Joker (2019)

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
User avatar
Posts: 3014
Joined: November 2011
Location: North Carolina
Vader182 wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 7:51 pm
Skyab23 wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 7:16 pm
RT score is slowly falling--at 81% as of this message. Interesting to consider if the biases of North American critics are persuading their opinion of the film considering it was much more highly received in Venice.
All we bring to movies are biases. The only difference is which ones.


-Vader
If critics cannot be objective in their analysis of a film then why should anyone put stock in their opinions?

User avatar
Posts: 19912
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Skyab23 wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 8:16 pm

If critics cannot be objective in their analysis of a film then why should anyone put stock in their opinions?
okay, a few things here.

1.) you can't be "objective" while you have an "opinion" as those are mutually exclusive.
2.) if you find a human being actually capable of objectivity lemme know, let's crown them a new deity.
3.) you imply the only opinions of "stock" are those which are "objective" but as explained above, this is impossible, and therefore no opinions are of "stock"

so i guess by your definition, you should not only not take stock in the opinions of critics, but the opinions of anyone. Sadly, this also includes you as you are not "objective" either being a non-god like the rest of us.

Anyhow, the role of critics are twofold. first, to communicate their subjective experience expressed through an informed point of view as a bridge between a work of art and the public. The second role is to deepen understanding.

EDIT: also, in the spirit of staying on topic, the reactions by Brian Tellerico and Mike Ryan come close to perfectly catalyzing my fears about this project from the start. No clue where I'll land on it, but i am curious.


-Vader

User avatar
Posts: 3014
Joined: November 2011
Location: North Carolina
Vader182 wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 9:15 pm
Skyab23 wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 8:16 pm

If critics cannot be objective in their analysis of a film then why should anyone put stock in their opinions?
okay, a few things here.

1.) you can't be "objective" while you have an "opinion" as those are mutually exclusive.
2.) if you find a human being actually capable of objectivity lemme know, let's crown them a new deity.
3.) you imply the only opinions of "stock" are those which are "objective" but as explained above, this is impossible, and therefore no opinions are of "stock"

so i guess by your definition, you should not only not take stock in the opinions of critics, but the opinions of anyone. Sadly, this also includes you as you are not "objective" either being a non-god like the rest of us.

Anyhow, the role of critics are twofold. first, to communicate their subjective experience expressed through an informed point of view as a bridge between a work of art and the public. The second role is to deepen understanding.

EDIT: also, in the spirit of staying on topic, the reactions by Brian Tellerico and Mike Ryan come close to perfectly catalyzing my fears about this project from the start. No clue where I'll land on it, but i am curious.


-Vader
Art is subjective but to imply that one cannot be objective about anything is incorrect. A film critic is meant to judge the merits of the film based on the quality of the filmmaking, not based on their social or political views.

For instance, consider the difference between a reporter and a commentator. If I want the straight facts or at the very least a more objective analysis of a story, I read a reporter's take. If I want an opinion then I will read an editorial. According to you however, there is no difference between a reporter and a commentator because everyone is so clouded by their bias.

User avatar
Posts: 42742
Joined: May 2010
Vader182 wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 9:15 pm
Skyab23 wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 8:16 pm

If critics cannot be objective in their analysis of a film then why should anyone put stock in their opinions?
okay, a few things here.

1.) you can't be "objective" while you have an "opinion" as those are mutually exclusive.
2.) if you find a human being actually capable of objectivity lemme know, let's crown them a new deity.
3.) you imply the only opinions of "stock" are those which are "objective" but as explained above, this is impossible, and therefore no opinions are of "stock"

so i guess by your definition, you should not only not take stock in the opinions of critics, but the opinions of anyone. Sadly, this also includes you as you are not "objective" either being a non-god like the rest of us.

Anyhow, the role of critics are twofold. first, to communicate their subjective experience expressed through an informed point of view as a bridge between a work of art and the public. The second role is to deepen understanding.

EDIT: also, in the spirit of staying on topic, the reactions by Brian Tellerico and Mike Ryan come close to perfectly catalyzing my fears about this project from the start. No clue where I'll land on it, but i am curious.


-Vader
Lmfao. Owned.

Posts: 4445
Joined: January 2012
Skyab23 wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 9:34 pm
Art is subjective but to imply that one cannot be objective about anything is incorrect. A film critic is meant to judge the merits of the film based on the quality of the filmmaking, not based on their social or political views.

For instance, consider the difference between a reporter and a commentator. If I want the straight facts or at the very least a more objective analysis of a story, I read a reporter's take. If I want an opinion then I will read an editorial. According to you however, there is no difference between a reporter and a commentator because everyone is so clouded by their bias.
A film critic tells you whether a film worked for them or not. All they can give you is a subjective opinion. If the critic feels that the political message of a film is terrible and/or harmful that will of course make it into their review. All I expect from a film critic is understanding of the History of cinema and of the various aspects of filmmaking. But yeah, I don't expect them to entirely and at all times remove their own personal political opinions from the equation.

User avatar
Posts: 3014
Joined: November 2011
Location: North Carolina
Batfan175 wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 9:56 pm
Skyab23 wrote:
September 10th, 2019, 9:34 pm
Art is subjective but to imply that one cannot be objective about anything is incorrect. A film critic is meant to judge the merits of the film based on the quality of the filmmaking, not based on their social or political views.

For instance, consider the difference between a reporter and a commentator. If I want the straight facts or at the very least a more objective analysis of a story, I read a reporter's take. If I want an opinion then I will read an editorial. According to you however, there is no difference between a reporter and a commentator because everyone is so clouded by their bias.
A film critic tells you whether a film worked for them or not. All they can give you is a subjective opinion. If the critic feels that the political message of a film is terrible and/or harmful that will of course make it into their review. All I expect from a film critic is understanding of the History of cinema and of the various aspects of filmmaking. But yeah, I don't expect them to entirely and at all times remove their own personal political opinions from the equation.
Yes, but their job is to TRY to be objective in their analysis. Many of these reviews, even without having seen the film, come across to me as editorialized instead of an actual analysis of the merits of the filmmaking.

User avatar
Posts: 9187
Joined: August 2009
I mean you can be objective and make observations about the lighting, framing, cinematography etc. but critics also have a right to express their personal feelings when talking about a work or express their fears or their desires when it comes to what they want or don't want the work to achieve.

If you ask a friend about a new restaurant they ate at, they might say "the food is good and came out on time, but I also got heartburn." Now you may not get heartburn but they felt the need to tell you this because it is was a big part of their experience.

It's the same thing with criticism of art. Critics relay their experience to you. You may or may not have the same experience but you get some sort of guide as to what to expect.

Fuck I'm getting too serious. Must. Resist. Making. Society. Joke. Help.

Posts: 172
Joined: July 2011
I would hope that a professional film critic is capable of delivering an objective review of a film. Maybe not entirely objective, but still plenty objective.

Unless the argument is that there is no such thing as true objectivity, because of the cosmos and human limitations etc. etc. If so, is that really an appropriate extreme to bring into the conversation?

User avatar
Posts: 9187
Joined: August 2009
What are objective elements y'all whippersnappers look for in a review these days?

User avatar
Posts: 19912
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
but determining whether the cinematography, editing, story, structure, aesthetic and so on are good or bad are equally as subjective as anything else so..?

where is all this "objectivity"


-Vader

Post Reply