Is film subjective?

[DDK]

I have this argument a lot.

I feel that you can like whatever you want, but liking it doesn't make it good or bad. What makes a movie good or bad is determined by a set of commonly understood artistic principles. Yes, movies that distort or manipulate these principles can be good and to be great I think it's a requirement that a film do exactly that, but I also think it's a matter of knowing the rules first in order to know how to break them.

It always irks me when someone says something like, "That was a great movie, I loved it!" when in fact it was a predictable, unimaginative, formulaic piece of tripe that just happened to be quite enjoyable to watch since formulas work... otherwise they wouldn't exist in the first place.

Art is subjective, artistry is not. At least, that's how it is in my opinion. What's your opinion?

 

[Zensteve]

It always irks me when someone says something like, "That was a great movie, I loved it!" when in fact it was a predictable, unimaginative, formulaic piece of tripe that just happened to be quite enjoyable

You worry too much about what other people like.

.

 

[DDK]

You worry too much about what other people like.

Lol.

If you ever have the misfortune of getting to know me, you'll find out why your statement is so hilarious.

 

[Cracker Funk]

OF COURSE it's 100% subjective, this is a silly question. I don't think you understand the difference between subjective and objective.

 

[jax_rox]

Whilst films can have relatively objectively great artistry (ie: great cinematography, great production design etc.), all the artistry combines to create a work of art that is completely subjective. Of course the artistry is subjective as well, but seemingly less so as people are generally able to appreciate great artistry even if they didn't like the work of art.

I think it comes down to what Soderbergh recently spoke about in the diffference between cinema and film.
Do you want a commercially successful film that may not be artistically amazing, or an artistically amazing film that may not be commercially succesful? Of course there's room for crossover, and there should be crossover, but the two can be exclusive of each other.

And then - is a commercially successful film that's not necessarily artistically amazing a bad film even though there are enough people who love it enough and go see it enough to make it a commercial success?

 

[JoshL]

I think (and I say this often enough that I'm sure most people are sick of hearing it from me!) that taste and quality are two entirely different discussions. You can have the knowledge to make objective judgements about film (or music, or any artform, really). But that doesn't mean that everything you like has to be good, or that you have to like everything that IS good. I like good films (I'm a huge fan of Bergman, for example). I also happen to like bad films (most horror and/or fantasy films. They happen to be my favorite two genres, but rarely are the films good). I think the Cohen Brothers make excellent, well done, top-tier films...however, I rarely like them.

The discussions between taste and quality can certainly inform one another, but they shouldn't be the same thing. And keeping them apart in your head eliminates the need for "guilty pleasures"...you just like stuff.

Related note: I do believe formative pop culture experiences have more influence on the crap that we like, rather than the good stuff. For example, in music, I can appreciate good music from any era, but the bad music I like tends towards the 80s (and styles developed in the 80s), because that's when I really started listening to and exploring music. It's not strictly nostalgia, but maybe a nostalgic appreciation for certain styles. Concrete example: I didn't discover Haysi Fantayzee until the late 90s, so I have no nostalgic connection to the song "Shiny Shiny", but it stylistically resonates with stuff I DO have nostalgia for. Not a particularly great song...but I think it's AWESOME.

 

[danosongs]

You know I wish I could say that film is completely subjective, but I am amazed that I actually tend to agree with critics and or users on rotten tomatoes.

Since I got netflix I watch many, many "B" movies that I have never seen even a trailer for, so I always check the reviews before wasting my time.

So there must be some general guidelines in the mass-consciousness that make something good or not, at least for me. I can't tell you what they are, but I know that producers and executives have lots of mental check lists when rating potential scripts.

There are many outlier reviews on rotten tomatoes and so of course there is lots of subjectivity.

 

[mus]

Film is completely subjective, which is often my basis for my argument that film critics and internet ratings are totally worthless. It's like shaking a magic 8-ball to determine if a movie is "good."

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

"Film" is neither subjective nor objective. It simply is.

"Good" and "Bad" as descriptors of a particular film are always subjective at the most basic level ("I liked/hated that film"). They can be made objective through a commonly agreed upon set of standards by which to judge various aspects of a given film - but such a judgement is only valid within the group that has agreed on those standards.

It always irks me when someone says something like, "That was a great movie, I loved it!" when in fact it was a predictable, unimaginative, formulaic piece of tripe that just happened to be quite enjoyable to watch since formulas work...

You've essentially described the type of commonly agreed upon standard I'm talking about. You may not agree with that standard, but clearly a lot of people do - which is why it's become a formula. Quite a few people want something predictable when they watch a film, and when they get that it's a 'great' film to them. Just because you don't agree with that standard doesn't make them wrong.

What makes a movie good or bad is determined by a set of commonly understood artistic principles.

The mistake you're making is assuming there is only a single set of agreed-upon artistic principles, or at least only a single 'right' set. This has never been the case though - in fact the history of art is one of new artists doing something which is completely out of sync with the currently agreed set of principles, gradually becoming accepted, then dominant, only to be disrupted by the next new movement. It's no different in film than in any other artistic medium, and it's likely that whatever set of artistic principles you currently take for granted as correct was once thought of as completely inappropriate.

 

[DDK]

The mistake you're making is assuming there is only a single set of agreed-upon artistic principles, or at least only a single 'right' set. This has never been the case though - in fact the history of art is one of new artists doing something which is completely out of sync with the currently agreed set of principles, gradually becoming accepted, then dominant, only to be disrupted by the next new movement. It's no different in film than in any other artistic medium, and it's likely that whatever set of artistic principles you currently take for granted as correct was once thought of as completely inappropriate.

I think this comes back to the "gotta know the rules in order to know how to break them" philosophy. So it's not that someone is doing something radically different so much as it is someone who knows what's commonly accepted as 'good', who understands the artistic principles behind those standards, and who can manipulate, distort or in some way artistically reinterpret those principles to create something worthy of attention.

I don't have enough art-history knowledge to make a solid conclusion on that basis but I'd be willing to bet that anyone who has changed the paradigm has been someone who has been exceptional in the established methods already. Has there ever been anyone who has made such a fundamental impact on film, or art in general, that hasn't had any formal or even informal training and a high skill level already?

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

Sure - but training isn't relevant. My point is what is 'commonly accepted as good' then changes based on the work of these new artists. So splattered paint wasn't considered good art until after Jackson Pollack made it part of the mainstream art world. "Pop Art" wasn't until Warhol forced people to consider it as such. So the rules change with time as people break them in ways that expand them.

More importantly though - decades later you can still find people who would argue against either Warhol or Pollack as 'good' artists. Because the rules aren't really rules, they're just something that a lot of people seem to agree with at a given time - and different groups of people will agree to different rules simultaneously.

And these 'rules' aren't independent of context or genre - so that a rock historian may be able to tell you why one early punk band was considered 'great', while a classical music enthusiast might not even consider any of them real musicians. Does that mean that one of them is wrong? Or simply that they are each correct only within the context of the particular rule set they have chosen to work within?

 

[Cracker Funk]

Seriously, y'all. Objectivity is something that is rarely/barely even achieved in science, yet some of you think it exists in art?!

Okay, so yeah it's pretty easy to tell the difference between the extremely high level of craft that goes into a movie like Avengers, vs the average youtube video. So, compare those two extremes and you might think you're being objective. But then try to draw the line between them. At exactly what point does cinematography officially become recognized as "good"?

It's a ridiculous question. Who is anyone to think that they possess so much knowledge that they know exactly where to draw the line between "good" and "bad"?

"Good" and "Bad" as descriptors of a particular film are always subjective at the most basic level ("I liked/hated that film"). They can be made objective through a commonly agreed upon set of standards by which to judge various aspects of a given film - but such a judgement is only valid within the group that has agreed on those standards.

IDOM has nailed it. So, when you're talking to your friends/colleagues, people who you know follow the same standards as you, then I guess there might be a little bit of an illusion of objectivity. But outside of your tiny circle, there are ZERO agreed-upon standards or benchmarks.

In fact, some people might argue that art is DEFINED by the fact that it knows no boundaries, follows no rules.

 

[DDK]

Because the rules aren't really rules, they're just something that a lot of people seem to agree with at a given time - and different groups of people will agree to different rules simultaneously.

And who are these people? The masses? Or are they people who know what they're talking about? And if they know what they're talking about, what exactly is it that they 'know'?

And these 'rules' aren't independent of context or genre - so that a rock historian may be able to tell you why one early punk band was considered 'great', while a classical music enthusiast might not even consider any of them real musicians. Does that mean that one of them is wrong? Or simply that they are each correct only within the context of the particular rule set they have chosen to work within? And

I think you're breaking it down too far. Dissonance, for example, would qualify as bad music wouldn't it? Flashbacks and poorly (if it's poor, then there's automatically a reason why it's poor that isn't subjective) executed exposition, lens flares, camera's pointing in the wrong direction, boom mikes in the scene, etc.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Dissonance, for example, would qualify as bad music wouldn't it?

Uhh, NO. Dissonance is, and always has been, an integral component of WESTERN music. Pretty much everything, from Bach to Timberlake, uses a great deal of dissonance.

I emphasize "Western" because that's obviously not the only type of music out there (though they're all bleeding together nowadays). Listen to this shit. By our Western standards, it's barely recognizable as music. What time-signature is this?! What key are they in?! Do they even use chords?!

Yes. Yes, they DO use chords, just not the ones you and I have accepted as even existing. Their musical key isn't even slightly similar to ours. To us, it sounds weird. To them, it sounds perfectly natural.

ART. IS. SUBJECTIVE.

 

[jax_rox]

Flashbacks and poorly (if it's poor, then there's automatically a reason why it's poor that isn't subjective) executed exposition, lens flares, camera's pointing in the wrong direction, boom mikes in the scene, etc.

-Flashbacks are used all the time. The fact that you don't like flashbacks being used doesn't mean it's necessarily bad or poor.
-Lens flares are used all the time for effect, especially in anamorphic movies. They are often deliberately put there.

Check out David Lynch's Inland Empire. There's no discernible plot, there's strange exposure and framing choices, there's all sorts of weird/awful/crappy things. Some people absolutely love it and will tell you it's the pinnacle of art film. Personally, I hate it and think it's a terrible film (I even made comments - jokingly - to friends about sueing Lynch for three wasted hours of my life that I'll never get back).
I think it's a bad film. That doesn't mean, however, that it's an objectively bad film.

Even a film like The Room, which many/most think is awful, is good to laugh at. And I'm sure the Director didn't think his film was bad.

There are all sorts of films that would have cameras pointing in strange directions or boom mics in shot, for all sorts of effects.

I think, in a way, it comes down to having a reason for your decisions. If you have a boom mic in shot because you wanted it there, then that's perfectly fine. If you have a boom mic in shot because you didn't realise it was there is a different story. But then, even some arty metafilms would keep such things in. Doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad shot or bad movie.

Listen to this shit. By our Western standards, it's barely recognizable as music. What time-signature is this?! What key are they in?! Do they even use chords?!

Yes. Yes, they DO use chords, just not the ones you and I have accepted as even existing. Their musical key isn't even slightly similar to ours. To us, it sounds weird. To them, it sounds perfectly natural.

Exactly. And if you were to play this to a teenager who listens to CHR radio and goes to Justin Bieber concerts, they'd likely tell you how awful of a 'song' it is. Does that mean it's bad? Of course not.
The fact that you think Justin Bieber's a talentless hack has nothing to do with the fact that he sells millions of records and makes heaps of songs that teenagers love. Does that make it a bad song? To you, yes. In the same way that the classical musician in IDOM's story would not even consider a certain punk band real musicians, even though there are those that would, do and love them (think they're great).

 

[DDK]

I think, in a way, it comes down to having a reason for your decisions. If you have a boom mic in shot because you wanted it there, then that's perfectly fine. If you have a boom mic in shot because you didn't realise it was there is a different story. But then, even some arty metafilms would keep such things in. Doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad shot or bad movie.

Then why even bother with film schools or art schools? If art is subjective, then why bother learning how to do it? There's nothing worth teaching since nobody needs to learn anything in order to make a good film.

 

[jax_rox]

Then why even bother with film schools or art schools? If art is subjective, then why bother learning how to do it? There's nothing worth teaching since nobody needs to learn anything in order to make a good film.

There are plenty of people who did not go to film school or art school who have become very successful filmmakers and artists. That's not to say film school or art school isn't useful for some, but it's not essential.

Also, at film school and even on sets you learn how to be a crew member, which is often times very different from the HODs who have the creative vision and 'artistic' vision. You'll learn that you can only have x amps per circuit and how many amps each light fixture has, and how many you can run on a circuit. Nothing too arty about that, but you use that knowledge to place lights to help your own, or someone else's artistic vision come to life.

You seem to be confusing things a bit here.

Even the crap films you first make with no knowledge about anything are going to be seen as good by people like your mum, for example.

Also, you're implying a finished piece of art is the same as actually creating that piece of art.

Think of it like this: There's a graffiti artist who uses graffiti for his art because he can't afford proper paints and canvas etc. He does some okay stuff (more than just tags etc.) and many of his friends think what he 'paints' is great and cool etc.
Other, professional painters don't even think graffiti is an art form, let alone that anything done in such a way could be any kind of good, but his friends think what he does is great.
He realises one day that painting is his passion, but he doesn't have the knowledge to paint using traditional paint methods. So, he decides to assist a high profile painter, so that he can learn from the man, learn his techniques and listen to his philosophies behind painting. OR, he goes, again, to 'paint school' and learns how to actually paint.
So he starts painting landscapes and portraits on canvases. He creates some beautiful things, now that he has the knowledge to do so. He's really happy with it. Members of the general public think his work is great, and start purchasing some of his paintings. He thinks his old graffiti paintings are awful, and not even worth looking at. Some of the public agree.
His old friends, however, think he's sold out. They think his old graffiti art is the best work he's ever done. They love it, and hate his new stuff.

You don't seem to understand what they teach at film school.

 

[DDK]

There are plenty of people who did not go to film school or art school who have become very successful filmmakers and artists. That's not to say film school or art school isn't useful for some, but it's not essential.

And did they become successful by learning what others know and implementing that knowledge or did they just wing it the entire way and ignore everything everyone else knew and said and became successful irrespective of their lack of knowledge and experience?

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

Then why even bother with film schools or art schools? If art is subjective, then why bother learning how to do it? There's nothing worth teaching since nobody needs to learn anything in order to make a good film.

Because there are two key components to art - the artist, and the audience. Any artist has to choose who they are making their art for, and then learn the rules that fit that particular audience's idea of what constitutes 'good' art. But there is no single monolithic audience, and thus no single set of rules you can learn.

So if David Lynch decided to make a summer blockbuster and then delivered "Inland Empire" - it'll be considered a terrible film by his intended audience because he clearly had no understanding of what their standards were for judging a film. But he didn't set out to make a summer blockbuster, so he doesn't care what the summer blockbuster crowd thinks of his film and there's no need for him to learn, or try to work within, the rules of making a good summer blockbuster.

So if you're just doing it for yourself, then you can just do whatever you want and you don't need to learn anything - you are the final arbiter of what is good. But if you're at all interested in creating something that speaks to an audience in some specific way, then you probably want to study how others have done similar things so that you understand what your audience is expecting. Sure, you may then choose to subvert those expectations - but you do need to know them in order to do so deliberately.

But the key here is that those expectations are not universal - so even if you learn the rules and perfectly meet the expectations of your intended audience your film could be (and likely will be) considered total crap by some other slice of the audience. There simply is no single, universal, baseline set of rules which can be used to objectively gauge the quality of a film without taking into account the context of the intended audience.

 

[rayw]

I have this argument a lot.
Internally or externally?
If internal... "a lot"?... goodness!
If external, have the answers you've received at this forum so far differed much from what you've had with other people or groups?
I suspect not, but different demographics may present different collective perspectives.

I feel that you can like whatever you want, but liking it doesn't make it good or bad. What makes a movie good or bad is determined by a set of commonly understood artistic principles...
How about from an objective commercial standpoint?
The "good" metric applied to any business, be it a film studio, auto manufacturer, or bank is the bottom line and return on investment compared to industry norms/benchmarks.

A film may have suck@ss critical and social reviews but pull in an astronomical return on investment (Avatar & The Devil Inside.)
A film may have fantastic critical and social reviews but pull in an appaling return on investment (most Academy Award winners.)
Sometimes a film does horrible in the box office but goes on to sell DVDs like crazy as a cult classic emerges(The Human Centipede & Hobo With a Shotgun.)

What's your opinion?

My opinion is a "good" movie is one where you KNOW all the lines and what the next scene is going to be but you watch it over and over again anyway.

Artistically, its when I can watch about any second of it and know which film it is.