4 ms·

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 w

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.

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.