I'm pages behind. Unfortunately I have been busy with things other than S&S films lately.
But in regards to the responses back on page 38, specifically Lew's...
Quote:
|
But to that, I often upgrade my rating of a film simply because it strikes a chord within me. I don’t think I ever downgrade films simply because I disagree with a view taken by a director or writer. And there are the films that I like for some reason beyond all reason. These might get a slight upgrade, but not much.
|
I do the same thing. I do not fault anyone for subjective criticism because the truth is that there is nothing else.
If I might sidebar into a BCS college poll analogy. The BCS system has people in an uproar and one of the main problems sighted is the cold, objective COMPUTER that makes all these "uninformed" choices. Meaning that people view the computer and/or its formula as some reckless machine that looks only at numbers without understanding the nuances, or places emphasis on strength of schedule too much or margin of victory.
Of course before the BCS all those factors WERE included in the national ranking, it was just that it happened inside a coach's or writer's head rather than being written down as a formula. Teams still got dinged for weaker schedules ("They haven't played anyone") or benefitted from running up the score.
And the BCS still includes the coach and writer polls anyway.
The BCS is really just an OBJECTIVE application of a SUBJECTIVELY created formula, it merely represents the explicit stating of which factors are important to being "good" beforehand and then consistently calculates it the same every time. Of course this allows the formula to be objected with since it is written out for others to examine (maybe not publically in all cases, but by those with the power to use it to govern the Bowls). It can also be tested and tweeked, factors can be altered, added or deleted to improve it's output, though the judgement of it's accuracy will, in the end, still be a SUBJECTIVE one.
Should TCU go to the national championship? Even without the BCS this question would not have an ABSOLUTE answer.
All of that is to say that even if we were to compile a list of factors that mark a film as "great" so that a computer could automatically analyze thousands of films an hour it would still not be objective. Somehow slapping math or computers in the middle of things, or by stating explicit numbers, levels, colors, sounds, etc that are required people begin to feel the false comfort of "objectivity" when none really exists.
As was said in the AFI revote poll, all we have is the objective compiling of subjective values when it comes to rating ANYTHING, not just art. And that goes for Best Car, Best Rocketship, anything.
Another way to hide the subjectivity is by first applying a layer of abstraction between the subjective factors and the measurement. For example, a rocket that explodes on the launching pad is worse than one that flies to the moon. The basis for this is that the 2nd rocket meets its objective...its PURPOSE.
But of course (and this really comes into play with art), that PURPOSE is generally in no way objective either.
When you read Eisenstien, Kracauer, Mulvey, etc you find a widely differing view of the purpose of film. That leads to different yet potentially "absolute" criteria (like number of tickets sold or most realistic looking) that can be measured and then said to be objective, when of course they are just as subjective as George saying "this is the greatest film ever because I say so".
So no matter how scientific we make a formula, even programs that analyze color or lighting in each scene, the length of shots, the grammar or structure of the dialog, polls asking people, and so on none of them will ever be objective.
All we have is what we have in this thread or threads like it (like the AFI revote)...pseudo-objectivity created by compiling as many subjective views as we can. And of course we try to add in the concept of the "informed viewer", but then that only means learning a specific school of thought on cinema (ie, a layer of abstraction built by differing the view of the purpose of cinema).
And I'm not blasting any of us even though in some ways this undermines even my views on cinema. In the end I think we just recognize these facts and say "fuck it, I'm putting my head down and marching on". What else can we do but our best with what we've got...subjective views. That's why discussion threads/challenges like these are the best. We recognize the limitations and try to improve ourselves within those restrictions.
- This from a detail-oriented math and science geek.
