[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: a few things

Hi,
--- Don Smith <dasmith at rotse2_physics.lsa.umich.edu>
wrote:
> My question
> on top of this was whether or not those
> pre-determined rules are themselves
> subjective;

This was part of what was replying to in my post.  If
we *are* to use a set of rules, it doesn't matter if
they are subjective to whomever made them up or to
us--they are still the guidelines commonly accepted by
which to judge films.  If we begin to ask if the
pre-determined guidelines are subjective, we begin to
break down the system itself. Why do we question the
system? Do we replace it with a new system, and if so,
is that system purely objective?  Why is it better
than the old system? 

My point was that *everything* is subjective, and for
one to label a film "bad" or "good" is really a matter
of opinion.  You can hide behind the rules of form,
but in the end, you still are subjectively judging the
artwork within those limits.  You can say you didn't
like A Clockwork Orange, but when you say that it was
also brilliant, are you not also admitting that you
liked it--I mean brilliance in and of itself denotes
greatness.  If you truly did not like the film, then
you can find no brilliance, or redeeming qualities in
it at all.  If you can find even one, then you did
like the film--or at least some part of it.


It's good to debate forms.  It is also good to debate
emotions, but it is very hard to debate forms without
emotions.  Just as one may be able to suspend
disbelief during the film, one also could suspend
emotional attachment afterwards and debate the film
purely as an artform.  I don't know if it would be as
interesting, or nearly as fun, but it would be
possible. 

> I.e., it's not
> intellectually honest to even *say* "it's a bad
> film", because there's no way
> to determine good or bad as an intrinsic property of
> the film, independent of
> observer.

Right, but whether or not it's intellectually honest
or not, is your opinion.  I happen to see it as
emotionally dishonest to reserve judgement of good or
bad because we don't have a commonly accepted gauge of
good and bad.  Just as I have pre-conceived notions of
the two based on my world view, so do you.  To say
that I cannot place the connotation "good" on a film
because I can't prove it is good is like saying I
can't love because I can't prove that I love.  I can
prove that my actions support the idea of love, but
there is no actual proof the actions are based on love
or some other motivation.  I can say a film is good,
because it is good to me, and if you ask me to prove
it, then we have to define what kind of proof you
need.  If you need emotional proof, then it may be
because I cried or laughed.  If you need intellectual
proof, then we can get into the forms again, but I
happen to think it's very hard to seperate the emotion
from the interpretation of the rules.

> My own personal opinion is that I think one can
> apply at least partially
> objective criteria to film as an art form by which
> one can say if a film is bad
> or good, regardless of whether one liked it or not.

This I can agree with, but are those arguments as
solid as the ones not based on emotional criteria? 
Anyone can learn the rules and identify the
infractions, (in a sense becoming a robot,) but is it
not also true that to learn the rules and
intentionally break them often produces a masterpiece?
 What if Van Gough had been discounted because he was
labled insane when he painted Starry Night, the second
most recognizable painting in the world.  And what
about impressionism, the rennaisance?  Aren't these
the results of post facto emotional rebellion? 

> I find it
> frustrating when people
> imply because they didn't understand something,
> *it*'s confusing, or because
> they were bored, the *movie* was boring, as if their
> subjective reaction
> defined the objective character of the film.

So do I, but I don't think were discussing that
here--at least that's a different topic than I'm
addressing.


> I'm only saying that *in* that moment, when people
> shut off their brain for
> "entertainment", they become sheep.


But what if they "allow" their minds to be manipulated
and agree to sustain that for a while until they can
formulate ideas and opinions based on the subject
matter as a whole.  This is not the same thing as
mindless neutrality.  It is allowing the art itself to
penetrate you and then using what's left (the residual
emotion) to formulate your opinion.




> > I don't know of anyone who has laid out a set of
> guidelines stating that if a
> > film falls into "this" category is is bad, or
> "that" category is is good.
> 
> Well, you do now.  :-)


Do I?  I'll need a little more stimulation please. 
:o)

Mark

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups: References: