Just some film musings of a more succinct, spontaneous and sometimes seditious nature:

Wednesday, July 19, 2023

Recently in our film related chat room (readers are welcome to join here) a member made a post reflecting his thoughts on a recurring subject: that of whether opinions within the category of film criticisms are, or can be, subjective or objective in nature. His conclusions, although somewhat different than mine, were thoughtful, stimulating and insightful as were many of the responses. I’ve decided to present my own in the form of today’s Dish of the Day:

I have a feeling my thoughts will not be embraced by either side of the “subjective or objective” argument but here goes:

Obviously taste, or what a person likes, is wholly subjective so we shouldn't have any disagreement there. What anyone likes in anything cannot be credibly challenged. Nor is one person’s “like” (with a century’s worth of experience as opposed to none) better than anyone else’s . I think most of us know cinema lovers who are capable of liking anything for any reason. That's their prerogative.

In the world of art criticisms, however, subjective "taste," is practically irrelevant. Even if there is a smart and clever justification for such a claim, the reader, at best, gleans a better understanding of the critic compared to the work being addressed.

As to whether evaluations of art are subjective or objective... this is where it gets tricky. I almost hate to admit it, but because critics are free to choose their own set of qualifications, they too can only be derived from subjective choice no matter how many join the chorus of praise or damnation. There is, however, within one's own set of comparative values, the critic’s ability to objectively be true to his/her reasoning, effectively closing the gap between subjectivity and objectivity.

What difference does this make to the reader? That depends. Those who see evaluations in terms of say "agreement" and only look for confirmation of their own judgement, will fail to benefit from film criticisms. They might adore a critic who agrees with them all or most of the time. Just wait until a film they worship is heavily criticised and watch that same exalted critic instantly plunge from the mountain top to the fiery bowels of hell below.

On the other hand, a film reviewer's following that sees critiques as a chance to widen their own perception, stimulate thoughts instead of change them, discover a particular theme or significance previously undetected, see that same artistic expression through the eyes of someone with, hopefully, a vast experience comparing various forms of artistic expression, can receive untold value from such informed appraisals. These types of criticisms cannot threaten one's own views no more than they can alter the work itself.

The best film criticisms transcend "opinions" and taste. They illuminate. They demonstrate the art form's potential, realise what the artist(s) set out to achieve and evaluate the success in attaining those goals in a clear, fair and respectful manner. Critics should not hold back on reporting what they see as significant weaknesses in the storytelling, however, nor should they belabour these points, letting the reader decide how much value to ascribe to them. Objectivity is, or at least should be, the aim for a seasoned critic, as free of personal bias or the aforementioned “taste" as possible. It may not exist outside of their own domain but impartiality is there for both the sophisticated critic and their audience to appreciate and benefit from.

Just as a side note: all of the film critics pictured became filmmakers.

All responses are not only welcomed but encouraged in the comments section below.

Hope to see you tomorrow.

A.G.

The Cinema Cafe

Dish of the Day