|
Please title all your posts and rehost all images on Imgur |
On July 08 2013 19:39 corumjhaelen wrote:
You don't really understand what cinematography is apparently, and more importantly, why it is being used. For a DoP, it is the art of using lightning and so forth to create serve the director's intentions. For a critic, wether he is professional or a random guy on the internet willing to argue about a movie, it is a line of thinking that can be relevant or not.
Example : -TDK, there probably isn't anything special about cinematography, it's rather well-done I'd say, as it participates well to the movie's visual identity (one of its strong point).
-Any Cassavetes movie : it's terrible, but then again, who cares in this case ?
-Drive : there has been a lot of work on this side, and there is a strong visual identity. Personnally I find it rather ugly, but I don't really hold it against the movie, because I think it comes from a good intention.
-The Tenant : it's an essential part of the movie, and it's brilliantly done.
TDK issues are both in editing and cinematography to hardcore critics.
http://vimeo.com/28792404
EDIT: BTW, it is possible for something to be objectively bad, but still subjectively enjoyable.
|
On July 08 2013 19:39 corumjhaelen wrote:
I'm not agreeing that you can put movies on a scale from 1 to 100 and perfectly place them on it and then everyone will have to agree.
What I'm arguing is that despite an irreducible subjectivity in judging the quality of a movie, by arguing and thinking about it, putting your feelings into words, you can partially rationnalize (for fault of a better word) your opinion, and with time, it is likel a partial consensus will arise on a given movie. I think this is self-evident too : who knows something about cinema and thinks Meet the Spartans is a better movie than Vertigo ?
I'm also arguing that the opinions of people who have watched a lot of movie and think about them are more valuable than the opinion of the average guy. Take Pauline Kael or Jacques Lourcelles, who have pretty peculiar opinions and often go against the established ideas, well, they have more credibility when they say they don't like Antonioni than when I say that I find Rosemary's Baby utterly boring.
And it's not because a movie falls in the mindless entertainment category they can't be judged as part of it. Someone talked about Die Hard in this very thread. Well Die Hard 1 isn't Persona, but it's a very well-made movie, and if you know a bit about action movies, you will probably agree that McTiernan is along with James Cameron are among the best american directors when it comes to shooting an action scene. It is also rather well written, with a lot of very original ideas.
Funnily enough, relativist in movies are usually the very same people who cry because Justin Bieber sells discs and Stephanie Meyer sells book. If I say that The Iliad is a better book than Twilight, or that Mozart writes better music than David Guetta, will there be a similar outcry as there has been in this thread ? I doubt it. But apparently, movies somehow should not be criticized, or something.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying that while there is no complete objectivity in directly measuring a movie's quality, there are several factors which allow us to to conclude that a movie is good. You mention
a) the consenus of a majority of movie buffs (highlighted section 1+2)
b) originality and creativity (highlighted section 3).
I don't think that those characteristics are helpful though.
First, the originality argument. I would agree that without originality there would be no cinema culture as we find it today because in absence of variation we would just play the same old film for eternity.
But then again, originality does not necessarily lead to enjoyable movies or movies that make sense whatsoever. I can make a movie that shows nothing but random colored shapes on screen, moving infathomably from left to right and up and down, while the voiceover reads aloud a telephone book. It's original (I'd guess) but is it good?
I'd even argue that to make a movie enjoyable for most people, consistency in structure is one of the most important aspects. A movie needs moving images, characters that we can identify with (be it animal or human) and sound of some sort (music, conversations). Directors have tried to move away from those necessities, notably Koyaanisqatsi, and made the movie unwatchable for many.
The Twelve-tone technique in music encountered similar problems as it was just so different from what people are used listening to that it never reached notable popularity.
I think some creativity is needed. But I think consistency and repetition is needed too. And I'd argue that none of those factors in itself can let one measure if a movie is good or not.
---
Now, the consensus argument. It's a very technocratic argument which I don't reject per se. I just think that in a field where science is not at work, technocracy must be wrong.
In fact, I question the legitimacy that people have who watched a lot of movies over people on only go to the movies occasionally. I would argue that they're biased by the simple fact that they watch a lot of movies. Cineastes tend to dislike movies that are similar to ones they have watched before because they get bored of it ("that scene AGAIN? The same has been done 50 years ago in _____...."). And ultimately saying their bias is not a bad, but a good bias, because that way critics can distinguish professional and creative works from simple remakes, is violating what I said about the worth of originality above.
And ultimately, I don't think you actually meant to say that people who watch a lot of movies necessarily have a more valuable opinion on movies. Because then you'd include the 8 year old who sits at home all summer long in front of the TV, watching animé and cartoons from 9 to 5 because his parents gave him a TV so he doesn't bother them all the time, as well as the night guard at some factory who watches late-night TV just to keep him awake. Having watched a lot of movies in their lifetime certainly doesn't qualify them to rate movies. But now that we're at it, why is that?
What I hear a lot from self-proclaimed cineastes when I dig deeper behind the answers to the question "who should be allowed to rate movies" is that they'd like just their own kind of people (usually 20-50 yo, liberal arts background, democrat, hipster glasses, beard/moustache, occasional smoker of several recreational drugs, etc.) in charge of that. And that's just wrong in my eyes.
I might sound slightly presumptous as I don't know you at all, corumjhaelen, and thusly do not know if you are one of those people. But the absolutist argument in art of all kinds has tickled me the wrong way in so many situations in my real life that I tend to get riled up when the discussions heads that way.
|
On July 09 2013 00:38 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 22:08 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 21:56 Silvanel wrote:Actualy thats the only conclusion that makes sense if You know a lot about aesthetics. Why else people would come up with things like "Dickie's Institutional Theory of art"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_art#InstitutionalYou cant point anything that distinguish art from not art. Good art from bad art. Relativistic? Yes. But other options doesnt make sense really. It applies to movies obviously. Funnily enough, your link does give a criteria to ditinguish art from non art. And I'm not even talking about the other paragraphs of the article. As for Duchamp's ready-made, they are an interesting work, but also a self-fullfilling prophecy. Edit : also the relativist position doesn't make any sense either. Because as far as I know, not even its biggest fans are using the "random" link on imdb to chose what to watch next, which they would do if they were coherent. Saying that ultimately there are no means to distinguish good art from bad is one thing. Saying: there is group of people that have similiar taste to mine, and I shall choose my poison based on their judgemnt is another. One can enjoy specyfic type of music/movies without saying its the best kind of art. Also how Dickies conecption isnt relativistic? If i get my friendly custodian to display my shit in the museum of modern art it suddenly becomes an art. It isnt relativistic? Thats why instead of saying: "this movie is better than teh other" i prefere to say, "I enjoyed this movie better than the other". Small yet fundamental difference.
You can, but I don't think you should.
There's two things. For one, your art is not in a museum. Saying art is what is in a museum doesn't really help, unless you pretend items end up in museum at random. I don't think they do, do you ? So it doesn't follow at all that this is a relativistic conception.
Secondly, you have to understand that this idea of art being entirely subjective is a historical construction. Hardly anybody would have agreed with you two centuries ago, it is a consequence of how art has changed. Therefore those modern construction of what art is don't explain what art has been in general for humanity, but only what it is for a part of it in the last decades. I understand it as a perversion of art by art.
There are other conceptions of what art is that give it an objective content. I'm far from an expert, but Proust gives a theory of litterature (and art in general) that makes a lot of sense, Tarkovsky has very profound idea about film-making, and someone like Kant has pretty interesting ideas about what beauty is. Your point of view is far from obvious.
|
On July 09 2013 00:38 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 22:08 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 21:56 Silvanel wrote:Actualy thats the only conclusion that makes sense if You know a lot about aesthetics. Why else people would come up with things like "Dickie's Institutional Theory of art"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_art#InstitutionalYou cant point anything that distinguish art from not art. Good art from bad art. Relativistic? Yes. But other options doesnt make sense really. It applies to movies obviously. Funnily enough, your link does give a criteria to ditinguish art from non art. And I'm not even talking about the other paragraphs of the article. As for Duchamp's ready-made, they are an interesting work, but also a self-fullfilling prophecy. Edit : also the relativist position doesn't make any sense either. Because as far as I know, not even its biggest fans are using the "random" link on imdb to chose what to watch next, which they would do if they were coherent. Saying that ultimately there are no means to distinguish good art from bad is one thing. Saying: there is group of people that have similiar taste to mine, and I shall choose my poison based on their judgemnt is another. One can enjoy specyfic type of music/movies without saying its the best kind of art. Also how Dickies conecption isnt relativistic? If i get my friendly custodian to display my shit in the museum of modern art it suddenly becomes an art. It isnt relativistic? Thats why instead of saying: "this movie is better than teh other" i prefere to say, "I enjoyed this movie better than the other". Small yet fundamental difference.
What relativists seem to never understand is that the word "art" is not relevant when thinking about objective quality. When you think about films and filmmaking in terms of CRAFT, then it becomes a lot easier to objectively analyze them. There is unquestionably a ton of craft that goes into making any given film. Writing, directing, acting, cinematography, editing, acting, sound design, set design, costume design, etc etc etc. And all those crafts combine into the overall craft of filmmaking. If you are experienced in film, it is not difficult to gauge the quality of a film's craft. Obviously, on a person-by-person basis, there is a lot of variance introduced due to personal taste. On a film's opening weekend, personal taste is basically the only thing that registers. But as time goes by and as more and more experienced viewers consume a film, as more and more people dissect and discuss a film and its craftsmanship, that personal taste is pared away and replaced by something close to objective consensus.
Maybe you watched Avatar and loved it but there is not a single informed critic on the planet who, 20 years from now, will claim that Avatar is as good as, say, Apocalypse Now. Apocalypse Now is objectively a better movie than Avatar, and objectively better than a thousand other movies too. Your personal taste is simply irrelevant in that discussion.
Sure, I could bribe a janitor and get some piece of crap modern art painting hung at the MoMA. And, sure, there will be people who will visit the museum and believe that it is a quality piece of modern art. They will "enjoy it." But 20 years from now, no one will ever remember that piece of crap art I made because it's objectively a piece of crap.
|
On July 09 2013 01:41 Spekulatius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 19:39 corumjhaelen wrote:
I'm not agreeing that you can put movies on a scale from 1 to 100 and perfectly place them on it and then everyone will have to agree.
What I'm arguing is that despite an irreducible subjectivity in judging the quality of a movie, by arguing and thinking about it, putting your feelings into words, you can partially rationnalize (for fault of a better word) your opinion, and with time, it is likel a partial consensus will arise on a given movie. I think this is self-evident too : who knows something about cinema and thinks Meet the Spartans is a better movie than Vertigo ?
I'm also arguing that the opinions of people who have watched a lot of movie and think about them are more valuable than the opinion of the average guy. Take Pauline Kael or Jacques Lourcelles, who have pretty peculiar opinions and often go against the established ideas, well, they have more credibility when they say they don't like Antonioni than when I say that I find Rosemary's Baby utterly boring.
And it's not because a movie falls in the mindless entertainment category they can't be judged as part of it. Someone talked about Die Hard in this very thread. Well Die Hard 1 isn't Persona, but it's a very well-made movie, and if you know a bit about action movies, you will probably agree that McTiernan is along with James Cameron are among the best american directors when it comes to shooting an action scene. It is also rather well written, with a lot of very original ideas.
Funnily enough, relativist in movies are usually the very same people who cry because Justin Bieber sells discs and Stephanie Meyer sells book. If I say that The Iliad is a better book than Twilight, or that Mozart writes better music than David Guetta, will there be a similar outcry as there has been in this thread ? I doubt it. But apparently, movies somehow should not be criticized, or something.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying that while there is no complete objectivity in directly measuring a movie's quality, there are several factors which allow us to to conclude that a movie is good. You mention a) the consenus of a majority of movie buffs (highlighted section 1+2) b) originality and creativity (highlighted section 3). I don't think that those characteristics are helpful though. First, the originality argument. I would agree that without originality there would be no cinema culture as we find it today because in absence of variation we would just play the same old film for eternity. But then again, originality does not necessarily lead to enjoyable movies or movies that make sense whatsoever. I can make a movie that shows nothing but random colored shapes on screen, moving infathomably from left to right and up and down, while the voiceover reads aloud a telephone book. It's original (I'd guess) but is it good? I'd even argue that to make a movie enjoyable for most people, consistency in structure is one of the most important aspects. A movie needs moving images, characters that we can identify with (be it animal or human) and sound of some sort (music, conversations). Directors have tried to move away from those necessities, notably Koyaanisqatsi, and made the movie unwatchable for many. The Twelve-tone technique in music encountered similar problems as it was just so different from what people are used listening to that it never reached notable popularity. I think some creativity is needed. But I think consistency and repetition is needed too. And I'd argue that none of those factors in itself can let one measure if a movie is good or not. --- Now, the consensus argument. It's a very technocratic argument which I don't reject per se. I just think that in a field where science is not at work, technocracy must be wrong. In fact, I question the legitimacy that people have who watched a lot of movies over people on only go to the movies occasionally. I would argue that they're biased by the simple fact that they watch a lot of movies. Cineastes tend to dislike movies that are similar to ones they have watched before because they get bored of it ("that scene AGAIN? The same has been done 50 years ago in _____...."). And ultimately saying their bias is not a bad, but a good bias, because that way critics can distinguish professional and creative works from simple remakes, is violating what I said about the worth of originality above. And ultimately, I don't think you actually meant to say that people who watch a lot of movies necessarily have a more valuable opinion on movies. Because then you'd include the 8 year old who sits at home all summer long in front of the TV, watching animé and cartoons from 9 to 5 because his parents gave him a TV so he doesn't bother them all the time, as well as the night guard at some factory who watches late-night TV just to keep him awake. Having watched a lot of movies in their lifetime certainly doesn't qualify them to rate movies. But now that we're at it, why is that? What I hear a lot from self-proclaimed cineastes when I dig deeper behind the answers to the question "who should be allowed to rate movies" is that they'd like just their own kind of people (usually 20-50 yo, liberal arts background, democrat, hipster glasses, beard/moustache, occasional smoker of several recreational drugs, etc.) in charge of that. And that's just wrong in my eyes. I might sound slightly presumptous as I don't know you at all, corumjhaelen, and thusly do not know if you are one of those people. But the absolutist argument in art of all kinds has tickled me the wrong way in so many situations in my real life that I tend to get riled up when the discussions heads that way.
You misunderstood partially the consensus argument. I add (it might not have been cleared because I answered to many people) that there needs to be a sort of constructed and thought out discourse on movie, which rejects your 8-year-old-boy example. As for your argument on so called bias, it relies entirely on your originality argument, which I disagree with, I'll come back to it later. I'll just add now that most cinema critic don't mind that much lack of originality, because they understand that cinema can also be entertainement, and that there are distinction to be made between not being original, making an homage etc etc, which I think the more experienced person is more likely to get right.
Now, about originality. Well yes and no. This is an old debate you know, I mean you might have heard about the Quarel of Ancients and Moderns, which is regularly won by Moderns, but also regularly resurface in art. What I mean is, more or less, that the place of originality in art has to be questionned. Also I don't believe Die Hard is art, I think its originalities are in fact entertaining. And I think there is a consensus on that, given the movies' success, but I can see the objections coming from a mile  There is let's say a good balance of formulaic and subtle originality in the movie that makes it a success. But there are other thing in the formula.
So about the question of what makes art, I guess I have to make a precision. When I say a consensus will arise, I take it as a very strong clue that there is some kind of objectivity behind it, but not as the objective part of art itself. The question of what in fact is the substrate of art (if that is an appropriate metaphor, which is not obvious, but for lack of a better one...) is not in my opinion completely solved, but that doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exists. I think there exists a good deal of partial statisfying answers, which my last post alludes to, the most satisfying of them all being for me the proustian answer.
|
I watched Snowtown (based on true story/crime in snowtown in australia).
I can suggest to watch it .Don't open the spoiler if you havent watched it
+ Show Spoiler +
I dont understand the penalties/laws in australia.
What means (example) "11 x life without parole". How many years is this?
Or "3x Life imprisonment (non parole period 26 years)"
I feel a bit sad for James Vlassakis because John Blunting made him a killer without his decision (if he wants a killer too).
Looked like James joined in due to peer pressure. Without John he would never have made a killer.
|
On July 09 2013 02:14 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 01:41 Spekulatius wrote:On July 08 2013 19:39 corumjhaelen wrote:
I'm not agreeing that you can put movies on a scale from 1 to 100 and perfectly place them on it and then everyone will have to agree.
What I'm arguing is that despite an irreducible subjectivity in judging the quality of a movie, by arguing and thinking about it, putting your feelings into words, you can partially rationnalize (for fault of a better word) your opinion, and with time, it is likel a partial consensus will arise on a given movie. I think this is self-evident too : who knows something about cinema and thinks Meet the Spartans is a better movie than Vertigo ?
I'm also arguing that the opinions of people who have watched a lot of movie and think about them are more valuable than the opinion of the average guy. Take Pauline Kael or Jacques Lourcelles, who have pretty peculiar opinions and often go against the established ideas, well, they have more credibility when they say they don't like Antonioni than when I say that I find Rosemary's Baby utterly boring.
And it's not because a movie falls in the mindless entertainment category they can't be judged as part of it. Someone talked about Die Hard in this very thread. Well Die Hard 1 isn't Persona, but it's a very well-made movie, and if you know a bit about action movies, you will probably agree that McTiernan is along with James Cameron are among the best american directors when it comes to shooting an action scene. It is also rather well written, with a lot of very original ideas.
Funnily enough, relativist in movies are usually the very same people who cry because Justin Bieber sells discs and Stephanie Meyer sells book. If I say that The Iliad is a better book than Twilight, or that Mozart writes better music than David Guetta, will there be a similar outcry as there has been in this thread ? I doubt it. But apparently, movies somehow should not be criticized, or something.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying that while there is no complete objectivity in directly measuring a movie's quality, there are several factors which allow us to to conclude that a movie is good. You mention a) the consenus of a majority of movie buffs (highlighted section 1+2) b) originality and creativity (highlighted section 3). I don't think that those characteristics are helpful though. First, the originality argument. I would agree that without originality there would be no cinema culture as we find it today because in absence of variation we would just play the same old film for eternity. But then again, originality does not necessarily lead to enjoyable movies or movies that make sense whatsoever. I can make a movie that shows nothing but random colored shapes on screen, moving infathomably from left to right and up and down, while the voiceover reads aloud a telephone book. It's original (I'd guess) but is it good? I'd even argue that to make a movie enjoyable for most people, consistency in structure is one of the most important aspects. A movie needs moving images, characters that we can identify with (be it animal or human) and sound of some sort (music, conversations). Directors have tried to move away from those necessities, notably Koyaanisqatsi, and made the movie unwatchable for many. The Twelve-tone technique in music encountered similar problems as it was just so different from what people are used listening to that it never reached notable popularity. I think some creativity is needed. But I think consistency and repetition is needed too. And I'd argue that none of those factors in itself can let one measure if a movie is good or not. --- Now, the consensus argument. It's a very technocratic argument which I don't reject per se. I just think that in a field where science is not at work, technocracy must be wrong. In fact, I question the legitimacy that people have who watched a lot of movies over people on only go to the movies occasionally. I would argue that they're biased by the simple fact that they watch a lot of movies. Cineastes tend to dislike movies that are similar to ones they have watched before because they get bored of it ("that scene AGAIN? The same has been done 50 years ago in _____...."). And ultimately saying their bias is not a bad, but a good bias, because that way critics can distinguish professional and creative works from simple remakes, is violating what I said about the worth of originality above. And ultimately, I don't think you actually meant to say that people who watch a lot of movies necessarily have a more valuable opinion on movies. Because then you'd include the 8 year old who sits at home all summer long in front of the TV, watching animé and cartoons from 9 to 5 because his parents gave him a TV so he doesn't bother them all the time, as well as the night guard at some factory who watches late-night TV just to keep him awake. Having watched a lot of movies in their lifetime certainly doesn't qualify them to rate movies. But now that we're at it, why is that? What I hear a lot from self-proclaimed cineastes when I dig deeper behind the answers to the question "who should be allowed to rate movies" is that they'd like just their own kind of people (usually 20-50 yo, liberal arts background, democrat, hipster glasses, beard/moustache, occasional smoker of several recreational drugs, etc.) in charge of that. And that's just wrong in my eyes. I might sound slightly presumptous as I don't know you at all, corumjhaelen, and thusly do not know if you are one of those people. But the absolutist argument in art of all kinds has tickled me the wrong way in so many situations in my real life that I tend to get riled up when the discussions heads that way. You misunderstood partially the consensus argument. I add (it might not have been cleared because I answered to many people) that there needs to be a sort of constructed and thought out discourse on movie, which rejects your 8-year-old-boy example. As for your argument on so called bias, it relies entirely on your originality argument, which I disagree with, I'll come back to it later. I'll just add now that most cinema critic don't mind that much lack of originality, because they understand that cinema can also be entertainement, and that there are distinction to be made between not being original, making an homage etc etc, which I think the more experienced person is more likely to get right. Now, about originality. Well yes and no. This is an old debate you know, I mean you might have heard about the Quarel of Ancients and Moderns, which is regularly won by Moderns, but also regularly resurface in art. What I mean is, more or less, that the place of originality in art has to be questionned. Also I don't believe Die Hard is art, I think its originalities are in fact entertaining. And I think there is a consensus on that, given the movies' success, but I can see the objections coming from a mile There is let's say a good balance of formulaic and subtle originality in the movie that makes it a success. But there are other thing in the formula. So about the question of what makes art, I guess I have to make a precision. When I say a consensus will arise, I take it as a very strong clue that there is some kind of objectivity behind it, but not as the objective part of art itself. The question of what in fact is the substrate of art (if that is an appropriate metaphor, which is not obvious, but for lack of a better one...) is not in my opinion completely solved, but that doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exists. I think there exists a good deal of partial statisfying answers, which my last post alludes to, the most satisfying of them all being for me the proustian answer.
I see you presuppose several things as factors for quality, especially consensus and success (hightlighted above). But I question why they hold legitimacy.
Why can't 8 year olds discuss movies? Why is it that you need an education of some sort to discuss movies or art or anything? I don't think it's a rational discussion (because it's subjective) so I don't think one needs an education.
How is box office success an indicator for a good movie?
Why is consensus an indication for something being right? Is the opinion of a single person wrong when he's in the minority and right when he's part of the majority? I agree that consensus is often an indicator. But it's an indicator for that something pleases most people. People agree that they like a movie because they like it. That says nothing about the movie quality however.
Except if you equal box office success with a movie's quality. But I suppose you don't.
|
On July 09 2013 01:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 19:39 corumjhaelen wrote:
You don't really understand what cinematography is apparently, and more importantly, why it is being used. For a DoP, it is the art of using lightning and so forth to create serve the director's intentions. For a critic, wether he is professional or a random guy on the internet willing to argue about a movie, it is a line of thinking that can be relevant or not.
Example : -TDK, there probably isn't anything special about cinematography, it's rather well-done I'd say, as it participates well to the movie's visual identity (one of its strong point).
-Any Cassavetes movie : it's terrible, but then again, who cares in this case ?
-Drive : there has been a lot of work on this side, and there is a strong visual identity. Personnally I find it rather ugly, but I don't really hold it against the movie, because I think it comes from a good intention.
-The Tenant : it's an essential part of the movie, and it's brilliantly done.
TDK issues are both in editing and cinematography to hardcore critics. http://vimeo.com/28792404EDIT: BTW, it is possible for something to be objectively bad, but still subjectively enjoyable.
I skimmed over the video, can you point specifically where he talks about cinematography ? I'm not really sure he does.
Funnily enough, I think he's criticizing one of the only scene in the movie which I think is well-shot.
Most anti-Nolan critic I've read, and myself, usually find his cinematic grammar very poor and his writing convoluted and inneficient, more or less. I haven't read anyone specifically complain about cinematography.
As for your edit, yes I agree, but I'm tempted to ask : so what ?
|
On July 09 2013 02:36 Spekulatius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 02:14 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 09 2013 01:41 Spekulatius wrote:On July 08 2013 19:39 corumjhaelen wrote:
I'm not agreeing that you can put movies on a scale from 1 to 100 and perfectly place them on it and then everyone will have to agree.
What I'm arguing is that despite an irreducible subjectivity in judging the quality of a movie, by arguing and thinking about it, putting your feelings into words, you can partially rationnalize (for fault of a better word) your opinion, and with time, it is likel a partial consensus will arise on a given movie. I think this is self-evident too : who knows something about cinema and thinks Meet the Spartans is a better movie than Vertigo ?
I'm also arguing that the opinions of people who have watched a lot of movie and think about them are more valuable than the opinion of the average guy. Take Pauline Kael or Jacques Lourcelles, who have pretty peculiar opinions and often go against the established ideas, well, they have more credibility when they say they don't like Antonioni than when I say that I find Rosemary's Baby utterly boring.
And it's not because a movie falls in the mindless entertainment category they can't be judged as part of it. Someone talked about Die Hard in this very thread. Well Die Hard 1 isn't Persona, but it's a very well-made movie, and if you know a bit about action movies, you will probably agree that McTiernan is along with James Cameron are among the best american directors when it comes to shooting an action scene. It is also rather well written, with a lot of very original ideas.
Funnily enough, relativist in movies are usually the very same people who cry because Justin Bieber sells discs and Stephanie Meyer sells book. If I say that The Iliad is a better book than Twilight, or that Mozart writes better music than David Guetta, will there be a similar outcry as there has been in this thread ? I doubt it. But apparently, movies somehow should not be criticized, or something.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying that while there is no complete objectivity in directly measuring a movie's quality, there are several factors which allow us to to conclude that a movie is good. You mention a) the consenus of a majority of movie buffs (highlighted section 1+2) b) originality and creativity (highlighted section 3). I don't think that those characteristics are helpful though. First, the originality argument. I would agree that without originality there would be no cinema culture as we find it today because in absence of variation we would just play the same old film for eternity. But then again, originality does not necessarily lead to enjoyable movies or movies that make sense whatsoever. I can make a movie that shows nothing but random colored shapes on screen, moving infathomably from left to right and up and down, while the voiceover reads aloud a telephone book. It's original (I'd guess) but is it good? I'd even argue that to make a movie enjoyable for most people, consistency in structure is one of the most important aspects. A movie needs moving images, characters that we can identify with (be it animal or human) and sound of some sort (music, conversations). Directors have tried to move away from those necessities, notably Koyaanisqatsi, and made the movie unwatchable for many. The Twelve-tone technique in music encountered similar problems as it was just so different from what people are used listening to that it never reached notable popularity. I think some creativity is needed. But I think consistency and repetition is needed too. And I'd argue that none of those factors in itself can let one measure if a movie is good or not. --- Now, the consensus argument. It's a very technocratic argument which I don't reject per se. I just think that in a field where science is not at work, technocracy must be wrong. In fact, I question the legitimacy that people have who watched a lot of movies over people on only go to the movies occasionally. I would argue that they're biased by the simple fact that they watch a lot of movies. Cineastes tend to dislike movies that are similar to ones they have watched before because they get bored of it ("that scene AGAIN? The same has been done 50 years ago in _____...."). And ultimately saying their bias is not a bad, but a good bias, because that way critics can distinguish professional and creative works from simple remakes, is violating what I said about the worth of originality above. And ultimately, I don't think you actually meant to say that people who watch a lot of movies necessarily have a more valuable opinion on movies. Because then you'd include the 8 year old who sits at home all summer long in front of the TV, watching animé and cartoons from 9 to 5 because his parents gave him a TV so he doesn't bother them all the time, as well as the night guard at some factory who watches late-night TV just to keep him awake. Having watched a lot of movies in their lifetime certainly doesn't qualify them to rate movies. But now that we're at it, why is that? What I hear a lot from self-proclaimed cineastes when I dig deeper behind the answers to the question "who should be allowed to rate movies" is that they'd like just their own kind of people (usually 20-50 yo, liberal arts background, democrat, hipster glasses, beard/moustache, occasional smoker of several recreational drugs, etc.) in charge of that. And that's just wrong in my eyes. I might sound slightly presumptous as I don't know you at all, corumjhaelen, and thusly do not know if you are one of those people. But the absolutist argument in art of all kinds has tickled me the wrong way in so many situations in my real life that I tend to get riled up when the discussions heads that way. You misunderstood partially the consensus argument. I add (it might not have been cleared because I answered to many people) that there needs to be a sort of constructed and thought out discourse on movie, which rejects your 8-year-old-boy example. As for your argument on so called bias, it relies entirely on your originality argument, which I disagree with, I'll come back to it later. I'll just add now that most cinema critic don't mind that much lack of originality, because they understand that cinema can also be entertainement, and that there are distinction to be made between not being original, making an homage etc etc, which I think the more experienced person is more likely to get right. Now, about originality. Well yes and no. This is an old debate you know, I mean you might have heard about the Quarel of Ancients and Moderns, which is regularly won by Moderns, but also regularly resurface in art. What I mean is, more or less, that the place of originality in art has to be questionned. Also I don't believe Die Hard is art, I think its originalities are in fact entertaining. And I think there is a consensus on that, given the movies' success, but I can see the objections coming from a mile There is let's say a good balance of formulaic and subtle originality in the movie that makes it a success. But there are other thing in the formula. So about the question of what makes art, I guess I have to make a precision. When I say a consensus will arise, I take it as a very strong clue that there is some kind of objectivity behind it, but not as the objective part of art itself. The question of what in fact is the substrate of art (if that is an appropriate metaphor, which is not obvious, but for lack of a better one...) is not in my opinion completely solved, but that doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exists. I think there exists a good deal of partial statisfying answers, which my last post alludes to, the most satisfying of them all being for me the proustian answer. I see you presuppose several things as factors for quality, especially consensus and success (hightlighted above). But I question why they hold legitimacy. Why can't 8 year olds discuss movies? Why is it that you need an education of some sort to discuss movies or art or anything? I don't think it's a rational discussion (because it's subjective) so I don't think one needs an education. How is box office success an indicator for a good movie?Why is consensus an indication for something being right? Is the opinion of a single person wrong when he's in the minority and right when he's part of the majority? I agree that consensus is often an indicator. But it's an indicator for that something pleases most people. People agree that they like a movie because they like it. That says nothing about the movie quality however. Except if you equal box office success with a movie's quality. But I suppose you don't.
A 8 year old can discuss movie, but please show me one that can write a critic as convincing as Pauline Kael or Roger Ebert, and I'll surely listen to him After that it's not because something is subjective that one doesn't need an education to understand it, I don't see how you can jump to conclusions like that. Wine tasting might be an example that will convince you more ? Also I disagree that it is completely subjective anyway, so here's to that.
The second question is the easiest to answer : it doesn't. But usually means something's been done right with the movie, because I doubt success is random. Good advertisement campaign is a factor, you can probably find many less.
Finally to your final question. Well the consensus can actually be wrong, that's pretty clear in fact, as very often new artist have been rejected by the majority, including of the critics. Here is a quick parenthesis : that kind of attack on expert consensus is not reserved to art, but can also touch what you call technical areas. There are many scientists who think, rightfully imo, that citizens should be associated more in technical decisions over environmental issue for instance. But that's another complicated debate
After that I the following sentence "When I say a consensus will arise, I take it as a very strong clue that there is some kind of objectivity behind it, but not as the objective part of art itself." answers your objection pretty well, as well as explains why time is needed (but to understand that better, I can only advise you to read In Search of Lost Time, Proust is more convincing than I will ever be).
|
On July 09 2013 02:46 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 01:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 19:39 corumjhaelen wrote:
You don't really understand what cinematography is apparently, and more importantly, why it is being used. For a DoP, it is the art of using lightning and so forth to create serve the director's intentions. For a critic, wether he is professional or a random guy on the internet willing to argue about a movie, it is a line of thinking that can be relevant or not.
Example : -TDK, there probably isn't anything special about cinematography, it's rather well-done I'd say, as it participates well to the movie's visual identity (one of its strong point).
-Any Cassavetes movie : it's terrible, but then again, who cares in this case ?
-Drive : there has been a lot of work on this side, and there is a strong visual identity. Personnally I find it rather ugly, but I don't really hold it against the movie, because I think it comes from a good intention.
-The Tenant : it's an essential part of the movie, and it's brilliantly done.
TDK issues are both in editing and cinematography to hardcore critics. http://vimeo.com/28792404EDIT: BTW, it is possible for something to be objectively bad, but still subjectively enjoyable. I skimmed over the video, can you point specifically where he talks about cinematography ? I'm not really sure he does. Funnily enough, I think he's criticizing one of the only scene in the movie which I think is well-shot. Most anti-Nolan critic I've read, and myself, usually find his cinematic grammar very poor and his writing convoluted and inneficient, more or less. I haven't read anyone specifically complain about cinematography. As for your edit, yes I agree, but I'm tempted to ask : so what ?
Cinematography isnt just the lighting, it is also the angles and views which are presented. The video says that due to editing it is confusing at times to tell where we are in the scene. Choosing better viewpoints wouldve changed this. That is why I mention cinematography.
As for the edit, that is entirely why this discussion is being held in the first place.
"Fair point, but it can't be denied that you have terrible taste in film. "
Taste is subjective.
|
On July 09 2013 03:08 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 02:46 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 09 2013 01:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 19:39 corumjhaelen wrote:
You don't really understand what cinematography is apparently, and more importantly, why it is being used. For a DoP, it is the art of using lightning and so forth to create serve the director's intentions. For a critic, wether he is professional or a random guy on the internet willing to argue about a movie, it is a line of thinking that can be relevant or not.
Example : -TDK, there probably isn't anything special about cinematography, it's rather well-done I'd say, as it participates well to the movie's visual identity (one of its strong point).
-Any Cassavetes movie : it's terrible, but then again, who cares in this case ?
-Drive : there has been a lot of work on this side, and there is a strong visual identity. Personnally I find it rather ugly, but I don't really hold it against the movie, because I think it comes from a good intention.
-The Tenant : it's an essential part of the movie, and it's brilliantly done.
TDK issues are both in editing and cinematography to hardcore critics. http://vimeo.com/28792404EDIT: BTW, it is possible for something to be objectively bad, but still subjectively enjoyable. I skimmed over the video, can you point specifically where he talks about cinematography ? I'm not really sure he does. Funnily enough, I think he's criticizing one of the only scene in the movie which I think is well-shot. Most anti-Nolan critic I've read, and myself, usually find his cinematic grammar very poor and his writing convoluted and inneficient, more or less. I haven't read anyone specifically complain about cinematography. As for your edit, yes I agree, but I'm tempted to ask : so what ? Cinematography isnt just the lighting, it is also the angles and views which are presented. The video says that due to editing it is confusing at times to tell where we are in the scene. Choosing better viewpoints wouldve changed this. That is why I mention cinematography. As for the edit, that is entirely why this discussion is being held in the first place. "Fair point, but it can't be denied that you have terrible taste in film. " Taste is subjective.
Is it a framing problem, or the choice of the angle in itself ? I tend to think that the first his mainly the DoP's responsability, and then its cinematography (you're free to disagree here, but then we just disagree on definitions, and agree on everything else), if the latter, its the director's fault, and then it's not.
For the edit, that only means that being good and being entertaining are different things, and thus can have different causes. I fail to see what it has to do with subjectivity.
|
On July 09 2013 03:00 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 02:36 Spekulatius wrote:On July 09 2013 02:14 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 09 2013 01:41 Spekulatius wrote:On July 08 2013 19:39 corumjhaelen wrote:
I'm not agreeing that you can put movies on a scale from 1 to 100 and perfectly place them on it and then everyone will have to agree.
What I'm arguing is that despite an irreducible subjectivity in judging the quality of a movie, by arguing and thinking about it, putting your feelings into words, you can partially rationnalize (for fault of a better word) your opinion, and with time, it is likel a partial consensus will arise on a given movie. I think this is self-evident too : who knows something about cinema and thinks Meet the Spartans is a better movie than Vertigo ?
I'm also arguing that the opinions of people who have watched a lot of movie and think about them are more valuable than the opinion of the average guy. Take Pauline Kael or Jacques Lourcelles, who have pretty peculiar opinions and often go against the established ideas, well, they have more credibility when they say they don't like Antonioni than when I say that I find Rosemary's Baby utterly boring.
And it's not because a movie falls in the mindless entertainment category they can't be judged as part of it. Someone talked about Die Hard in this very thread. Well Die Hard 1 isn't Persona, but it's a very well-made movie, and if you know a bit about action movies, you will probably agree that McTiernan is along with James Cameron are among the best american directors when it comes to shooting an action scene. It is also rather well written, with a lot of very original ideas.
Funnily enough, relativist in movies are usually the very same people who cry because Justin Bieber sells discs and Stephanie Meyer sells book. If I say that The Iliad is a better book than Twilight, or that Mozart writes better music than David Guetta, will there be a similar outcry as there has been in this thread ? I doubt it. But apparently, movies somehow should not be criticized, or something.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying that while there is no complete objectivity in directly measuring a movie's quality, there are several factors which allow us to to conclude that a movie is good. You mention a) the consenus of a majority of movie buffs (highlighted section 1+2) b) originality and creativity (highlighted section 3). I don't think that those characteristics are helpful though. First, the originality argument. I would agree that without originality there would be no cinema culture as we find it today because in absence of variation we would just play the same old film for eternity. But then again, originality does not necessarily lead to enjoyable movies or movies that make sense whatsoever. I can make a movie that shows nothing but random colored shapes on screen, moving infathomably from left to right and up and down, while the voiceover reads aloud a telephone book. It's original (I'd guess) but is it good? I'd even argue that to make a movie enjoyable for most people, consistency in structure is one of the most important aspects. A movie needs moving images, characters that we can identify with (be it animal or human) and sound of some sort (music, conversations). Directors have tried to move away from those necessities, notably Koyaanisqatsi, and made the movie unwatchable for many. The Twelve-tone technique in music encountered similar problems as it was just so different from what people are used listening to that it never reached notable popularity. I think some creativity is needed. But I think consistency and repetition is needed too. And I'd argue that none of those factors in itself can let one measure if a movie is good or not. --- Now, the consensus argument. It's a very technocratic argument which I don't reject per se. I just think that in a field where science is not at work, technocracy must be wrong. In fact, I question the legitimacy that people have who watched a lot of movies over people on only go to the movies occasionally. I would argue that they're biased by the simple fact that they watch a lot of movies. Cineastes tend to dislike movies that are similar to ones they have watched before because they get bored of it ("that scene AGAIN? The same has been done 50 years ago in _____...."). And ultimately saying their bias is not a bad, but a good bias, because that way critics can distinguish professional and creative works from simple remakes, is violating what I said about the worth of originality above. And ultimately, I don't think you actually meant to say that people who watch a lot of movies necessarily have a more valuable opinion on movies. Because then you'd include the 8 year old who sits at home all summer long in front of the TV, watching animé and cartoons from 9 to 5 because his parents gave him a TV so he doesn't bother them all the time, as well as the night guard at some factory who watches late-night TV just to keep him awake. Having watched a lot of movies in their lifetime certainly doesn't qualify them to rate movies. But now that we're at it, why is that? What I hear a lot from self-proclaimed cineastes when I dig deeper behind the answers to the question "who should be allowed to rate movies" is that they'd like just their own kind of people (usually 20-50 yo, liberal arts background, democrat, hipster glasses, beard/moustache, occasional smoker of several recreational drugs, etc.) in charge of that. And that's just wrong in my eyes. I might sound slightly presumptous as I don't know you at all, corumjhaelen, and thusly do not know if you are one of those people. But the absolutist argument in art of all kinds has tickled me the wrong way in so many situations in my real life that I tend to get riled up when the discussions heads that way. You misunderstood partially the consensus argument. I add (it might not have been cleared because I answered to many people) that there needs to be a sort of constructed and thought out discourse on movie, which rejects your 8-year-old-boy example. As for your argument on so called bias, it relies entirely on your originality argument, which I disagree with, I'll come back to it later. I'll just add now that most cinema critic don't mind that much lack of originality, because they understand that cinema can also be entertainement, and that there are distinction to be made between not being original, making an homage etc etc, which I think the more experienced person is more likely to get right. Now, about originality. Well yes and no. This is an old debate you know, I mean you might have heard about the Quarel of Ancients and Moderns, which is regularly won by Moderns, but also regularly resurface in art. What I mean is, more or less, that the place of originality in art has to be questionned. Also I don't believe Die Hard is art, I think its originalities are in fact entertaining. And I think there is a consensus on that, given the movies' success, but I can see the objections coming from a mile There is let's say a good balance of formulaic and subtle originality in the movie that makes it a success. But there are other thing in the formula. So about the question of what makes art, I guess I have to make a precision. When I say a consensus will arise, I take it as a very strong clue that there is some kind of objectivity behind it, but not as the objective part of art itself. The question of what in fact is the substrate of art (if that is an appropriate metaphor, which is not obvious, but for lack of a better one...) is not in my opinion completely solved, but that doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exists. I think there exists a good deal of partial statisfying answers, which my last post alludes to, the most satisfying of them all being for me the proustian answer. I see you presuppose several things as factors for quality, especially consensus and success (hightlighted above). But I question why they hold legitimacy. Why can't 8 year olds discuss movies? Why is it that you need an education of some sort to discuss movies or art or anything? I don't think it's a rational discussion (because it's subjective) so I don't think one needs an education. How is box office success an indicator for a good movie?Why is consensus an indication for something being right? Is the opinion of a single person wrong when he's in the minority and right when he's part of the majority? I agree that consensus is often an indicator. But it's an indicator for that something pleases most people. People agree that they like a movie because they like it. That says nothing about the movie quality however. Except if you equal box office success with a movie's quality. But I suppose you don't. A 8 year old can discuss movie, but please show me one that can write a critic as convincing as Pauline Kael or Roger Ebert, and I'll surely listen to him
Being convincing doesn't mean being right though, does it?
After that it's not because something is subjective that one doesn't need an education to understand it, I don't see how you can jump to conclusions like that.
Because I am of the opinion that subjective matters cannot ultimately be discussed rationally. That's actually my overarching opinion on the matter and the whole reason why I made the last several posts.
And by "discussing ultimately" I mean: answering the question we've been discussing. The question if there is something objectively good? To which I say no. Ultimately, people like movie A because they like movie A. That's all that there's to it.
Wine tasting might be an example that will convince you more ?
That's unfair to children as there are age restrictions in most countries for drinking wine. How about lemonade testing? Why does a child's opinion hold no value there?
Also I disagree that it is completely subjective anyway, so here's to that.
The second question is the easiest to answer : it doesn't. But usually means something's been done right with the movie, because I doubt success is random. Good advertisement campaign is a factor, you can probably find many less.
I'm glad we can agree there!
Finally to your final question. Well the consensus can actually be wrong, that's pretty clear in fact, as very often new artist have been rejected by the majority, including of the critics. Here is a quick parenthesis : that kind of attack on expert consensus is not reserved to art, but can also touch what you call technical areas. There are many scientists who think, rightfully imo, that citizens should be associated more in technical decisions over environmental issue for instance. But that's another complicated debate After that I the following sentence "When I say a consensus will arise, I take it as a very strong clue that there is some kind of objectivity behind it, but not as the objective part of art itself." answers your objection pretty well, as well as explains why time is needed (but to understand that better, I can only advise you to read In Search of Lost Time, Proust is more convincing than I will ever be).
I'll postpone my answer to a time when I'll have read à la recherche du temps perdu. 
|
On July 09 2013 03:55 Spekulatius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 03:00 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 09 2013 02:36 Spekulatius wrote:On July 09 2013 02:14 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 09 2013 01:41 Spekulatius wrote:On July 08 2013 19:39 corumjhaelen wrote:
I'm not agreeing that you can put movies on a scale from 1 to 100 and perfectly place them on it and then everyone will have to agree.
What I'm arguing is that despite an irreducible subjectivity in judging the quality of a movie, by arguing and thinking about it, putting your feelings into words, you can partially rationnalize (for fault of a better word) your opinion, and with time, it is likel a partial consensus will arise on a given movie. I think this is self-evident too : who knows something about cinema and thinks Meet the Spartans is a better movie than Vertigo ?
I'm also arguing that the opinions of people who have watched a lot of movie and think about them are more valuable than the opinion of the average guy. Take Pauline Kael or Jacques Lourcelles, who have pretty peculiar opinions and often go against the established ideas, well, they have more credibility when they say they don't like Antonioni than when I say that I find Rosemary's Baby utterly boring.
And it's not because a movie falls in the mindless entertainment category they can't be judged as part of it. Someone talked about Die Hard in this very thread. Well Die Hard 1 isn't Persona, but it's a very well-made movie, and if you know a bit about action movies, you will probably agree that McTiernan is along with James Cameron are among the best american directors when it comes to shooting an action scene. It is also rather well written, with a lot of very original ideas.
Funnily enough, relativist in movies are usually the very same people who cry because Justin Bieber sells discs and Stephanie Meyer sells book. If I say that The Iliad is a better book than Twilight, or that Mozart writes better music than David Guetta, will there be a similar outcry as there has been in this thread ? I doubt it. But apparently, movies somehow should not be criticized, or something.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying that while there is no complete objectivity in directly measuring a movie's quality, there are several factors which allow us to to conclude that a movie is good. You mention a) the consenus of a majority of movie buffs (highlighted section 1+2) b) originality and creativity (highlighted section 3). I don't think that those characteristics are helpful though. First, the originality argument. I would agree that without originality there would be no cinema culture as we find it today because in absence of variation we would just play the same old film for eternity. But then again, originality does not necessarily lead to enjoyable movies or movies that make sense whatsoever. I can make a movie that shows nothing but random colored shapes on screen, moving infathomably from left to right and up and down, while the voiceover reads aloud a telephone book. It's original (I'd guess) but is it good? I'd even argue that to make a movie enjoyable for most people, consistency in structure is one of the most important aspects. A movie needs moving images, characters that we can identify with (be it animal or human) and sound of some sort (music, conversations). Directors have tried to move away from those necessities, notably Koyaanisqatsi, and made the movie unwatchable for many. The Twelve-tone technique in music encountered similar problems as it was just so different from what people are used listening to that it never reached notable popularity. I think some creativity is needed. But I think consistency and repetition is needed too. And I'd argue that none of those factors in itself can let one measure if a movie is good or not. --- Now, the consensus argument. It's a very technocratic argument which I don't reject per se. I just think that in a field where science is not at work, technocracy must be wrong. In fact, I question the legitimacy that people have who watched a lot of movies over people on only go to the movies occasionally. I would argue that they're biased by the simple fact that they watch a lot of movies. Cineastes tend to dislike movies that are similar to ones they have watched before because they get bored of it ("that scene AGAIN? The same has been done 50 years ago in _____...."). And ultimately saying their bias is not a bad, but a good bias, because that way critics can distinguish professional and creative works from simple remakes, is violating what I said about the worth of originality above. And ultimately, I don't think you actually meant to say that people who watch a lot of movies necessarily have a more valuable opinion on movies. Because then you'd include the 8 year old who sits at home all summer long in front of the TV, watching animé and cartoons from 9 to 5 because his parents gave him a TV so he doesn't bother them all the time, as well as the night guard at some factory who watches late-night TV just to keep him awake. Having watched a lot of movies in their lifetime certainly doesn't qualify them to rate movies. But now that we're at it, why is that? What I hear a lot from self-proclaimed cineastes when I dig deeper behind the answers to the question "who should be allowed to rate movies" is that they'd like just their own kind of people (usually 20-50 yo, liberal arts background, democrat, hipster glasses, beard/moustache, occasional smoker of several recreational drugs, etc.) in charge of that. And that's just wrong in my eyes. I might sound slightly presumptous as I don't know you at all, corumjhaelen, and thusly do not know if you are one of those people. But the absolutist argument in art of all kinds has tickled me the wrong way in so many situations in my real life that I tend to get riled up when the discussions heads that way. You misunderstood partially the consensus argument. I add (it might not have been cleared because I answered to many people) that there needs to be a sort of constructed and thought out discourse on movie, which rejects your 8-year-old-boy example. As for your argument on so called bias, it relies entirely on your originality argument, which I disagree with, I'll come back to it later. I'll just add now that most cinema critic don't mind that much lack of originality, because they understand that cinema can also be entertainement, and that there are distinction to be made between not being original, making an homage etc etc, which I think the more experienced person is more likely to get right. Now, about originality. Well yes and no. This is an old debate you know, I mean you might have heard about the Quarel of Ancients and Moderns, which is regularly won by Moderns, but also regularly resurface in art. What I mean is, more or less, that the place of originality in art has to be questionned. Also I don't believe Die Hard is art, I think its originalities are in fact entertaining. And I think there is a consensus on that, given the movies' success, but I can see the objections coming from a mile There is let's say a good balance of formulaic and subtle originality in the movie that makes it a success. But there are other thing in the formula. So about the question of what makes art, I guess I have to make a precision. When I say a consensus will arise, I take it as a very strong clue that there is some kind of objectivity behind it, but not as the objective part of art itself. The question of what in fact is the substrate of art (if that is an appropriate metaphor, which is not obvious, but for lack of a better one...) is not in my opinion completely solved, but that doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exists. I think there exists a good deal of partial statisfying answers, which my last post alludes to, the most satisfying of them all being for me the proustian answer. I see you presuppose several things as factors for quality, especially consensus and success (hightlighted above). But I question why they hold legitimacy. Why can't 8 year olds discuss movies? Why is it that you need an education of some sort to discuss movies or art or anything? I don't think it's a rational discussion (because it's subjective) so I don't think one needs an education. How is box office success an indicator for a good movie?Why is consensus an indication for something being right? Is the opinion of a single person wrong when he's in the minority and right when he's part of the majority? I agree that consensus is often an indicator. But it's an indicator for that something pleases most people. People agree that they like a movie because they like it. That says nothing about the movie quality however. Except if you equal box office success with a movie's quality. But I suppose you don't. A 8 year old can discuss movie, but please show me one that can write a critic as convincing as Pauline Kael or Roger Ebert, and I'll surely listen to him Being convincing doesn't mean being right though, does it? Show nested quote +After that it's not because something is subjective that one doesn't need an education to understand it, I don't see how you can jump to conclusions like that. Because I am of the opinion that subjective matters cannot ultimately be discussed rationally. That's actually my overarching opinion on the matter and the whole reason why I made the last several posts. And by "discussing ultimately" I mean: answering the question we've been discussing. The question if there is something objectively good? To which I say no. Ultimately, people like movie A because they like movie A. That's all that there's to it. That's unfair to children as there are age restrictions in most countries for drinking wine. How about lemonade testing? Why does a child's opinion hold no value there? Show nested quote +Also I disagree that it is completely subjective anyway, so here's to that.
The second question is the easiest to answer : it doesn't. But usually means something's been done right with the movie, because I doubt success is random. Good advertisement campaign is a factor, you can probably find many less. I'm glad we can agree there! Show nested quote +Finally to your final question. Well the consensus can actually be wrong, that's pretty clear in fact, as very often new artist have been rejected by the majority, including of the critics. Here is a quick parenthesis : that kind of attack on expert consensus is not reserved to art, but can also touch what you call technical areas. There are many scientists who think, rightfully imo, that citizens should be associated more in technical decisions over environmental issue for instance. But that's another complicated debate After that I the following sentence "When I say a consensus will arise, I take it as a very strong clue that there is some kind of objectivity behind it, but not as the objective part of art itself." answers your objection pretty well, as well as explains why time is needed (but to understand that better, I can only advise you to read In Search of Lost Time, Proust is more convincing than I will ever be). I'll postpone my answer to a time when I'll have read à la recherche du temps perdu.
About convincing, here there is a semantic difference between "convaincre" and "persuader" in French that I'm not sure totally holds in English. "Persuader" appeals to feelings, "convaincre" to reason. Hence to be "convaincant", you have to be at least partially right. Apart from the semantic distinction, what I'm asking is the ability to think, in the strong sense of the word about movies. Something which takes time to develop I believe.
For wine tasting, the idea I wanted to develop is that it's something that is at least as subjective as art, but which can be developped. If you exercise your palate (it's not totally innate), you will be able to distinguish more flavor and thus enjoy more a wine than another person, to which some of the quality of wine will be lost. Let's note hear that wine tasting and appreciation is subjective in essence, but that it also relies on something very real, that is too say the presence of specific molecule. Subjectivity and objectivity are intertwined here.
Edit : at least you don't seem to think I'm some sort of jerk, which is enough for me
|
On July 09 2013 04:19 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 03:55 Spekulatius wrote:On July 09 2013 03:00 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 09 2013 02:36 Spekulatius wrote:On July 09 2013 02:14 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 09 2013 01:41 Spekulatius wrote:On July 08 2013 19:39 corumjhaelen wrote:
I'm not agreeing that you can put movies on a scale from 1 to 100 and perfectly place them on it and then everyone will have to agree.
What I'm arguing is that despite an irreducible subjectivity in judging the quality of a movie, by arguing and thinking about it, putting your feelings into words, you can partially rationnalize (for fault of a better word) your opinion, and with time, it is likel a partial consensus will arise on a given movie. I think this is self-evident too : who knows something about cinema and thinks Meet the Spartans is a better movie than Vertigo ?
I'm also arguing that the opinions of people who have watched a lot of movie and think about them are more valuable than the opinion of the average guy. Take Pauline Kael or Jacques Lourcelles, who have pretty peculiar opinions and often go against the established ideas, well, they have more credibility when they say they don't like Antonioni than when I say that I find Rosemary's Baby utterly boring.
And it's not because a movie falls in the mindless entertainment category they can't be judged as part of it. Someone talked about Die Hard in this very thread. Well Die Hard 1 isn't Persona, but it's a very well-made movie, and if you know a bit about action movies, you will probably agree that McTiernan is along with James Cameron are among the best american directors when it comes to shooting an action scene. It is also rather well written, with a lot of very original ideas.
Funnily enough, relativist in movies are usually the very same people who cry because Justin Bieber sells discs and Stephanie Meyer sells book. If I say that The Iliad is a better book than Twilight, or that Mozart writes better music than David Guetta, will there be a similar outcry as there has been in this thread ? I doubt it. But apparently, movies somehow should not be criticized, or something.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying that while there is no complete objectivity in directly measuring a movie's quality, there are several factors which allow us to to conclude that a movie is good. You mention a) the consenus of a majority of movie buffs (highlighted section 1+2) b) originality and creativity (highlighted section 3). I don't think that those characteristics are helpful though. First, the originality argument. I would agree that without originality there would be no cinema culture as we find it today because in absence of variation we would just play the same old film for eternity. But then again, originality does not necessarily lead to enjoyable movies or movies that make sense whatsoever. I can make a movie that shows nothing but random colored shapes on screen, moving infathomably from left to right and up and down, while the voiceover reads aloud a telephone book. It's original (I'd guess) but is it good? I'd even argue that to make a movie enjoyable for most people, consistency in structure is one of the most important aspects. A movie needs moving images, characters that we can identify with (be it animal or human) and sound of some sort (music, conversations). Directors have tried to move away from those necessities, notably Koyaanisqatsi, and made the movie unwatchable for many. The Twelve-tone technique in music encountered similar problems as it was just so different from what people are used listening to that it never reached notable popularity. I think some creativity is needed. But I think consistency and repetition is needed too. And I'd argue that none of those factors in itself can let one measure if a movie is good or not. --- Now, the consensus argument. It's a very technocratic argument which I don't reject per se. I just think that in a field where science is not at work, technocracy must be wrong. In fact, I question the legitimacy that people have who watched a lot of movies over people on only go to the movies occasionally. I would argue that they're biased by the simple fact that they watch a lot of movies. Cineastes tend to dislike movies that are similar to ones they have watched before because they get bored of it ("that scene AGAIN? The same has been done 50 years ago in _____...."). And ultimately saying their bias is not a bad, but a good bias, because that way critics can distinguish professional and creative works from simple remakes, is violating what I said about the worth of originality above. And ultimately, I don't think you actually meant to say that people who watch a lot of movies necessarily have a more valuable opinion on movies. Because then you'd include the 8 year old who sits at home all summer long in front of the TV, watching animé and cartoons from 9 to 5 because his parents gave him a TV so he doesn't bother them all the time, as well as the night guard at some factory who watches late-night TV just to keep him awake. Having watched a lot of movies in their lifetime certainly doesn't qualify them to rate movies. But now that we're at it, why is that? What I hear a lot from self-proclaimed cineastes when I dig deeper behind the answers to the question "who should be allowed to rate movies" is that they'd like just their own kind of people (usually 20-50 yo, liberal arts background, democrat, hipster glasses, beard/moustache, occasional smoker of several recreational drugs, etc.) in charge of that. And that's just wrong in my eyes. I might sound slightly presumptous as I don't know you at all, corumjhaelen, and thusly do not know if you are one of those people. But the absolutist argument in art of all kinds has tickled me the wrong way in so many situations in my real life that I tend to get riled up when the discussions heads that way. You misunderstood partially the consensus argument. I add (it might not have been cleared because I answered to many people) that there needs to be a sort of constructed and thought out discourse on movie, which rejects your 8-year-old-boy example. As for your argument on so called bias, it relies entirely on your originality argument, which I disagree with, I'll come back to it later. I'll just add now that most cinema critic don't mind that much lack of originality, because they understand that cinema can also be entertainement, and that there are distinction to be made between not being original, making an homage etc etc, which I think the more experienced person is more likely to get right. Now, about originality. Well yes and no. This is an old debate you know, I mean you might have heard about the Quarel of Ancients and Moderns, which is regularly won by Moderns, but also regularly resurface in art. What I mean is, more or less, that the place of originality in art has to be questionned. Also I don't believe Die Hard is art, I think its originalities are in fact entertaining. And I think there is a consensus on that, given the movies' success, but I can see the objections coming from a mile There is let's say a good balance of formulaic and subtle originality in the movie that makes it a success. But there are other thing in the formula. So about the question of what makes art, I guess I have to make a precision. When I say a consensus will arise, I take it as a very strong clue that there is some kind of objectivity behind it, but not as the objective part of art itself. The question of what in fact is the substrate of art (if that is an appropriate metaphor, which is not obvious, but for lack of a better one...) is not in my opinion completely solved, but that doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exists. I think there exists a good deal of partial statisfying answers, which my last post alludes to, the most satisfying of them all being for me the proustian answer. I see you presuppose several things as factors for quality, especially consensus and success (hightlighted above). But I question why they hold legitimacy. Why can't 8 year olds discuss movies? Why is it that you need an education of some sort to discuss movies or art or anything? I don't think it's a rational discussion (because it's subjective) so I don't think one needs an education. How is box office success an indicator for a good movie?Why is consensus an indication for something being right? Is the opinion of a single person wrong when he's in the minority and right when he's part of the majority? I agree that consensus is often an indicator. But it's an indicator for that something pleases most people. People agree that they like a movie because they like it. That says nothing about the movie quality however. Except if you equal box office success with a movie's quality. But I suppose you don't. A 8 year old can discuss movie, but please show me one that can write a critic as convincing as Pauline Kael or Roger Ebert, and I'll surely listen to him Being convincing doesn't mean being right though, does it? After that it's not because something is subjective that one doesn't need an education to understand it, I don't see how you can jump to conclusions like that. Because I am of the opinion that subjective matters cannot ultimately be discussed rationally. That's actually my overarching opinion on the matter and the whole reason why I made the last several posts. And by "discussing ultimately" I mean: answering the question we've been discussing. The question if there is something objectively good? To which I say no. Ultimately, people like movie A because they like movie A. That's all that there's to it. Wine tasting might be an example that will convince you more ? That's unfair to children as there are age restrictions in most countries for drinking wine. How about lemonade testing? Why does a child's opinion hold no value there? Also I disagree that it is completely subjective anyway, so here's to that.
The second question is the easiest to answer : it doesn't. But usually means something's been done right with the movie, because I doubt success is random. Good advertisement campaign is a factor, you can probably find many less. I'm glad we can agree there! Finally to your final question. Well the consensus can actually be wrong, that's pretty clear in fact, as very often new artist have been rejected by the majority, including of the critics. Here is a quick parenthesis : that kind of attack on expert consensus is not reserved to art, but can also touch what you call technical areas. There are many scientists who think, rightfully imo, that citizens should be associated more in technical decisions over environmental issue for instance. But that's another complicated debate After that I the following sentence "When I say a consensus will arise, I take it as a very strong clue that there is some kind of objectivity behind it, but not as the objective part of art itself." answers your objection pretty well, as well as explains why time is needed (but to understand that better, I can only advise you to read In Search of Lost Time, Proust is more convincing than I will ever be). I'll postpone my answer to a time when I'll have read à la recherche du temps perdu. About convincing, here there is a semantic difference between "convaincre" and "persuader" in French that I'm not sure totally holds in English. "Persuader" appeals to feelings, "convaincre" to reason. Hence to be "convaincant", you have to be at least partially right. Apart from the semantic distinction, what I'm asking is the ability to think, in the strong sense of the word about movies. Something which takes time to develop I believe. For wine tasting, the idea I wanted to develop is that it's something that is at least as subjective as art, but which can be developped. If you exercise your palate (it's not totally innate), you will be able to distinguish more flavor and thus enjoy more a wine than another person, to which some of the quality of wine will be lost. Let's note hear that wine tasting and appreciation is subjective in essence, but that it also relies on something very real, that is too say the presence of specific molecule. Subjectivity and objectivity are intertwined here. Edit : at least you don't seem to think I'm some sort of jerk, which is enough for me
Oh don't worry. I would have stopped responding already if I thought you were just being an ass.
I still think we should stop discussing. Despite being unanswered by a mod, this post seems on point. Don't get me wrong: I still disagree with you. There's definitely a discussion to be had and many things to be learnt about the French language but not in this thread probably
|
On July 09 2013 03:15 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 03:08 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 09 2013 02:46 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 09 2013 01:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 19:39 corumjhaelen wrote:
You don't really understand what cinematography is apparently, and more importantly, why it is being used. For a DoP, it is the art of using lightning and so forth to create serve the director's intentions. For a critic, wether he is professional or a random guy on the internet willing to argue about a movie, it is a line of thinking that can be relevant or not.
Example : -TDK, there probably isn't anything special about cinematography, it's rather well-done I'd say, as it participates well to the movie's visual identity (one of its strong point).
-Any Cassavetes movie : it's terrible, but then again, who cares in this case ?
-Drive : there has been a lot of work on this side, and there is a strong visual identity. Personnally I find it rather ugly, but I don't really hold it against the movie, because I think it comes from a good intention.
-The Tenant : it's an essential part of the movie, and it's brilliantly done.
TDK issues are both in editing and cinematography to hardcore critics. http://vimeo.com/28792404EDIT: BTW, it is possible for something to be objectively bad, but still subjectively enjoyable. I skimmed over the video, can you point specifically where he talks about cinematography ? I'm not really sure he does. Funnily enough, I think he's criticizing one of the only scene in the movie which I think is well-shot. Most anti-Nolan critic I've read, and myself, usually find his cinematic grammar very poor and his writing convoluted and inneficient, more or less. I haven't read anyone specifically complain about cinematography. As for your edit, yes I agree, but I'm tempted to ask : so what ? Cinematography isnt just the lighting, it is also the angles and views which are presented. The video says that due to editing it is confusing at times to tell where we are in the scene. Choosing better viewpoints wouldve changed this. That is why I mention cinematography. As for the edit, that is entirely why this discussion is being held in the first place. "Fair point, but it can't be denied that you have terrible taste in film. " Taste is subjective. Is it a framing problem, or the choice of the angle in itself ? I tend to think that the first his mainly the DoP's responsability, and then its cinematography (you're free to disagree here, but then we just disagree on definitions, and agree on everything else), if the latter, its the director's fault, and then it's not. For the edit, that only means that being good and being entertaining are different things, and thus can have different causes. I fail to see what it has to do with subjectivity.
I havent watched the video in ages, but I think it was the choice in the angle itself and not being able to orient yourself as a viewer within the scene.
Also, for the general public, entertaining IS good. For a critic, they may be separate but for everybody else they are very intertwined.
PS: Wine tasting is a horrible example to back yourself up with btw
http://io9.com/wine-tasting-is-bullshit-heres-why-496098276
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/expert-wine-tasters-often-don-234308179.html;_ylt=AglAEbsuibTvLFx5bPl83rzQtDMD
and lots of other examples
|
On July 09 2013 05:01 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 03:15 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 09 2013 03:08 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 09 2013 02:46 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 09 2013 01:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:On July 08 2013 19:39 corumjhaelen wrote:
You don't really understand what cinematography is apparently, and more importantly, why it is being used. For a DoP, it is the art of using lightning and so forth to create serve the director's intentions. For a critic, wether he is professional or a random guy on the internet willing to argue about a movie, it is a line of thinking that can be relevant or not.
Example : -TDK, there probably isn't anything special about cinematography, it's rather well-done I'd say, as it participates well to the movie's visual identity (one of its strong point).
-Any Cassavetes movie : it's terrible, but then again, who cares in this case ?
-Drive : there has been a lot of work on this side, and there is a strong visual identity. Personnally I find it rather ugly, but I don't really hold it against the movie, because I think it comes from a good intention.
-The Tenant : it's an essential part of the movie, and it's brilliantly done.
TDK issues are both in editing and cinematography to hardcore critics. http://vimeo.com/28792404EDIT: BTW, it is possible for something to be objectively bad, but still subjectively enjoyable. I skimmed over the video, can you point specifically where he talks about cinematography ? I'm not really sure he does. Funnily enough, I think he's criticizing one of the only scene in the movie which I think is well-shot. Most anti-Nolan critic I've read, and myself, usually find his cinematic grammar very poor and his writing convoluted and inneficient, more or less. I haven't read anyone specifically complain about cinematography. As for your edit, yes I agree, but I'm tempted to ask : so what ? Cinematography isnt just the lighting, it is also the angles and views which are presented. The video says that due to editing it is confusing at times to tell where we are in the scene. Choosing better viewpoints wouldve changed this. That is why I mention cinematography. As for the edit, that is entirely why this discussion is being held in the first place. "Fair point, but it can't be denied that you have terrible taste in film. " Taste is subjective. Is it a framing problem, or the choice of the angle in itself ? I tend to think that the first his mainly the DoP's responsability, and then its cinematography (you're free to disagree here, but then we just disagree on definitions, and agree on everything else), if the latter, its the director's fault, and then it's not. For the edit, that only means that being good and being entertaining are different things, and thus can have different causes. I fail to see what it has to do with subjectivity. I havent watched the video in ages, but I think it was the choice in the angle itself and not being able to orient yourself as a viewer within the scene. Also, for the general public, entertaining IS good. For a critic, they may be separate but for everybody else they are very intertwined. PS: Wine tasting is a horrible example to back yourself up with btw http://io9.com/wine-tasting-is-bullshit-heres-why-496098276http://finance.yahoo.com/news/expert-wine-tasters-often-don-234308179.html;_ylt=AglAEbsuibTvLFx5bPl83rzQtDMDand lots of other examples
You contradict yourself, you say it's the same and just after you say it's very entertwined. Sorry, you can't have both. And since I doubt you'd call something like Schindler's list entertaining, I see were this is heading...
As for wine tasting, thank you for the sentionnalist titles that tell me that wine tasting is not a science, I had no idea.
Also this will be, alas, my last message about this subject, the derail has gone far enough
|
On July 09 2013 01:55 Yacobs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 00:38 Silvanel wrote:On July 08 2013 22:08 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 21:56 Silvanel wrote:Actualy thats the only conclusion that makes sense if You know a lot about aesthetics. Why else people would come up with things like "Dickie's Institutional Theory of art"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_art#InstitutionalYou cant point anything that distinguish art from not art. Good art from bad art. Relativistic? Yes. But other options doesnt make sense really. It applies to movies obviously. Funnily enough, your link does give a criteria to ditinguish art from non art. And I'm not even talking about the other paragraphs of the article. As for Duchamp's ready-made, they are an interesting work, but also a self-fullfilling prophecy. Edit : also the relativist position doesn't make any sense either. Because as far as I know, not even its biggest fans are using the "random" link on imdb to chose what to watch next, which they would do if they were coherent. Saying that ultimately there are no means to distinguish good art from bad is one thing. Saying: there is group of people that have similiar taste to mine, and I shall choose my poison based on their judgemnt is another. One can enjoy specyfic type of music/movies without saying its the best kind of art. Also how Dickies conecption isnt relativistic? If i get my friendly custodian to display my shit in the museum of modern art it suddenly becomes an art. It isnt relativistic? Thats why instead of saying: "this movie is better than teh other" i prefere to say, "I enjoyed this movie better than the other". Small yet fundamental difference. What relativists seem to never understand is that the word "art" is not relevant when thinking about objective quality. When you think about films and filmmaking in terms of CRAFT, then it becomes a lot easier to objectively analyze them. There is unquestionably a ton of craft that goes into making any given film. Writing, directing, acting, cinematography, editing, acting, sound design, set design, costume design, etc etc etc. And all those crafts combine into the overall craft of filmmaking. If you are experienced in film, it is not difficult to gauge the quality of a film's craft. Obviously, on a person-by-person basis, there is a lot of variance introduced due to personal taste. On a film's opening weekend, personal taste is basically the only thing that registers. But as time goes by and as more and more experienced viewers consume a film, as more and more people dissect and discuss a film and its craftsmanship, that personal taste is pared away and replaced by something close to objective consensus.
Taste and craftsmanship are two separate things though. I can easily see that Pasolini's Salo (1975) and Haneke's Funny Games (1997) are amazingly well-crafted, but I still say that the craft was wasted on terrible works of art. Avatar is generic and boring, but I think it's better than Salo or Funny Games.
Also "objective consensus" is bogus. Read this excellent article to see what types of things make up consensus.
Oh and watch Orson Welles' F for Fake.
|
On July 09 2013 06:08 Chytilova wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 01:55 Yacobs wrote:On July 09 2013 00:38 Silvanel wrote:On July 08 2013 22:08 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 21:56 Silvanel wrote:Actualy thats the only conclusion that makes sense if You know a lot about aesthetics. Why else people would come up with things like "Dickie's Institutional Theory of art"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_art#InstitutionalYou cant point anything that distinguish art from not art. Good art from bad art. Relativistic? Yes. But other options doesnt make sense really. It applies to movies obviously. Funnily enough, your link does give a criteria to ditinguish art from non art. And I'm not even talking about the other paragraphs of the article. As for Duchamp's ready-made, they are an interesting work, but also a self-fullfilling prophecy. Edit : also the relativist position doesn't make any sense either. Because as far as I know, not even its biggest fans are using the "random" link on imdb to chose what to watch next, which they would do if they were coherent. Saying that ultimately there are no means to distinguish good art from bad is one thing. Saying: there is group of people that have similiar taste to mine, and I shall choose my poison based on their judgemnt is another. One can enjoy specyfic type of music/movies without saying its the best kind of art. Also how Dickies conecption isnt relativistic? If i get my friendly custodian to display my shit in the museum of modern art it suddenly becomes an art. It isnt relativistic? Thats why instead of saying: "this movie is better than teh other" i prefere to say, "I enjoyed this movie better than the other". Small yet fundamental difference. What relativists seem to never understand is that the word "art" is not relevant when thinking about objective quality. When you think about films and filmmaking in terms of CRAFT, then it becomes a lot easier to objectively analyze them. There is unquestionably a ton of craft that goes into making any given film. Writing, directing, acting, cinematography, editing, acting, sound design, set design, costume design, etc etc etc. And all those crafts combine into the overall craft of filmmaking. If you are experienced in film, it is not difficult to gauge the quality of a film's craft. Obviously, on a person-by-person basis, there is a lot of variance introduced due to personal taste. On a film's opening weekend, personal taste is basically the only thing that registers. But as time goes by and as more and more experienced viewers consume a film, as more and more people dissect and discuss a film and its craftsmanship, that personal taste is pared away and replaced by something close to objective consensus. Taste and craftsmanship are two separate things though. I can easily see that Pasolini's Salo (1975) and Haneke's Funny Games (1997) are amazingly well-crafted, but I still say that the craft was wasted on terrible works of art. Avatar is generic and boring, but I think it's better than Salo or Funny Games. Also "objective consensus" is bogus. Read this excellent article to see what types of things make up consensus. Oh and watch Orson Welles' F for Fake.
It's terrible, I can't help but post again. Sorry. I disagree on Salo, but agree heartily on Funny Games, which deserve all the hate it can get.
As for the article you posted, I agree with the gist of it, but it still doesn't mean consensus is totally bogus. There are a lot of problem at work here, institutionalization, lack of time, and the fact that lists are very entertaining but also a way to avoid thinking at any cost.
|
On July 09 2013 06:31 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:08 Chytilova wrote:On July 09 2013 01:55 Yacobs wrote:On July 09 2013 00:38 Silvanel wrote:On July 08 2013 22:08 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 21:56 Silvanel wrote:Actualy thats the only conclusion that makes sense if You know a lot about aesthetics. Why else people would come up with things like "Dickie's Institutional Theory of art"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_art#InstitutionalYou cant point anything that distinguish art from not art. Good art from bad art. Relativistic? Yes. But other options doesnt make sense really. It applies to movies obviously. Funnily enough, your link does give a criteria to ditinguish art from non art. And I'm not even talking about the other paragraphs of the article. As for Duchamp's ready-made, they are an interesting work, but also a self-fullfilling prophecy. Edit : also the relativist position doesn't make any sense either. Because as far as I know, not even its biggest fans are using the "random" link on imdb to chose what to watch next, which they would do if they were coherent. Saying that ultimately there are no means to distinguish good art from bad is one thing. Saying: there is group of people that have similiar taste to mine, and I shall choose my poison based on their judgemnt is another. One can enjoy specyfic type of music/movies without saying its the best kind of art. Also how Dickies conecption isnt relativistic? If i get my friendly custodian to display my shit in the museum of modern art it suddenly becomes an art. It isnt relativistic? Thats why instead of saying: "this movie is better than teh other" i prefere to say, "I enjoyed this movie better than the other". Small yet fundamental difference. What relativists seem to never understand is that the word "art" is not relevant when thinking about objective quality. When you think about films and filmmaking in terms of CRAFT, then it becomes a lot easier to objectively analyze them. There is unquestionably a ton of craft that goes into making any given film. Writing, directing, acting, cinematography, editing, acting, sound design, set design, costume design, etc etc etc. And all those crafts combine into the overall craft of filmmaking. If you are experienced in film, it is not difficult to gauge the quality of a film's craft. Obviously, on a person-by-person basis, there is a lot of variance introduced due to personal taste. On a film's opening weekend, personal taste is basically the only thing that registers. But as time goes by and as more and more experienced viewers consume a film, as more and more people dissect and discuss a film and its craftsmanship, that personal taste is pared away and replaced by something close to objective consensus. Taste and craftsmanship are two separate things though. I can easily see that Pasolini's Salo (1975) and Haneke's Funny Games (1997) are amazingly well-crafted, but I still say that the craft was wasted on terrible works of art. Avatar is generic and boring, but I think it's better than Salo or Funny Games. Also "objective consensus" is bogus. Read this excellent article to see what types of things make up consensus. Oh and watch Orson Welles' F for Fake. It's terrible, I can't help but post again. Sorry. I disagree on Salo, but agree heartily on Funny Games, which deserve all the hate it can get. As for the article you posted, I agree with the gist of it, but it still doesn't mean consensus is totally bogus. There are a lot of problem at work here, institutionalization, lack of time, and the fact that lists are very entertaining but also a way to avoid thinking at any cost.
That reminds me, back in the Hidden Gems thread you also talked about Funny Games in particular you said
Because it's an extremely dangerous and reactionary movie that needs to be denounced for what it is. Because under it, there is a despicable ideology.
Which I asked you to clarify (after reading some interviews with Haneke) but you don't seem to have ever returned to that thread. In the meantime I actually saw Funny Games and I still don't see what you mean at all.
|
On July 09 2013 07:12 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 06:31 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 09 2013 06:08 Chytilova wrote:On July 09 2013 01:55 Yacobs wrote:On July 09 2013 00:38 Silvanel wrote:On July 08 2013 22:08 corumjhaelen wrote:On July 08 2013 21:56 Silvanel wrote:Actualy thats the only conclusion that makes sense if You know a lot about aesthetics. Why else people would come up with things like "Dickie's Institutional Theory of art"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_art#InstitutionalYou cant point anything that distinguish art from not art. Good art from bad art. Relativistic? Yes. But other options doesnt make sense really. It applies to movies obviously. Funnily enough, your link does give a criteria to ditinguish art from non art. And I'm not even talking about the other paragraphs of the article. As for Duchamp's ready-made, they are an interesting work, but also a self-fullfilling prophecy. Edit : also the relativist position doesn't make any sense either. Because as far as I know, not even its biggest fans are using the "random" link on imdb to chose what to watch next, which they would do if they were coherent. Saying that ultimately there are no means to distinguish good art from bad is one thing. Saying: there is group of people that have similiar taste to mine, and I shall choose my poison based on their judgemnt is another. One can enjoy specyfic type of music/movies without saying its the best kind of art. Also how Dickies conecption isnt relativistic? If i get my friendly custodian to display my shit in the museum of modern art it suddenly becomes an art. It isnt relativistic? Thats why instead of saying: "this movie is better than teh other" i prefere to say, "I enjoyed this movie better than the other". Small yet fundamental difference. What relativists seem to never understand is that the word "art" is not relevant when thinking about objective quality. When you think about films and filmmaking in terms of CRAFT, then it becomes a lot easier to objectively analyze them. There is unquestionably a ton of craft that goes into making any given film. Writing, directing, acting, cinematography, editing, acting, sound design, set design, costume design, etc etc etc. And all those crafts combine into the overall craft of filmmaking. If you are experienced in film, it is not difficult to gauge the quality of a film's craft. Obviously, on a person-by-person basis, there is a lot of variance introduced due to personal taste. On a film's opening weekend, personal taste is basically the only thing that registers. But as time goes by and as more and more experienced viewers consume a film, as more and more people dissect and discuss a film and its craftsmanship, that personal taste is pared away and replaced by something close to objective consensus. Taste and craftsmanship are two separate things though. I can easily see that Pasolini's Salo (1975) and Haneke's Funny Games (1997) are amazingly well-crafted, but I still say that the craft was wasted on terrible works of art. Avatar is generic and boring, but I think it's better than Salo or Funny Games. Also "objective consensus" is bogus. Read this excellent article to see what types of things make up consensus. Oh and watch Orson Welles' F for Fake. It's terrible, I can't help but post again. Sorry. I disagree on Salo, but agree heartily on Funny Games, which deserve all the hate it can get. As for the article you posted, I agree with the gist of it, but it still doesn't mean consensus is totally bogus. There are a lot of problem at work here, institutionalization, lack of time, and the fact that lists are very entertaining but also a way to avoid thinking at any cost. That reminds me, back in the Hidden Gems thread you also talked about Funny Games in particular you said Show nested quote +Because it's an extremely dangerous and reactionary movie that needs to be denounced for what it is. Because under it, there is a despicable ideology. Which I asked you to clarify (after reading some interviews with Haneke) but you don't seem to have ever returned to that thread. In the meantime I actually saw Funny Games and I still don't see what you mean at all.
Oh sorry, forgot about that. The gist of it is that it's a lie about what real violence is about, it erects Haneke's misanthropy as a self-evident truth. Also Haneke's has some really nice interviews about how the movie is addressed to torture porn amateur and he wants them to realize they are terribly immoral persons, but he still made a torture porn movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
