Why "Quality" Is Overrated

@Lord Gro: The equivalence of the statements "I think X" and "X" is one of the points Wittgenstein makes in the Tractatus, though I'm not sure if the point is explicitely stated. However, it's also one of the points Wittgenstein amends in the Investigations. While in logical evaluation of language (the subject of the Tractatus) the two statements are equivalent, in every day language as social interaction (the subject of much of the Investigations) the two statements are indeed different: "I think X" acknowledges the possibility that someone else might "think not X", whereas "X" doesn't acknowledge it. The difference in the two statements has no bearing on the validity of the argument. It's just a matter of courtesy, and courtesy has value to most people.

@The Sollerod Fascist: It's a general issue not directly relevant to this discussion, but your posts are - at least to me - impossible to understand. It's clear that you are familiar with a lot of cinema, but all of your thoughts seem half-finished.

@Fresison: I would argue that even the constituent parts of the quality of a work are ultimately subjective. There's no law of nature that says that a certain structure of pacing, a certain narrative structure or certain framing is "right". There is, however, quite far reaching consensus on those subjects: most people seem to think that a story where the pacing of scenes matches the narrative tension, and where that narrative tension follows a pattern from low (establishment of characters and situation), through high (escalation of conflict) to low again (resolution), just works better than a story where there is no connection between pacing and tension. While the degree of intersubjectivity on things like pacing, framing and narrative structure makes those things important, it doens't make them objective.

@Extreme 64: I dont see a lot of critics claiming anyone who disagrees with their judgement is wrong. They do present reasoning for their judgement, and that may seem to you like they're condemning their detractors, especially when they don't preface their judgement with a disclaimer that their judgement is their opinion. That, however, is your problem. Within the context of a critical review, there is a convention that reader and writer agree that "X" and "I think X" are equivalent. There is no need for critics to constantly spell out that convention, as it should go without saying. Critics analyse what makes a film work, or what keeps it from working. There's a lot about Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen that keeps it from working. If you like it regardless that's fine, but if you want to argue that it does work, you'll have to show how it does, and people may not agree with you reasoning.

Thinking you're right is a long way away from forcing others to adopt you beliefs, and suggesting one leads to the other is one of the best examples of a slippery slope fallacy I've ever seen. I think Citizen Kane is a better film than Transformers: revenge of the Fallen, and if you disagree with me, I think you're wrong. That doesn't mean I'll come to your house and smash your stuff if you don't change your mind. If you think it does you realy need to get a sense of perspective.

I honestly don't see how even caustic criticism should make anyone feel either superior or inferior. Some films are mindless drivel, but enjoying them doesn't make you a bad person, nor does disliking them make you a good person. And disliking films which I think are brilliant doesn't make you a bad person any more than liking them makes you a good person. People disagree on stuff, and that's a good thing. A worldwide consensus on everything would be damned boring. People deserve respect, and things go terribly wrong where people's personal integrity isn't respected, but within the context of a discussion, your ideas, convictions or judgements do not deserve respect at all. If people don't want to disagree with other people about movies, then they shouldn't discuss movies.

@The thread in general: It seems to me that critical analysis of art has only very limited predictive value when it comes to enjoyment, but it has far greater predictive value about psychological, artistic and social significance. Citizen Kane is still being watched. It changed the way films are made. People still talk about it. Having seen and analysed it still changes the way you perceive other films. Transformers: revenge of the Fallen? I don't expect a lot of people to still be talking about that ten years from now.

I just wanted to add that while Fresison's comment on Kermode is right, there is also the other point that Kermode made in his argument that I thought was interesting: critics are more useful in drawing attention to "good" movies than preventing people from seeing "bad" ones. In other words, movie-goers ignore critics when they say a movie is bad while they listen when they say a movie is good. Your Mileage May Vary on whether that's right or not.

@ Akagikiba: I usually read the comments made by the critic in my local newspaper (I really wouldn't describe him as snooty or harsh). It's mostly just to find out what the most recent movies are about, though. The only time I tend to ignore the criticism is when I'm tagging along with my friends, although that happens a lot.

I think Fresison was probably talking about things like the quality of the plot/script or acting. If the quality of parts of a film were subjective, I doubt people would go to film school or acting school to learn how to do their job well.

edited 27th Feb '12 3:21:15 PM by shiro_okami

Those aren't objective either, though again there is a large degree of intersubjectivity. We like what we like because of our point of view, but our points of view are all reasonably similar. There is acting that's generally more appreciated than other acting, and mastering acting as it is appreciated is a valuable skill, so people are willing to invest time and money into it. It still doesn't make it "objective quality".

Well, I often work off of a stream-of-consciousness. If it's gibberish and I look like an idiot, then at least I'm not dead.

In other words you're saying that quality is subjective and depends on opinion, but in the quality of some things almost everyone has the same opinion, while in the quality of other things, everyone has different opinions?

edited 27th Feb '12 3:31:36 PM by shiro_okami

Well, to be precise I believe that there are some aspects of art, at least within the context of a genre or medium, on which at least a significant number of people have the same opinion. They don't have to be the majority, but they do have to have at least the numbers to support the production of art that conforms to their opinion.

There may even be certain aspects of art that have various competing significant opinions, like figurative vs. abstract art.

But I think you indeed got my point.

But what makes a film work is also subjective. Some of us can justly argue that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen does work, because all it wanted to be is a huge explosion film, and it did just that. Some of us can justly argue that it doesn't work, because they don't think explosions can hold a movie. Both of these arguments are opinions.

...and this is exactly the mindset I'm talking about. Some of us find Citizen Kane boring, and some of us find Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen exciting. Why are we wrong? The only argument you could have is based on opinions. It's an opinion that Citizen Kane is boring. It's an opinion that Revenge of the Fallen is exciting. It's an opinion on what works in a film and what doesn't. And it's an opinion whether one finds one film better than another.

What makes us feel superior or inferior is the motion that what is mindless drivel or what is brilliant is set in stone, and therefore what films we like clearly make us feel better about ourselves. If one likes a film he KNOWS is objectively brilliant, then he feels that people who watch nothing but mindless drivel are inferior. I agree that disagreement is a good thing, but what we should disagree on is what opinions we have, not what's objectively good and bad.

The fact of the matter is that we're still talking about it three years after it came out. Quite honestly, I see far fewer people talking about The Hurt Locker, the alleged "Best Picture" of that year.

edited 27th Feb '12 4:10:13 PM by Extreme64

I suppose that makes sense, but what about the quality of effort? Some screenwriters, actors, and others put more effort into their work or are more experienced than others; would not quality be objective in that type of situation?

edited 27th Feb '12 4:52:38 PM by shiro_okami

@Shiro: I don't think so because effort can go to waste. A guy can chisel away at a movie script for years and years but if he doesn't understand basic writing and never seeks to improve his craft, those years and years will produce garbage.

Perhaps I used the wrong word then. What about the quality of skill?

.....What? Is there really such a thing as "explosion standards"?

edited 27th Feb '12 5:29:37 PM by shiro_okami

Again, opinions. Some people thought the non-explosion time wasn't painful, or that there were an adequate amount of explosions. It's all opinions.

edited 27th Feb '12 5:29:01 PM by Extreme64

I once watched this PBS special about the science of music. It came to a part where listeners listening to Beethoven were excited by the complexity of the music compared to Mozart (lol@Mozart). The show went on to explain that there is an underlying complexity to music that could be considered "objective quality".

I figure films are the same way, being products of art like music.

^^ Yes, but I think it's important to remember that this isn't just a disagreement between the "movies should be art" vs. "movies should be escapism" crowd. People who want escapism can still have standards about what they watch.

Even if those standards are just more opinions.

That's true. I don't disagree with that.

Yes, they're all opinions, and they're even both widely held opinions, but the people who like spectacular effects don't need critical analysis of a work to have a reasonable expectation of their enjoyment of it. They can just watch the trailer and read a review that says that the effects are spectacular, and they know they're going to have a good time. The viewers who want a story with an engaging narrative structure, interesting characters, compelling dialogue and balanced pacing can't get the information they need just from trailers.

I'm not disagreeing with you here. However, the opinion that Rot F is a good film because it's exciting because of the spectacular effects doesn't require a lot of argumentation. Either you agree with the premisse that spectacular effects make for a good film, or you don't. And disliking Citizen Kane because it's slow and not at all spectacular doesn't require much argumentation either. Liking or disliking a film because of it's narrative structure, it's pacing or the motivations and characteristics of it's main characters does require quite a bit of argumentation, and that's what critics and film scholars do.

Nobody's forcing you to enjoy Citizen Kane, or forbidding you to enjoy Rot F, and if you want to argue that Rot F is a good film because it's exciting and spectacular that's also fine, but a lot of people don't agree that excitement and spectacle make a good film. A lot of people think that Rot F is a very bad film, because it's narrative structure is a mess, the characters are charicatures we're still expected to invest in emotionally, the attemts at humor are adolescent at best, and all the opportunities for drama are smothered with the next helping of fanservice or giant robot curb stomp battles. You don't agree? Fine. And if you want to talk to people about how great Rot F is, also fine, but then you'll just have to find some people who agree with you. There's plenty of those around. TV Tropes, or any other place where films are discussed even marginally criticly, is not a place where you'll find a group consensus that Rot F is a great film. Some people enjoy it, some don't. Very few would argue that Rot F is a good film, and those who do should not expect to go unchallenged.

But I'm not arguing that what is mindless drivel and what is brilliant is set in stone. I'm arguing that there are opinions on some aspects of film that are agreed upon by enough people over a long enough period of time to justify treating them as more important than some other opinions. There are also opinions that are so simply visceral that they don't merit discussion. The question of what makes a financially succesful movie is interesting financially, but that's about it. The question of what makes a structurally succesful movie is interesting historically, socially, intellectually etc. It's not a question of one side being right and the other being wrong. It's a question of one side being interesting, and the other being boring.

We're discussing The Dark Knight - which was received very well - a lot more than we do Rot F. Rot F is usually talked about as an example of a terrible film. If it is discussed at all, it is usually by discussing all the ways it fails, structurally. And that's because when it comes to the things the film does right, there's just not a whole lot to discuss. Yes, it looks good, yes, Megan Fox is hot, yes, giant robo-battles are awesome. Discussion over.

You can discuss how Forrest Gump or The Shawshank Redemption or Citizen Kane or The Dark Knight changed the way you look at film, or how they changed the films that came after them. With a film like Rot F, you can't really discuss those things, because whether you liked excitement and spectacle won't have changed after watching this film, and the only way Rot F has influenced later films is by negative example.

This whole argument reeks of the exact mindset I've been trying to counter. You're talking about Revenge of the Fallen as if it's an objectively bad movie, and that whoever thinks it's good is wrong. On the flip side, you're talking as if Dark Knight or Citizen Kane or whatever as if they are objectively good movies, and whoever thinks they're bad is wrong. I'm not talking about just enjoying these films or their merit: I'm talking about what people think of them as movies.

I figure no matter what I say in this manner will let you see what I'm saying, so I'll do it this way. An analysis of The Dark Knight and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and how they either changed one's view of film or how they didn't. Maybe this way you can see that no matter what you say about these films, no matter how good or bad in terms of objective quality you think they are, there's someone out there who disagrees with you, and they're no more wrong than anyone else. BTW, don't pick apart these arguments. Some of this I don't agree with, I'm just making a point,

Analysis on Dark Knight: It's overly dark, it doesn't feel like a superhero film and instead feels more like a crime/mobster film, ironic considering Batman is one of the most iconic superheroes ever, and yes, people continue to love kissing Christopher Nolan's ass. Discussion over. (OOC: In all seriousness, I actually do like The Dark Knight, although I don't think it's amazing or anything. I'm just showing you what someone else might think)

Analysis on Transformers Revenge of the Fallen: This film proved to the world that with a talented action director and a great special effects team, you can create something truly memorable. It made me realize just what special effects can do. Things that were beforehand not possible to conceive visually now can be brought to life. The action was simply incredible, and Michael Bay put way more effort into that and the visuals than most other directors would. It's truly exciting to see such passion put into these fights and these effects. Other directors would use merely greenscreen or CGI as much as possible, but Michael Bay put effort into using as many practical effects as he could, and everything that didn't have to be done by computers was not done by computers. This makes everything seem more alive. While many others may hate this film due to the allegedly bad characters or plot, well, in all honesty, this was based on a cartoon, based on children's toys. Did you expect groundbreaking characters or plot? And who goes to a Transformers film for the characters or plot? Not to say there were no characters or plot. You could see just how much Optimus Prime wanted to defend humanity, and how far he would go trying to save just one human, even giving his own life. Bumblebee was a valiant guardsman, watching over Sam and helping him no matter the cost. Megatron was hellbent to bring the Cybertronians life again, and he would do anything to keep it so, even destroy innocent planets for energon. These may seem one dimensional, but their personalities are varied, which clearly means some characterization was put in there. Besides, the whole thing is meant to sell toys: it's amazing they put in as much characterization as they did. And it's even more amazing how much effort and passion was put into the action scenes and the CGI. This could've been a mediocre or forgettable film, but instead millions around the world embrace the Transformers and all they represent, many of which have become fans due to this film series. I'll be remembering this film for years to come.

See what I did there? I discussed a bunch about this apparently shallow film that will not bring any discussion whatsoever. There's a lot more one could say, too. Do you see now that perhaps there are people out there who DO find the Transformers films groundbreaking and memorable? How are they wrong? It's all opinions. And no one opinion is more right than any other. They're no more wrong than you are for finding it mindless drivel.

edited 27th Feb '12 6:20:39 PM by Extreme64

Either Zeldenrust or Extreme 64, answer me this: is the quality of the SKILL of movie-makers (writers, directors, actors) subjective or objective?

@ Extreme 64: The whole reason I thought The Dark Knight was so good was BECAUSE it didn't feel like a superhero movie.

That's exactly why a few people don't like it. Batman IS a superhero, after all. Again though, I was just trying to make a point. I DO like Dark Knight, don't get me wrong. And I think skill is subjective, too.

edited 27th Feb '12 6:48:03 PM by Extreme64

So, it is okay to lol at Mozart? Yeah, but only if your name is Antonio Salieri and you are in the film (or play), "Amadeus". Otherwise, no. Not for me anyway, that is like spitting in the face of something I cannot call god as I do not believe, but something profound in its own way.

This whole argument reeks of the exact mindset I've been trying to counter.

Of course it does, I disagree with you.

I'm not claiming that Citizen Kane is objectively a better film than Revenge of the Fallen. It's my opinion, and different opinions aren't wrong in any objective sense, but I do disagree with them. If, within the context of a critical discussion like we're having, I state that it is incorrect that Rot F is a better film than Citizen Kane, it goes without saying that this is my opinion and not a claim of knowledge of some objective truth, just like it goes without saying that what I think a critical discussion should be differs from your view, but I do not dispute you the right to hold that differing opinion. I do think you're wrong.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree.

Your analysis of The Dark Knight raises a few points but doesn't argue them. The value judgements underlying your analysis - too dark/too light, faithfulness to the genre and source material - are things you can argue about. It requires argumentation.

Your analysis of Rot F argues it's points, but they're not points about the quality of the film, except your opinion that it looks very spectacular, with which pretty much anyone will agree.

It's interesting to discuss The Dark Knight, because you can like or dislike many different things about it, and a lot of those things require some argumentation of why you like or dislike them. It isn't interesting to discuss Rot F, at least in a positive light, because there are really only a few reasons for liking it, and none of those reasons require any discussion.

That's the problem: it can't bring any discussion. The argumentation for your judgement is self-evident, so it doesn't need critical analysis or review. People who base their value judgements on these criteria don't need to read reviews, they just need to watch the trailer. These opinions don't merit discussion, because there's nothing to discuss.

I know there are people who think Rot F is great. And they think that I'm wrong because I think Rot F is shit. They may even think I'm a pretentious, elitist prick because I think that. That's all fine. Just as it's fine that I think they are wrong. And because this is a critical discussion, saying "I think they're wrong" is equivalent to saying "they're wrong".

I don't think any less of anyone for thinking Rot F is a great film. I just wouldn't want to go to the movies with them, because one of us is not going the movie we're seeing.

Of course it's subjective.

But to think that even something like skill is subjective, to take that idea to its logical conclusion, wouldn't that be the same as questioning the entire movie-making process both past and present? Such an idea would imply that what is good/bad writing and acting today could be the exact reverse a century from now, and that film and acting school may just as well be useless, or at the very least are only teaching opinions on what is correct that could change in any era. Is that what you two are trying to say? I can't think of any other way such an argument could make any sense.

edited 27th Feb '12 7:48:02 PM by shiro_okami

Sorry, should have worded that better. I meant that this film that you said is unable to bring any discussion I just wrote a long response to that could bring lots of discussion. Yeah, I didn't word it well, but I'm tired.

Honestly, I'm getting stressed out from replying to this thread, so I'm going to take a break from it for a bit. Feel free to continue discussion with each other.

Subjective doesn't equal worthless, much the opposite. The fact that it has worth means that it must be subjective. What's considered good acting has changed over time, as has what is considered good writing. Aristotl would've hated The Godfather, and not because Sonny used the Force to punch Carlo.

There is enough consensus and continuity in both the popular and critical opionions on art that being versed in those opinions is worth something, worth investing time, money and effort.

The skill to create appreciated works of art again isn't objective, but it's appreciation is still intersubjective enough to have real economic value, and real emotional value as well. Value, not Truth.