In Defense Of Criticism (1 Viewer)

[MickeS]

Woudln't it be easier to just say "I think a lot of people who like foreign and art films are pretentious nerds"?
/Mike

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

Some more:
movies about drug addicts = bad
movies about alcoholics = bad
violent alien movies = good
violent alien movies in which Paul Reiser is killed = better
movies with a lot of guns = good
movies with a lot of guns being fired = better
movies with rappers = bad
movies with "teen hearthrobs" = bad
movies with cheerleaders = good
movies in the desert = good
movies in the forest = bad
movies with pirates = bad
movies about gladiators = good
movies about Turkish Prisons = bad
movies in space = good
movies in space with a homicidal computer = better
movies about mimes = bad
movies about mimes being beaten up = good
So there you have it, the people in film school have just gotten a free education and can officially ask for you tuiton back

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Seth Paxton:

So what "people" were you talking about? People in Ohio, people under 30, people with college degrees, people who like grapes?

Seth, why are you talking about me?
And yes, I liked Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
I'd agree that such an opinion is insulting. While certainly there are people like that, I hardly think that's the case with everyone, or even most, who like foreign films.
Not all foreign pictures are The Dreamlife of Angels. I don't know that someone who likes Stephen Chow's The God of Cookery would consider themselves a beret-wearing, black clad intellectual. The equation of foreign films with intellectualism is a faulty assumption at its basis since they span the spectrum from difficult "art" films to light, mainstream entertainment. And somehow I don't think this works the other way around. Is someone who lives in Europe and likes foreign (American) films considered to be an elitist?

 

[MickeS]

Nope, not in Sweden at least. But it's exactly the same thing there: people who prefer movies from somewhere else than America are often seen as snobbish and pretentious.

/Mike

 

[Tino]

Mike
Didn't you also say that it's perfectly acceptable to dislike a film without having seen it?
Please explain that comment again.
Thanks.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Didn't you also say that it's perfectly acceptable to dislike a film without having seen it?

I have a feeling that you're all just having fun with me. I admit I'm not the most skilled writer, and may not express myself as well as I can. When communicating verbally with people, these apparently controversial and oddball sentiments are understood, accepted, and agreed with by most people. Or maybe I just run with a different crowd. Or, I shoud just stay the hell out of discussions not directly about technical issues or the Music Forum.
Tino, I shall attempt to explain that sentiment, which I feel is pretty obvious, via analogy and example:
I do not like pop boy-bad music... at all. Consequently, the following two statements are true:
1. I have never heard the latest N'Sync album.
2. I do not like the latest N'Sync album.
I am also willing wager that the above holds true for most people reading this post.
N'Sync may very well be a better boy-band than The Backstreet Boys. I don't know, and I don't care. I don't like it.
But that's just it: I don't like it.
Tino, if you can follow the reasoning above, it stands to reason that the same holds for movies. If not, then you and I just think very differently.

 

[Tino]

We think differently. I like to judge a film on it's own merits rather than dismiss it on the chance that I won't like it. As I said before, you cannot have an opinion of a film that you have not seen.
There have been many a film that I had no desire to see that I knew for sure that I would hate and was pleasantly surprised such as Dancer In The Dark, Boys Don't Cry, and many others.
You are precluding yourself from some potentially worthwhile films, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Seth Paxton]

You mean you have no INTEREST in giving it a chance because you deem it VERY PROBABLE that you won't like it.

The hard and fast rule of "how do you know you don't like it till you've tried it" isn't just some stupid motherly saying.

That being said, I think it's perfectly acceptable for someone to pass on an album, film, food when they can't try them all anyway. You use your best judgement to try to direct yourself toward what you think you will enjoy.

To match your example - many years ago I bought the new Fastway album without hearing anything off of it yet. Why? The same reason you "don't like the new N'Sync album" - I did like the other Fastway albums and their style was my type (one of my types) of music. Well the album sucked - whoops.

So if you can get something you think you will like and then not like it, it's equally probable that you could skip something you think you won't like only to find out later that you do like it (or would have).

I am in total agreement with you over making smart choices, we rarely can see every film, buy every album. But that doesn't mean that you DON'T LIKE THE FILM. It means that you THINK you won't like it, but you don't really know.

 

[Tony_P]

Very interesting thread. I truly hope I offend no one, but I have wanted to say the following words for the past couple of weeks:

I am one of the few, it appears, that did have a problem with the "no-criticism" thread being shut down. The way I saw it, that thread was a direct response to the "no thread crapping" rule that has been enforced occasionally here at HTF for the past few months. Personally, I don't really enjoy reading "thread craps" and I have been in favor of mods telling the perps to get lost, so to speak. However, I also believe that if some people want to offer dissenting opinions without further analysis, there should be a place for them to do so at the HTF. I fully understand that this may not be in line with the "spirit" of the HTF, but that is the way I feel. I thought that the intent of the "no-criticism" thread was to create a safe haven for people who like to go against the grain and vent without the inevitable reproach. By starting their own thread, they probably assumed that they wouldn't continue to offend the people they had been offending...

However, some people (many of whom the new thread was ostensibly trying to avoid) not only found the "no-criticism" thread, but read the first post (which expressed the intent of the thread) and then every post after that. Some felt the need to cast disparagement on the thread and others called for it to be closed. My question is, weren't these posts essentially thread-craps themselves? When someone jumps into a thread just to disagree and then leaves, that is a thread-crap, no?

I guess my main problem is that there seems to be some criterion in place here at HTF governing which opinions are "worthy" of being expressed. On the surface, it would seem to be tied to the amount of discussion accompanying an opinion. However, I don't recall ever seeing a recrimination of a simple "I agree"-type post in any thread. Only dissenting opinions, it would seem, require thoughtful reasoning, lest they be reprimanded or banished. Is this censorship? Probably not, but it is fairly close to it, in my opinion.

There should be room enough on this forum to express dissenting opinions, regardless of how eloquent, thoughtful, or reasoned they may be. (Of course, that is for Ron and Parker to decide.) And if certain threads are allowed to be "dissent-free", then perhaps "dissent-only" threads should be allowed as well.

Anyway, that's my $0.02. Thanks for listening.

 

[Brad_V]

I think I remember that thread you guys are mentioning. Didn't I close the thing down? If the thread's the one I'm thinking of, it was terribly juvenile in nature. Like the ones that get started by that kid who just loves to attack venerated films that are universally loved (Citizen Kane, The Godfather, etc.).

The thread was doing fine until people started not following the main rules of it. If nothing else, I thought it was great fun to have people not be afraid to tell me why they hate a popular movie. Some of the reasons were rather intriguing. Obviously, "this movie sucks because it, um, sucks" posts aren't very insightful nor interesting to read, but the thread didn't have any more of those than any other thread does.
What that thread did have was in-your-face, tell-me-what-you-really-think-of-this-movie critiques that I often don't see in other threads because people don't want to step on anyone's toes. Some were a bit over-the-top, but that was good because it wasn't intended to be a serious thread anyway. And it was also nice to have all of those posts in one place.
With all the praise for A.I. I saw all over the net at the time, for fear of being bombarded with "you don't know what you are talking about" replies, ("It's a Kubrick movie! He's a god!"), I almost didn't post that I thought David and his mother were completely uninteresting and that Teddy the Bear was by far the best and most human character in the entire movie, etc. Imagine my surprise when a couple people agreed with me. 'Course, I think I Love Lucy is usually terribly unfunny, so what do I know.
I know some movies I really like got bashed, but the people gave some interesting reasons why they hate them that I hadn't considered before. And they did it in an entertaining fashion. No matter how much I may like the movie, how could I not smile at Ricardo's opinion that '2001' is "a gorgeous collection of nothing"? I mean, that's funny stuff! I think The Wizard of OZ is an entertaining movie, but maybe my bashing of its mile-wide holes gave someone something to think about the next time they watch it that they hadn't noticed before. Or not. But all in good fun.
I don't know how you can say what I quoted above though, Jack. "Terribly juvenile in nature"? Go back and read your comments on page two . One of which is, "Let's stick with the agree-to-disagree premise underlying this discussion--and which I managed to overlook. This can be fun and interesting, in the sense of trying to see how things look through someone else's eyes."
You thought the thread was just fine when the people who "got it" were posting true to the rules. It was only when people started not following the rules of the thread and taking things personal that it started to turn juvenile and got canned.
Your quote at the top fits in very well with this current thread on criticism. You liked it for awhile, but now you link that thread to the same ones "started by that kid who just loves to attack venerated movies that are universally loved."
...But that's what the thread was for! To be able to say why you think Citizen Kane or The Godfather sucks without fear of being called "terribly juvenile" or whatever by 100 people, or the fear of being banned because the person ticks off 100 people who take movie critiques too personally. And unlike some kid trying to be a smartass and bashing a popular movie just to get a rise out of people, the bashes in that thread were honest bashes.
The difference between being able to post a critique in that thread compared to a "regular" thread is a similar difference to me posting this right now. Anyone else, if the person got upset with me and took my comments too personally, they might call me some names or give me a mean red-face, and that'd probably be about it. But you're a moderator, so if you got upset and took my comments too personally, you could probably ban me. Similar to that thread compared to typical ones, I am taking more risk by being more honest.
Maybe I can sum up this current thread. "People take critiques about movies they like way too personally."

 

[David Echo]

Brad,

I think your right that



While the majority of the threads on the Forum do allow for an exchange of ideas, the more fan-oriented threads (Star Wars, LOTR, Spiderman, etc.) really do seem more like support groups for those that post on them.

Go against the grain or even try to treat the subject matter objectively and you're treated like the A#@$ole that shows up at an AA meeting with a full bottle of Whiskey in his hand.

I could understand that attitude on a fan site but - to my understanding - this a movie discussion site. Discussion doesn't just mean "but only the good things about a movie." If a movie is uneven shouldn't that be discussed too?

Last night I posted on the EPII discussion thread asking people to tell me what, besides the action in the film, they liked. My point was that even in the positive reviews I've read many people are saying that outside of the action scenes the movie slows down and is quite bad at times. I wasn't passing judgement on the film. I was asking poeople to tell me what they like about it. Now I realize it was late for most people but I think only one person responded about something OTHER than Yoda kicking ass that they liked about the film (a slightly unfair statement on my part but only slightly.)

But like Don Quixote and his bloody windmills I'll keep on trying to get some real discussion going on here. Like this thread for example. After all The Prisoner is my favourite television show of all time.

Dave

 

[mark_d]

I skimmed that other thread to see what the fuss was about. I didn't like what I saw.

Why express your views in a public discussion forum without wanting to talk about it? I totally didn't get it. Would it not have been better to just write your feelings down on a piece of paper then bin it? You'd get it off your chest and no-one with a conflicting opinion would challenge you.

If it went on long enough, you'd have a bitch comment for every movie ever made, and what would be the point of that? It goes without saying that a movie that absolutely everyone likes does not exist.

No-one is ever going to be able to convince someone they enjoyed a movie they didn't enjoy (or vice-versa) but the discussions as to why certain films polarise audiences can be fascinating.

Back on the topic of this thread, I'm anti-critic, anti-reviewer or whatever. I don't believe that the quality of a film can be defined in any sort of real terms. I find I rarely agree with Seth, for example, but really enjoy reading his posts as they are usually intelligent (unlike mine :b ) and are food for thought. I have not changed my views, but I can respect, appreciate and understand other's ideals without necessarily agreeing with them.

Mark

 

[Mike Broadman]

You mean you have no INTEREST in giving it a chance because you deem it VERY PROBABLE that you won't like it.

Ok, fine. It's a matter of semantics, really.

Last night, I saw ads for two films that fit the bill, and I thought of this thread: Save the Last Dance and Serendipity. There is no chance in hell that someone like me could like those two movies. I don't need to watch them to figure it out. Now, is there some small chance that I would? I suppose, but when there are all those great noir films I want to catch up on and the rest of my life to lead, I'm comfortable dismissing the Julia Stiles flicks.

Re: criticism

While some critiques serve as intellectual discussion points and the like, most don't. What a lot of people here don't seem to realise is that the latter type of criticism can be a lot of fun to read. Where's the fun in reading constant praise? A good writer can come up with some clever things. Haven't you ever seen an insult comic? It's just usually not a good idea to take that stuff seriously, but it's still a pleasant way to spend 4 minutes- for some people. Some folks like watching a Julia Stiles movies, and some like to read funny reviews that bash it. Why begrudge peolpe of their choice of entertainment?

 

[Darren H]

Last night, I saw ads for two films that fit the bill, and I thought of this thread: Save the Last Dance and Serendipity. There is no chance in hell that someone like me could like those two movies. I don't need to watch them to figure it out. Now, is there some small chance that I would? I suppose, but when there are all those great noir films I want to catch up on and the rest of my life to lead, I'm comfortable dismissing the Julia Stiles flicks.

Amen, Brother Mike. I have a busy life that leaves me precious little time each week to spend watching/studying films. By the same token, why would I choose to watch a film that I almost definitely won't like when there are so many highly reputed classic and foreign films that I have yet to see?

 

[Jason Seaver]

Last night, I saw ads for two films that fit the bill, and I thought of this thread: Save the Last Dance and Serendipity. There is no chance in hell that someone like me could like those two movies.

It's too bad you're dismissing Serendipityout of hand, because it's actually a pretty good movie. But, anyway, I'm fairly sure that such an absolutist attitude does the person holding it more harm than good.

I've got friends who are just as certain that they won't like any non-English language film. It's a ridiculous attitude, it kept them from seeing Brotherhood Of The Wolf, which I'm sure they would have loved, etc. They do, at least, acknowledge that there's an outside chance that they'd like it, but that they consider it a bad risk.

What gets me about the whole anti-critic attitude is the way people seem to reject the very idea that someone can have an expert opinion. On-line, I see a lot of people dismissing all reviews out of hand as "just someone's opinion", as if all opinions are created equal. Or, worse, as if the critic/reviewer's greater knowledge of film history and mechanics, and just the fact that he or she has seen more movies, makes him or her less qualified to offer an opinion, because it means he or she "can't just enjoy a movie".

Which seems silly to me; if you're not going to see everything (which is nigh-impossible to do), it seems like it would make more sense to base your filter on people who can present a reasoned argument for a movie's quality than on little more than advertising.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

It's too bad you're dismissing Serendipityout of hand, because it's actually a pretty good movie. But, anyway, I'm fairly sure that such an absolutist attitude does the person holding it more harm than good.

Depends what that attitude is about. No one ever got harmed or hurt by not seeing a movie(unless it is one of those air-line safety movies at the beggining of a flight and there is an accident).

 

[Dome Vongvises]

David Echo says:

I posted to the Star Wars Thread (200+ page sucker) where I posed the question "Are some SW fans so taken with the SW Universe / setting that they are perhaps blindly accepting of anything bearing the SW logo?" A fair question I think and one worthy of being as least acknowleged by someone on a SW DISCUSSION thread. But nope, nada, nothing. Not one response. Last I checked they were yapping about music cues and wondering where Terrell is (Where IS he btw?)

I can at least vouch for myself: no. There's no way in hell I'm going to buy Star Wars pantyhose. Don't want 'em, don't need em'.
I'll be back to post my big thought of the day on this thread.

 

[Holadem]

First, regarding that other thread, it seemed that the problem was not the thread itself, but those who didn't like it, and bashed the thread, without adding anything positive (I'm not sure why in that case, it wasn't considered thread-farting ).

Because many of the most prominent members of this forum whose opinions are respected by all (including me) did not like the thread in question. This is what is so hard to understand: Attacking a movie that is generally acknowledged as great will subject you to a barrage of generally well written posts that will, in a very subtle way, make you feel like a freaking idiot for not knowing how to appreciate the goddamn classic.
One does not always have to detail and analyse why they did not like a movie. Saying 2001 sucks because it is looooong and boooooring (an opinion I used to share until I saw it on the big screen) is a perfectly valid statement of opinion about a movie. There is very little to analyse there. You have it all in those two words.
Is much easier to profess your love for a movie that everyone loathes than to profess your dislike for a movie that everyone loves. Doing the latter is significantyy more intimidating for the reasons above, hence the purpose of that thread which was to vent. You don't vent about how much you love a movie. And when you vent, you do not wish to hear anything else. Certainly, ONE (1) thread could have allowed that. That thread was constructive, I read MANY interesting opinions about movies I loved. People who could not bear the negative criticism without being able to resist the itch to respond to it got offfended, and the thread got closed under the pretext of Forum rules. That is sad.
--
Holadem