Joker (2019)
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.Vader182 wrote: ↑September 10th, 2019, 9:15 pmokay, 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
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.
Lmfao. Owned.Vader182 wrote: ↑September 10th, 2019, 9:15 pmokay, 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
Posts: 4794
Joined:
January 2012
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.Skyab23 wrote: ↑September 10th, 2019, 9:34 pmArt 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.
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.Batfan175 wrote: ↑September 10th, 2019, 9:56 pmA 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.Skyab23 wrote: ↑September 10th, 2019, 9:34 pmArt 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.
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.
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: 177
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?
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?
What are objective elements y'all whippersnappers look for in a review these days?
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
where is all this "objectivity"
-Vader