts, etc. These are objective, non-negotiable qualities.

Not when they are judged, and that's all that really matters as far as criticism is concerned. You can objectively say that a movie uses a tracking shot, but that says nothing about the quality of the film. That same tracking shot however can be viewed as a great looking shot by one person while another can look at it and see a badly composed shot. Film as criticism stands is completely subjective.

It's not as cut and dried as you're making it out to be. It's subjective to a point, but it throws out intention, and context. A tracking shot's worth isn't dictated by whether it's poorly composed or not(which would be, in most cases, objective. If a film looks like shit, it looks like shit) but in it's place in the context of the film. To sum it all up to gut feeling throws out all theory, all examination and all intention. Whether or not someone likes a film is completely subjective, and can't be proven right or wrong, and there's no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" when it comes to art anyway, but how much someone knows or gave the time of day to a given film can be suspect.

It's just my view, but I do believe that art is that cut and dry.

A films look can't be objective, because what you may think looks like shit, I way not. Just look at the movie Once for example, there are people, on these very boards I believe, who argued that it looked like shit. There are other people who argued that it looked amazing. Even in a films look you have both ends of the spectrum because whether or not a film looks good is like any piece of art, up to the eye of the beholder.

The placement you speak of is entirely subjective as well. There can be any number of reasons for having shot A take place at certain time and place, but if it doesn't work for the viewer then it doesn't work. Conversely if it does work for another viewer then it works for that viewer.

I think stating that subjectivity is a gut feeling is simplifying subjectivity too much. When person A looks at the sonar sequence in The Dark Knight and says they loved the texture, technique and implementation of that effect that aren't merely speaking from the gut. They are giving a subjective view through well thought out reasoning.

As for intent I'll keep it simple, I don't care about intent. Once a product is made available for others to see it becomes open to their interpretations and point of view, whatever the artist may have intended is superseded by what the audience sees and comes to think on their own.

Like I said, these are just my thoughts, I certainly don't expect you, or anyone else for that matter, to agree with me. I do view art as completely subjective, down to the tiniest of details, and it's just one art theory but it is the theory I have found to be most in line with me over the years.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2009, 02:38:57 PM by Don't Mess With Wizard Cat »

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28785
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5492 on: November 04, 2009, 02:46:25 PM »
Some of the students in the class I'm teaching do not believe that I am 20. I could totally buy alcohol without getting carded if I had any interest in doing so.

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5493 on: November 04, 2009, 02:56:36 PM »
In film criticism it's also about subjective opinion, but the (good) criticism always arrives at that opinion by examining the objective aspects the film presents.

Except film doesn't present any objective aspects, only subjective ones.

What? All films have objective aspects. If a film's aesthetic uses zooms, tracking shot, jump cuts, etc. These are objective, non-negotiable qualities.

Not when they are judged, and that's all that really matters as far as criticism is concerned. You can objectively say that a movie uses a tracking shot, but that says nothing about the quality of the film. That same tracking shot however can be viewed as a great looking shot by one person while another can look at it and see a badly composed shot. Film as criticism stands is completely subjective.

Of course. All I'm saying is that good film criticism, like literary criticism, uses the objective technical aspects as a jumping off point for the subjective opinion. When you say that the look of the film is bad, you aren't just randomly saying it, you base it in how the film looks objectively.

Example: The film Minority Report has a sleek-looking and blue-hued visual style. I might argue that this enhances the quality of the film because it adds to the sense of sterility and foreboding. Another might say that while it was slick, it did not feel real, and the blue was ultimately a distraction that took them out of the film.

Music criticism often attempts to do this, but I find it usually fails because we are rarely presented with enough reasoning based on the objective qualities of the music.

This is an important difference. Whereas I can read a film review wherein I disagree with the critic's assessment, I am still able to take something away from it in terms of their opinion on how the objective qualities work or don't work for them. When I read a review of an album I rarely understand much beyond whether the critic liked it or not, and frankly that is less interesting or useful to me.
"We didn't clean the hamster's cage, the hamster's cage cleaned us!"

Can't get enough FroHam? Read more of my musings at justAtad

Tequila

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11143
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5494 on: November 04, 2009, 07:32:40 PM »
My body can't seem to handle carbonated beverages anymore.
'What am I doing? I'm quietly judging you'
http://letterboxd.com/Tagave/

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5495 on: November 04, 2009, 07:38:57 PM »
Do you eat a lot of Mentos or something? ;)

Tequila

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11143
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5496 on: November 04, 2009, 07:41:17 PM »
:D
'What am I doing? I'm quietly judging you'
http://letterboxd.com/Tagave/

Kevin Shields

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 5047
  • CINECAST! You FLY, Clovis, & FroHam
    • thevoid99's Epinions Profile
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5497 on: November 04, 2009, 07:59:33 PM »
In film criticism it's also about subjective opinion, but the (good) criticism always arrives at that opinion by examining the objective aspects the film presents.

Except film doesn't present any objective aspects, only subjective ones.

What? All films have objective aspects. If a film's aesthetic uses zooms, tracking shot, jump cuts, etc. These are objective, non-negotiable qualities.

Not when they are judged, and that's all that really matters as far as criticism is concerned. You can objectively say that a movie uses a tracking shot, but that says nothing about the quality of the film. That same tracking shot however can be viewed as a great looking shot by one person while another can look at it and see a badly composed shot. Film as criticism stands is completely subjective.

Of course. All I'm saying is that good film criticism, like literary criticism, uses the objective technical aspects as a jumping off point for the subjective opinion. When you say that the look of the film is bad, you aren't just randomly saying it, you base it in how the film looks objectively.

Example: The film Minority Report has a sleek-looking and blue-hued visual style. I might argue that this enhances the quality of the film because it adds to the sense of sterility and foreboding. Another might say that while it was slick, it did not feel real, and the blue was ultimately a distraction that took them out of the film.

Music criticism often attempts to do this, but I find it usually fails because we are rarely presented with enough reasoning based on the objective qualities of the music.

This is an important difference. Whereas I can read a film review wherein I disagree with the critic's assessment, I am still able to take something away from it in terms of their opinion on how the objective qualities work or don't work for them. When I read a review of an album I rarely understand much beyond whether the critic liked it or not, and frankly that is less interesting or useful to me.

So you're saying that my music reviews have no merit at all?
"I want to be bored"-Maggie Gyllenhaal

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11719
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5498 on: November 04, 2009, 08:19:47 PM »
I figured the Void would appreciate this discussion! :D

Kevin Shields

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 5047
  • CINECAST! You FLY, Clovis, & FroHam
    • thevoid99's Epinions Profile
Re: What I Learned Today
« Reply #5499 on: November 04, 2009, 08:31:12 PM »
That's because everyone is acting like a bunch of assholes about music criticism.

I've been writing reviews for 9 years.  I try to figure out what works and what doesn't work and how I feel about it.  Lately, I've become more simplistic and try to be as unbiased as I can.  Unfortunately, that didn't work with a few records I've panned like the Jonas Brothers, Crud, and Chris Cornell.  And those are some shitty albums.  I just go with my gut and my reaction towards a record and replay value on my iTunes and what I play in whatever I'm driving.  Sometimes, a record can be flawed.  I try to tell my readers about what works and what might not work.  What kind of record would go for this kind of audience or that kind of audience.  Besides, I just reviewed  Street Horrrsing by CINECAST! Buttons.  I just try to describe what it would sound like without revealing too much. 

I don't consider myself in the same league as Lester Bangs or Greil Marcus.  I have books by those guys and I often agree with Pitchfork and Popmatters.  The former for me is great at exposing new music though I do have gripes over their reviews of some mainstream artists.  After all, they didn't like some stuff by NIN.  They didn't like the last Dylan album (not the Xmas one) which they were wrong about.  They can be snobbish but I enjoy reading them.  I like Popmatters when they pan albums.  It's fun to read.  I love what they said about the new Chris Cornell and they were right.  I listened to it and it's shit.  I don't like to dismiss any kind of criticism at all.  It's all about for me, what you know and how you would react to it.  I might be wrong in that summation but this is all I can go with.

BTW Clovis, expect a review of Antichrist this weekend because I'm going to see it at Midtown and expect some hell to be raised!!!!!!
"I want to be bored"-Maggie Gyllenhaal

 

love