3 ms·

> They may have a different taste, but that taste is no better or worse than anyone else's. This is often repeated like it's some universal truth. Enjoying a

> They may have a different taste, but that taste is no better or worse than anyone else's. This is often repeated like it's some universal truth. Enjoying a film (or anything) doesn't mean it's great - this is a very hard to explain idea though, as it's something that is experienced in the core of your being. It's like trying to explain why small talk is important to someone from a low-context culture - there's probably a fundamental disconnect where it will never make sense. Although I can explain it with words, it really only makes sense on an emotional level. It's the difference between criticism by The Needle Drops and Lester Bangs. One is focused only on "objectivity" - "slashing guitars and crunchy snares"; the other is weaving a story. But I guarantee you that anyone with the ability to convincingly articulate why The Office is better than Rebels of the Neon God isn't arguing in good faith. And there's a reason for that.

bionsystem 4y ago
I'd be interested if you have link/research that can explain to me why small talk is important (or what criteria makes sense for determining why movie X is better than Y). If you want to bother explaining too I'd happily read it.
- ekanes 4y ago
  I think it acts as a way to show you’re a safe/sane person, and then conversations can progress to more depth. It’s like a check-in.
- trh0awayman 4y ago
  As for why one thing is better than another, it's a sense that I get when I walk away from a good book. A deeply satisfying feeling. Sugar tastes good, I could eat candy all day, but try to explain to someone who only eats candy the satisfaction you get from a good, home cooked, southern meal. Biscuits and sausage gravy, fried chicken, grits, collared greens. If someone offers me a Reese's peanut butter cup, I'll probably take it some of the time - and I definitely don't want to eat a full meal all the time. But the vast majority of people have ONLY been eating plain sugar - they don't even realize there is a whole world of different ingredients and foods out there. Most people exposed to other foods don't go back to only eating sugar - and that's because real food is better. It's not something you can deduct with logic, and it will never be done in an academic/research setting because it's taboo in academia to make value judgements about culture.
spcebar 4y ago
I think you can diffuse what makes a movie good versus enjoyable by judging/basing your criteria on specific qualities. How were the actor's performances, how was cinematography used effectively to convey meaning, how was it written, and how effectively did the director translate their vision into the end product. Were all of these things well executed? Then it's a technically well made film. This is usually what film reviewers are responding to. That's still not to say film criticism or analysis is objective--there's nothing specifically quantifiable here, but it's more constructive than just saying something is good and something is bad because it's to or not to one's taste. Taste is an appropriate metaphor--a meal at your local deli tastes delicious, but probably lacks the same craft and presentation as the meal from the 5 star restaurant across the street. You can disagree with someone's taste, but you not liking mustard doesn't mean anyone who likes mustard is an idiot, or, you liking high art doesn't mean everyone who liked 'Furious 7' has bad taste.
- icambron 4y ago
  I suspect the film critics themselves would disagree with that take. Imagine a film a generative AI would make on based on those desiderata. The critic might agree the film is, as you put it, technically well made, but they could at the same time also think it’s not a great film. For example, perhaps it lacks a deep emotional resonance, or some other airy quality that makes films “great”. Think of reviewer lingo like “slick” and “vacuous”. They don’t think of themselves as score keepers; technical proficiency is a contributing factor to the emotional impact of the film, not the goal in itself. Which means that it’s ultimately just about how much they enjoyed the film. This is fine: they are professionals at describing how the movie affected them and why it works (or doesn’t) for them. They are also movie geeks, which means that if you’re a movie geek too, you’re likely to have similar reactions. Their opinions are especially useful, at least if they’re good at their jobs. Like most things (think wine or cheese or cars), people who are “into” them value different elements than do casual consumers. I think this is what people are really saying when they call something a “higher taste”: it’s got those qualities you appreciate when you know a lot about the medium. And obviously there’s a significant emotional reward here: that’s why people get into things on the first place. We call this “sophistication”, which is one sense of the word accurate but in another an unwarranted value judgment. It’s the degree to which we conflate refined palettes with “good” ones that everyone is ultimately arguing about in discussions like this. When referring to taste, if we replaced “higher” and “better” with “advanced”, I think we’d both satisfy the view that ultimately what you get out of something is its value to you, while at the same time still express the view that there’s something special about this or that movie that requires some careful thinking and experience to appreciate.
Beltalowda 4y ago
> But I guarantee you that anyone with the ability to convincingly articulate why The Office is better than Rebels of the Neon God isn't arguing in good faith. And there's a reason for that. I'm pretty sure that Rebels of the Neon God isn't "better" at parodying office work, and I'm pretty sure there are less laughs to be had in that film too. So yes, I'm pretty sure The Office is "better" at a lot of things, and while I have not seen Rebels of the Neon God (yet) I'm pretty sure it's also "better" than The Office, but at different things.
Someone 4y ago
> Enjoying a film (or anything) doesn't mean it's great If lots of people enjoy seeing not great films they apparently prefer enjoying themselves over seeing great films. If so, one could argue there’s nothing wrong with suggesting people what they want. On the other hand, if you replace ‘film’ by ‘nicotine’ or ‘opium’, many in society think it’s wrong to give people what they want, and that, instead, society should discourage their use, and aim to have its citizens use less of those. Similarly, some people (e.g. some variants of socialist movements) will argue that society should strive to make its citizens enjoy those better films, food, music, etc.
tqi 4y ago
> It's like trying to explain why small talk is important to someone from a low-context culture - there's probably a fundamental disconnect where it will never make sense. Doesn't your analogy actually run counter to the point you are making? ie the importance of small talk (like taste) is not universal?
BrandoElFollito 4y ago
> This is often repeated like it's some universal truth. Enjoying a film (or anything) doesn't mean it's great Yes it does. What is your definition of great, and why is it better than mine?

bionsystem 4y ago

I'd be interested if you have link/research that can explain to me why small talk is important (or what criteria makes sense for determining why movie X is better than Y). If you want to bother explaining too I'd happily read it.

ekanes 4y ago
I think it acts as a way to show you’re a safe/sane person, and then conversations can progress to more depth. It’s like a check-in.
trh0awayman 4y ago
As for why one thing is better than another, it's a sense that I get when I walk away from a good book. A deeply satisfying feeling. Sugar tastes good, I could eat candy all day, but try to explain to someone who only eats candy the satisfaction you get from a good, home cooked, southern meal. Biscuits and sausage gravy, fried chicken, grits, collared greens. If someone offers me a Reese's peanut butter cup, I'll probably take it some of the time - and I definitely don't want to eat a full meal all the time. But the vast majority of people have ONLY been eating plain sugar - they don't even realize there is a whole world of different ingredients and foods out there. Most people exposed to other foods don't go back to only eating sugar - and that's because real food is better. It's not something you can deduct with logic, and it will never be done in an academic/research setting because it's taboo in academia to make value judgements about culture.

spcebar 4y ago

I think you can diffuse what makes a movie good versus enjoyable by judging/basing your criteria on specific qualities. How were the actor's performances, how was cinematography used effectively to convey meaning, how was it written, and how effectively did the director translate their vision into the end product. Were all of these things well executed? Then it's a technically well made film. This is usually what film reviewers are responding to. That's still not to say film criticism or analysis is objective--there's nothing specifically quantifiable here, but it's more constructive than just saying something is good and something is bad because it's to or not to one's taste. Taste is an appropriate metaphor--a meal at your local deli tastes delicious, but probably lacks the same craft and presentation as the meal from the 5 star restaurant across the street. You can disagree with someone's taste, but you not liking mustard doesn't mean anyone who likes mustard is an idiot, or, you liking high art doesn't mean everyone who liked 'Furious 7' has bad taste.

icambron 4y ago
I suspect the film critics themselves would disagree with that take. Imagine a film a generative AI would make on based on those desiderata. The critic might agree the film is, as you put it, technically well made, but they could at the same time also think it’s not a great film. For example, perhaps it lacks a deep emotional resonance, or some other airy quality that makes films “great”. Think of reviewer lingo like “slick” and “vacuous”. They don’t think of themselves as score keepers; technical proficiency is a contributing factor to the emotional impact of the film, not the goal in itself. Which means that it’s ultimately just about how much they enjoyed the film. This is fine: they are professionals at describing how the movie affected them and why it works (or doesn’t) for them. They are also movie geeks, which means that if you’re a movie geek too, you’re likely to have similar reactions. Their opinions are especially useful, at least if they’re good at their jobs. Like most things (think wine or cheese or cars), people who are “into” them value different elements than do casual consumers. I think this is what people are really saying when they call something a “higher taste”: it’s got those qualities you appreciate when you know a lot about the medium. And obviously there’s a significant emotional reward here: that’s why people get into things on the first place. We call this “sophistication”, which is one sense of the word accurate but in another an unwarranted value judgment. It’s the degree to which we conflate refined palettes with “good” ones that everyone is ultimately arguing about in discussions like this. When referring to taste, if we replaced “higher” and “better” with “advanced”, I think we’d both satisfy the view that ultimately what you get out of something is its value to you, while at the same time still express the view that there’s something special about this or that movie that requires some careful thinking and experience to appreciate.

Beltalowda 4y ago

> But I guarantee you that anyone with the ability to convincingly articulate why The Office is better than Rebels of the Neon God isn't arguing in good faith. And there's a reason for that. I'm pretty sure that Rebels of the Neon God isn't "better" at parodying office work, and I'm pretty sure there are less laughs to be had in that film too. So yes, I'm pretty sure The Office is "better" at a lot of things, and while I have not seen Rebels of the Neon God (yet) I'm pretty sure it's also "better" than The Office, but at different things.

Someone 4y ago

> Enjoying a film (or anything) doesn't mean it's great If lots of people enjoy seeing not great films they apparently prefer enjoying themselves over seeing great films. If so, one could argue there’s nothing wrong with suggesting people what they want. On the other hand, if you replace ‘film’ by ‘nicotine’ or ‘opium’, many in society think it’s wrong to give people what they want, and that, instead, society should discourage their use, and aim to have its citizens use less of those. Similarly, some people (e.g. some variants of socialist movements) will argue that society should strive to make its citizens enjoy those better films, food, music, etc.

tqi 4y ago

> It's like trying to explain why small talk is important to someone from a low-context culture - there's probably a fundamental disconnect where it will never make sense. Doesn't your analogy actually run counter to the point you are making? ie the importance of small talk (like taste) is not universal?

BrandoElFollito 4y ago

> This is often repeated like it's some universal truth. Enjoying a film (or anything) doesn't mean it's great Yes it does. What is your definition of great, and why is it better than mine?