Objectivity doesn't exist - Perspectives on internet film critics

Thanks to the internet, opinions of newly released movies are disseminated instantly, and it’s not just the critics who have the first say. Now anybody who knows how to operate a keyboard can lay judgment upon the film immediately after seeing, and sometimes during the screening. Before the film can take a breath it is championed or condemned, and within less than a week its fate is more or less certain. It may even be out of theatres by the week after.

Many people would say that this is a good thing. Who needs those elitist critics? I would agree that it is great that more people are getting their say about the movies, but I have found that your average internet goer uses the same tired arguments to defend or attack films that certain newspaper critics have done over the decades.

They key argument I would like to discuss is the concept of objectivity: that there are good films and bad films, and the people who recognise them as such and the people that don’t. My argument is that this idea is elitist, egotistic and saps all of the fun out of film debate and discussion.

Too many times I have seen critiques of critiques in which the commenter has said that the critic has ‘no sense of objectivity’. That is probably because objectivity doesn’t exist, and anyone who pretends otherwise is kidding themselves. We would like to think that there is an objective standard of ‘good’ that all films must try and adhere to. It’s one way of making one feel better about their opinions - the more films they like that adhere to this standard, the better taste they have, and the cooler/more intellectual they are.

Transformers could be better than Rashomon

Case in point:

“You mean you don’t like Rashomon? It’s clearly a classic of all time and anyone who disagrees must be an ADHD riddled Transformers lover.”

Not necessarily. Rashomon is obviously not aimed for that kind of audience but for a lot of people who it was aimed at, it didn’t work. Their opinion is just as valid. In fact, even the 14 year-old boy who comes out of Transformers foaming at the mouth at how good it was has an equally valid opinion of Rashomon. The boy probably hates it. He would be wrong.

Now this is not a hypocrisy - he is wrong, in my opinion. When you’re having a debate with someone, you like to pretend that you are right and the other is wrong, but we all know it’s just for the ‘character’ or the position you are taking. Nobody is wrong objectively. I love having debates that are delivered strongly and then having a drink afterward. Remember they are only opinions and they don’t matter in the grand scheme of life.

However, opinions that I like to listen to are a completely different matter. I don’t care if you like or dislike Transformers or Rashomon, but I do care how you deliver your opinion.

“Transformers is an epic realisation of the toy franchise that expands its universe and gives kids (and big-kids) something to cheer about”

Now that is much better. It’s a load of old twoddle but at least there isn’t ad hominem and straw-men.

Making this distinction will stop you getting annoyed with people who disagree with you. By disagreeing with you, they are not saying that you are wrong, or you are stupid for having a different opinion. They simply have a different opinion.

But where does this idea of objectivity come from? What constitutes the objective ‘good’ film?

Okay, well, one might argue that a good film has a good script, good acting, good direction; but this is rather redundant because we are still using the word ‘good’. ‘Good’ is a subjective word in and of itself, I’m sure all of my readers understand that, but what constitutes as ‘good’?

“Good writing is believable writing” - So the realms of fantasy are off-limits to all films that want to be ‘good’? Would The Lord Of The Rings be better with the dialogue from Schindler’s List? What is ‘good’ direction? Are certain camera angles and scene constructions better than others? If that was so, then it would be obvious, and every film would be exactly the same. Surely we don’t want that? Originality is often cited as a good thing to have, but what if the film in question is original, but in turn, completely incomprehensible?

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it narrows your field of vision. This kind of thinking creates ‘canons’ of good films. Many of the films in the ‘canon’ are great films, but if there is something outside of it that you think of as a masterpiece, why the hell not? I love to hear intelligent defenses or appraisals of films that are not immediately considered as classics. I may disagree, but I may be enlightened.

Maybe you see a movie you want to watch, but you still haven’t seen The Godfather yet. You meant to, but it really doesn’t sound appealing to you. Go see that other movie. Film-watching should be a personal thing, and nobody should be dictating to you what movies you should see. How annoying is it to get an earful from someone deriding you for preferring Terminator 2 over Citizen Kane (guilty as charged)? By the same token, how annoying is it to hear someone call your favorites as ‘old and boring’? It is easy to want to say the latter person has ‘no taste’, but we must resist this temptation.

The reason this is so important is because film is such a diverse art form. We have over 100 years of films from over 200 countries to consider watching, and to limit ourselves to around 1000 films that are any good is limiting ourselves from over 99% of all films ever made. The IMDB Top 250 and ‘They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They?’ Top 1000 movies are good jumping off points, but it shouldn’t be restricting your viewing habits.

Dive into movies on your own, go on your own journey, and the discoveries you make will be all the more satisfying. Objectivity will destroy the joy of movies if we let it! How boring it is to agree with everyone on everything!

How we review without objectivity.

Easy. We just record our experience of the film.

Reviewing the film as itself is only half of the picture, because that never changes. The film is the same for me as it will be for those watching it in 40 years time, but each of our reactions are going to be wildly different. Our reactions are the most interesting part, so should be focused on. Each filmmaker encodes something into their film, which can be interesting, but a lot of the time the most unusual and exciting writings come from the decoding. Remember that you are a human being with emotions, virtues and flaws. Let’s see that come through in your response to the film. You are not a God-like presence that observes the serfs’ quaint reactions - you were part of that audience. The film was meant for you by the act of you seeing it. So bearing that in mind, what happened to you in that theatre? Tell us your personal journey with film, and what part that particular film played in it. Do what movies are supposed to do and help us empathise.

Don’t be afraid to be controversial either - we weren’t given freedom of speech so we could say non-controversial things.

I don’t like Fight Club and I will say it loud and proud. I also think Kevin And Perry Go Large is a great movie, and nobody is going to persuade me otherwise. I would still like to hear your opinion though.

Now that anybody can give their opinion at the drop of a hat, it is useful to know the purpose of criticism. It is not to tell the reader what movie to go see or which movies are good, but to offer their take on them so that the reader is enlightened and/or entertained. If film critics were meant to influence movie goers then Transformers would be dead.

The internet has allowed for a much broader base for film discussion, but let’s be civil, have fun, and not take each other so seriously. So what if someone disagrees with you? Just ask him why.