Is film subjective?

So obviously it's hopeless to look for objectivity in valuing films.

On the other hand, there is one form of "objectivity" that does dominate the film industry, and that is determined by money. If you're a producer or an investor or whatever whose primary concern is money or a good return, then I dare say that it's fair to say that a good film can objectively be called good if it sells well and makes money. If it doesn't, then it's not a good film. Ah, how simple a business-centric view can reduce it all to.

Other than that, to say that you or your group is the arbiter of objective value of this or that film compared to someone else amounts to, I suppose, a kind of chauvinism or elitism, which is fine, to each his or her own, but don't sign me up for that.

Then again, I don't doubt that there are certain aesthetic and emotional values that most people share, consciously or unconsciously, that can bring folks to something close to a consensus regarding what is good and what is crap, what generally, or sometimes specifically, works or does not work...generally, and for most people.

But on and on you could go with caveats and counter-considerations.
 
rayw said:
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?
Click to expand...
The normal response is, "You're an idiot!"

rayw said:
I suspect not, but different demographics may present different collective perspectives.
Click to expand...
That's one reason why I keep asking it. The main reason is that I find the non-abusive aspects of the debate interesting. It also lets me filter out those who resort to abuse first and healthy discussion later. Hence why I have Cracker on ignore.
 
DDK said:
The normal response is, "You're an idiot!"
Click to expand...

I never said anything that comes even close to calling you an idiot, nor has anyone else in this thread. This, paired with your comments below, makes me wonder if you might be aggrandizing the situation just a tad. Just because someone strongly disagrees with you, that doesn't mean they think you're an idiot, nor is a strongly-worded opinion tantamount to "abuse".

DDK said:
That's one reason why I keep asking it. The main reason is that I find the non-abusive aspects of the debate interesting. It also lets me filter out those who resort to abuse first and healthy discussion later. Hence why I have Cracker on ignore.
Click to expand...

Though you apparently find this "abusive", I stand by my original comment -- I don't think you really understand the difference between "subjective" and "objective". And this entire conversation boils down to just that -- you've misunderstood the meaning of those words, sorry.

By the arguments you've provided in this thread, there's no such thing as subjectivity. I guess EVERYTHING is objective. Because EVERYTHING can be taught in school. And EVERYTHING has a methodology. Therefore, EVERYTHING is objective.

Let me give you an example of something that is ACTUALLY objective. Let's talk sports. 100% objectivity is impossible to achieve, but it is something you strive for. In order to come closer to reaching this goal of objectivity, many complicated rules are written for each sport, defining exactly how things should be ruled on the field/court/etc. The rules themselves might be darn objective, but they're eventually gonna have to be ruled on by a human, and that's where the subjectivity inevitably enters. The more concrete the rule, the less human influence involved, the more objective it will be.

On the most objective end of the spectrum, you've got the 100m sprint. In the Olympics, the entire race is filmed with a whole bunch of official cameras, each one perfectly placed and armed with lasers and all sorts of futuristic technology. The result is that human influence is almost entirely removed from the sport. Super-slow-mo footage makes it possible to objectively rule which competitor crosses the finish line first, and there can be no argument.

That's objectivity. If I tell you that racer A won the race, and I show you slo-mo footage that clearly shows them crossing the finish line first, and there's no way that you could possibly dispute my claim, then we've objectively ruled on the winner of the race.

Can you do that with film? Is there a clearly defined rule that lays out exactly what makes "good" cinematography (for example), vs. "bad"? No, there isn't. There's plenty of complex methodology that makes for great instruction, but there is no universally agreed upon standard that must be achieved. There are commonly agreed upon generalizations, but there are no actual rules. And without actual rules, it's all subjective.
 
By the way, objectivity is boring. Math is objective. Logic is objective. Computers are objective.

Why in the world would we want filmmaking to be the same? Variety is the spice of life, and that comes as a result of subjectively-minded human beings breaking the barriers of the rules that have been set before them. If filmmaking were objective, it'd never change, and we'd be stuck watching variations of "Birth of a Nation". :P
 
Cracker Funk said:
By the way, objectivity is boring. Math is objective. Logic is objective. Computers are objective.
Click to expand...

Objectivity is boring, but it's also very attractive - because it removes responsibility from the equation of making decisions or judgement calls.

You see it all the time with things like zero-tolerance policies or mandatory-minimum sentencing laws, which frequently create absurd situations but allow people to wash their hands of the decision and say "sorry, that's the rules".

In art the consequences aren't as high, but the impulse is still there. It would make things much easier for a filmmaker to simply say "I followed the rules, so my film is good" because they no longer have to take responsibility for the choices they made, nor defend those choices against people who disagree with them.

It's the same impulse that causes people to obsess over things like which camera is best. It reduces the number of options to a narrow set which are well defined and can be quantified, measured and compared. It makes it easier to ignore or minimize the broader set of decisions which require you to make subjective choices that only you can be held accountable for.

But a big part of becoming an artist is getting over the fear that leads to avoiding responsibility for your decisions. You have to assume that people will disagree with the decisions you make, but be confident enough to make them anyway and be prepared to defend those decisions to your detractors. The act of doing so is part of the growth process - explaining and defending your decisions help you examine your own decision-making process, and allows you to modify and refine it over time.
 
8salacious9 said:
No ones right... And that my friends is the story of life.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm always right. The trouble only starts when noone listens.
smiley_colbert.gif


.
 
I would take it as subjective as what makes a film good or not. Other than people enjoying the film what hard and fast rule makes a film good

Listening to reviewers is not worthless if you find one with the same tastes as you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top