I was just having this discussion with an actual film reviewer on a Yahoo group. Ultimately I think it is both subjective and objective. That is to say that there are things that you can "score" that isn't relying on your opinion. Look at a film like Citizen Kane. The movie has many "firsts" that make it interesting. It did some things that had never been done in cinema before. You can also observe technical achievements. There is a scene in 2001 where Kubrick allows the viewer to understand that HAL is reading the crews lips. He does this by use of imagery and editing, without using dialogue or captions on the screen to tell us this. You can look at the opening scene of Touch of Evil and realize it is a tracking shot lasting over 3 minutes with the camera moving everywhere and be astounded at the effort behind a shot. I could go on and on and many people spend years studying film. However, in the end cinema is an art form and like all other art forms it is ultimately a subjective medium. There is no yardstick to quantitatively measure a film. Each persons background, culture and personal tastes effects the way they view a film. It's like trying to measure what is funny. You can intellectually discuss what makes a good joke, but that doesn't mean I'm going to laugh.
Again, I have written too much. Like I said I had just been discussing this and it is still fresh on my mind.
I definitely agree with her. For instance, we rely so heavy on movie critics, and what do they do? They write their own opinions! I can not settle for that because one reviewer actually had the nerve to give LOTR:ROTK a measly 3 stars! Pathetic!!
As I write this, I am listening to U2: The City of BLinding Lights, which is on my top20 list! It really just strikes a chord with me. It is a very good song!
I think that like midnitcafe said, it's both subjective and objective. I see it though more from a spiritual side, where as there are the laws written on our hearts, and when we see those laws kept or broken we will respond to them. There are God-given emotions that will always be seen as good when they are portrayed in a movie. The director's job is to pull those emotions and standards and put them on the big screen.
But of course, I may love 'The Count Of Monte Cristo', and someone else may hate it. That's the subjective part, the place where, though we may want to make it about real truth, it really comes down to opinion.
4 comments:
I was just having this discussion with an actual film reviewer on a Yahoo group. Ultimately I think it is both subjective and objective. That is to say that there are things that you can "score" that isn't relying on your opinion. Look at a film like Citizen Kane. The movie has many "firsts" that make it interesting. It did some things that had never been done in cinema before. You can also observe technical achievements. There is a scene in 2001 where Kubrick allows the viewer to understand that HAL is reading the crews lips. He does this by use of imagery and editing, without using dialogue or captions on the screen to tell us this. You can look at the opening scene of Touch of Evil and realize it is a tracking shot lasting over 3 minutes with the camera moving everywhere and be astounded at the effort behind a shot. I could go on and on and many people spend years studying film. However, in the end cinema is an art form and like all other art forms it is ultimately a subjective medium. There is no yardstick to quantitatively measure a film. Each persons background, culture and personal tastes effects the way they view a film. It's like trying to measure what is funny. You can intellectually discuss what makes a good joke, but that doesn't mean I'm going to laugh.
Again, I have written too much. Like I said I had just been discussing this and it is still fresh on my mind.
I definitely agree with her. For instance, we rely so heavy on movie critics, and what do they do? They write their own opinions! I can not settle for that because one reviewer actually had the nerve to give LOTR:ROTK a measly 3 stars! Pathetic!!
As I write this, I am listening to U2: The City of BLinding Lights, which is on my top20 list! It really just strikes a chord with me. It is a very good song!
I think that like midnitcafe said, it's both subjective and objective. I see it though more from a spiritual side, where as there are the laws written on our hearts, and when we see those laws kept or broken we will respond to them. There are God-given emotions that will always be seen as good when they are portrayed in a movie. The director's job is to pull those emotions and standards and put them on the big screen.
But of course, I may love 'The Count Of Monte Cristo', and someone else may hate it. That's the subjective part, the place where, though we may want to make it about real truth, it really comes down to opinion.
Post a Comment