Are negative reviews biased?

I actually do the same thing! At least, it was a rule of mine not to read any reviews of a film I was going to review, but that usually extended to forming my own opinion about a film before reading much/any in the way of other people's opinions. The only exceptions being if I genuinely wasn't sure whether to see something or not and needed to get a sense of things.

But yeah, I very much agree with this part.

For me it usually comes down to whether the movie is good enough for me to enjoy it despite disagreeing with the message, such as the story, quality of the acting, production values, etc. The reason I hate the God's Not Dead movies for example isn't just because I disagree with their messages, they're really poorly made and completely impossible to enjoy unless their preaching has you going "YES! AMEN, BROTHER!".

It's also about whether it contradicts what has been set up/shown before or not. You can feel kinda tricked if you felt like it was saying something particular about an issue, but then at the end it seems to be something completely different instead. Such as the "beauty is on the inside" films that still have the protagonist altering themselves just to be liked at the end.

__________________

Learning things doesn't obstruct honesty. Listening to others isn't a contagion. An honest opinion isn't really worth protecting if it can only exist in quarantine.

Acting like anything that isn't just a pure and uninformed shot from the hip is somehow less authentic as a point of view is like saying a hotdog is less honest if you add condiments to it. It doesn't make a lot of sense, because the hot dog is still there. It hasn't gone anywhere. But it stands a chance of being improved if it is allowed at least the chance to acknowledge the existence of mustard.

Yeah, absolutely. I've never read a review that was NOT "contaminated" by personal preference (I do NOT like westerns, no matter how "good" they are, etc), so it's not unlike whether you like iceberg or romaine on your salad; there's no right answer here. The pretentious thing about some reviewers is how they think that THEY are the arbiter of cinematic truth. They know that the only good salad has iceberg.

There certainly are degrees in this. Some reviewers, especially me, have seen more movies, have a broader knowledge and are better writers. Given that, at least one stated purpose of movies is entertainment and given that cost considerations mean that, economically speaking, it needs a broad audience, a producer has to at least give some crumbs to the fans of Adam Sandler movies or people who don't like westerns. Those folks pay the bills.

Agreed. With those extreme message movie cases, I'd be giving the film the finger, which would then move to the off button on my remote.

Agreed there too. So many people will complain about a movie with a predictable ending. But if it's a good movie with a good ending, then being predictable is satisfying. Flip side of that is a film that does, like you say, trick you in the end by flipping what was going on all for the sake of being tricky. Yeah that bugs me too.

I was just outside gardening and thinking about how people relate differently to different reviews and opinions. I came to the conclusion that we all tend to seek and or approve of those opinions that we share ourselves. In your case you would have a tendency to favor reviews that reflect your way of thinking as you stated above. Me, I will tend to favor reviews that are similarly written to the way I would write a review. There's no wrong or right way to approach reviews as we will inherently believe our own beliefs on the subject are the correct ones.

Never have two words been more telling.

Absolutism is the problem here.

You are entertaining the idea that objective criticism is not really objective unless it is 100% objective.

Consider your next words,
The contamination metaphor is quite telling. You appear to subscribe to the "one drop" theory when it comes of objectivity. If there is any subjectivity, it seems, it is entirely impure.

However, this is the sort of theory that only makes sense to a Klansman. Look at the DNA of almost any person society would call "white" and you will find all sorts of ancestors. Nevertheless, there are plenty of people who are called white, identify as white, are officially coded as white by the government, are accused of having the privileges of whiteness, etc. No one is 100% white and yet there are plenty of white people in the world.

The irrationality of the position is revealed when we consider that it is not symmetrical. Why not assume that one drop of white blood erases blackness? Isn't it curious that we don't hold "subjectivity" to the 100% requirement (arguing that it is not really subjective unless it is absolutely subjective)?
Right, you admit that there are "objective" details in a review, but maintain that these have nothing to do with the quality of the film, right?

You are committed to a world-picture in which no other answer is possible. You are an aesthetic relativist. You don't believe in beauty. We might say that you are an "atheist" when it comes to beauty. You only believe that people have impressions of beauty. You are of the sort described by C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man in a section titled "Men Without Chests." You take it for granted that there are no aesthetic truths to be found (this is your ontology), so you cannot escape from the conclusion that only objective aspects of criticism are the "iceberg lettuce" (i.e., the mundane facts that supervene upon the illusory impressions that something is "really" there).

Just as an atheist cannot definitely prove that there is NO God to be found anywhere in the cosmos, the aesthetic relativist cannot definitively prove that there no such thing as beauty. Rather, their first move is to assume that there is no such thing! And if your world-picture does not allow for a class of objects, there is NO way you could ever makes sense of finding an example of that class of objects with existential import within that worldview (as this would be a contradiction in terms). Your ontology is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We don't have to take sides in the dispute to see that, at bottom, taking sides is all your ontological commitment amounts to. Is it any wonder that you have reported never finding something that you assume from the outset cannot exist?

Of course, I can no more prove to you the existence of beauty than I can prove to you the existence of God, right? And to enter into my world-picture would seem be just another question-begging exercise, right?

If neither of us can say, however, the proper stance would seem to be beauty agnosticism, which would mitigate your stance to "beauty skepticism." If so, there may be objective aesthetic criticism -- objective NOT just in talking about the "lettuce," but the beauty of the salad itself. And this would force you to say "I don't know." And if you don't know, you must allow that we might, on occasion, be talking about something more in art.

This may not seem fair to you. Shouldn't I admit that I cannot prove any such thing as objective quality about exists (i.e., that I can only assume it)? Isn't it the case that I can only say that art criticism is objective about the lettuce and has an unprovable void as it comes to the quality of the salad?

I don't think so. Here's why.

1. We can ground aesthetics in human biology, grounding it not in the starry heavens, but our form of life. Beauty may lack true cosmic significance, but art criticism is NOT the view of the universe, but rather the view of human looking at the universe and their place in it. If there are objective human universals as regards the experience of art, this is all we need to have an objective conversation about the salad (at least as humans experience the dish).

2. We have the resource of intersubjectivity. Subjectivity is hopeless because opinions are like elbows, everyone has two of them and they bend as that person pleases. Intersubjectivity, however, is not the same thing as "cosmic objectivity." Rather it is a local objectivity which offers us a criterion of correctness outside of the self. Thus, we have community standards, expert standard, norms, expectations, etc. We have a network of shared experience which prevents aesthetic judgments from falling into the cracks of "purely isolated idiosyncratic responses to art." To the extent that we agree about any aesthetic standard, we may have a locally objective conversation about art relative to that standard. No, not a cosmically objective discussion (arguing about meaning from the point of view of the universe assumes that the universe has a point of view we should worry about, a question which is large and cannot be settled either way by tiny creatures like us), but one which is intersubjectively grounded such that the entire discussion doesn't reduce to merely squawking about entirely appetitive responses. In short, to have a rational discussion about art, we only need to have two people (no more, no less) agree about an artistic standard and apply that standard to an artwork. And by that standard there is plenty of weak objectivity to be had and the bugbear of subjectivism may be put to rest.

If you demand cosmic answers, maybe there is no objectivity to be had. But this is a bit like saying that there is no such thing as "true love" unless we find some instance of perfect, cosmically eternal, uncorrupted, uncontaminated "pure" love. I can only shrug. I find the imperfect love of humans to be real enough.

All it takes to believe, at least somewhat, in the idea of beauty is to actually listen to people when they describe or try to explain their relationship to it. When they point out to you where they see it. Why it is important to them. And this absolutely would also include those who speak of God or Gods.


You just have to listen, regardless of what one's own personal beliefs are in the matter. Whether something is or isn't real, is or isn't provable, is secondary to just listening.


Which is always going to be too much for some people.

I think you're reading WAY more into my comments than I intend. All I intend is to say that all reviewers go into their task with preformed attitudes, my attitude about westerns being a case in point.

You are probably right, but it's my conclusion that this is exactly the problem.


It's also my conclusion that art is the solution to this, since at its best, it offers a window into the experiences and ideas of those who aren't us. When done well, it engages us in ways that allow us to see the world differently. To not get locked into our head. To feel and think about others and to consider the decisions an artist has made, and what they are trying to say to us.


But then threads like this come around (constantly) and remind me that, nope, people are just going to keep going back to what they already understand and empathize with. And then when others try to engage with these things on a deeper level, where we actually explain to others what we think is being said in the film, and how they appeal to our emotions and empathy in different ways, it gets constantly shut down with accusations that talking at length about these things 'is just about ego'. Or that every opinion is created equal, and that knowledge and articulation is borderline superfluous, so why even bother with the struggle to say anything at all of substance.


Not necessarily. It's real simple what I'm looking for. I'm looking for people to tell me something worth actually sitting back and considering. Anything. Please. Disagreements are fine. Just....let me know something beyond "I liked it. It was well made and fun".

And if you're someone who doesn't want to go much beyond that, you do you, but please, it would be nice if those people stopped butting into these conversations to contribute absolutely nothing by saying 'you know none of this matters, right?'. And then proceeds to tell us all about the dinner they ate after the movie just to prove their own point.

Right. But it's always nice to see people put in a little effort, right?

And this is the bias we all have which needs to be shaken up as often as possible, because it's a horrible stance to have. All of us need to have our beliefs challenged. It's not ego that drives debate (although of course it's always there to some degree), it's in fact the opposite of this. It is about the need to have our egos humbled. To reconsider our established ways of thinking. But I guess for some, unfortunately, it appears that disagreement is tantamount to some kind of forum terrorism, to be avoided at all cost because it interrupts everyone patting each other on the back for getting to the end of a film and still having the energy to give it a numerical ranking out of ten.

And as far as I'm concerned, this aversion to debate, is exactly where the problem with ego comes in. When people think it's wrong to have what they say challenged, that is an ego that is getting too big for itself.

Also, just on the level of what I find engaging, it just so happens to be incredibly boring when everyone is just constantly agreeing to disagree. I can just as easily do that sitting here alone with my cat.

I'm not reading in, I'm just reading.

Objectivity is just a comforting illusion.

I'd argue that it doesn't even exist for humans.

anything about history, especially interpretations of it, as a professor once put it, "depends whose ox is being gored".

I'd posit that "objective review" is an oxymoron

Let's not equivocate now and shift between what people agree is "trivial-but-true" (no artistic evaluation is purely objective) and your more interesting claim (it doesn't exist at all!). Don't let a private intention deprive us of the challenge presented by your public words.

As Yoda has noted, our conversations here are frequently delayed and derailed by this spicy take. Reasoned conversation in a domain must deal with the objection that reasoned conversation is impossible in that domain. So many people here assert this idea that it shows a real need to clarify what we're doing here. If our discussion can serve as a sort of therapy, I sincerely hope that I can give confidence to those who seem to sincerely believe that our conversations about art here are, at bottom, ultimately pointless. Alternatively, if the objection proves correct, that applies pressure to those who claim to be doing anything remotely objective here.

Moreover, you deserve praise for offering some nice moments here. The lettuce vs. the salad thing was nicely put! If our discussion of the value of art has merit, we cannot meekly point at the objective status of a few components of the argument (e.g., the year Coolidge was elected president), but we must justify the evaluative components of the argument (establishing, following your same example, that Coolidge was a "good" president). Also, your repeated contamination rhetoric illustrates the asymmetry of the objection, clarifying the vulnerability of the "it's all subjective stance" (i.e., it only torpedoes a presumed "absolutist" when it comes to objectivity). More than this, it reveals, a likely conflation of the very idea of "absolute" with the idea "objective." That which is objective need not be absolute. The asymmetry of your objection hints at a likely cause of the problem which is so frequently derailing our conversations (i.e., we're setting the bar too high because we are mismanaging our categories). In short, you have provided some valuable input here.

Nah, the iceberg lettuce wasn't a good contribution. Not when tied to this notion that if a critic is pro iceberg lettuce, everyone is supposed to be as well. That Armond White's got brownshirts working for him, or something.


Im finding this fear that critics might somehow take over the opinions of people if they are ever taken seriously a little bit weird. Admittedly, I've definitely read reviews that have altered my opinion after reading them, but it's only after interesting points were made, or things I might not have noticed are brought up. You know, the kind of things that are supposed to change minds. But this idea that suddenly I'm going to be Bodysnatched by Ebert's crap review of Blue Velvet if I ever read it, is silly, if that's what is being implied.

In regard to the original question...."Are Negative Reviews Biased?", I'd like to see a yard stick for how we determine bias and negative. Having spent some of my work life testing things like that, I know that it's not an easy question because, the question itself has built-in bias...."when did you stop beating up your partner?".

All reviews are biased unless demonstrated otherwise, my attitude about westerns being a case in point. If you like westerns, don't ask me to review one.

My other alternative would be to abandon all semblance of objectivity when it comes to movies. Either you like it or not, in either case, for entirely personal reasons. I like old, cheesy horror movies. Explain to me why I'm wrong.

When I'm wearing my art hat, that's the way that universe works. Like it or not; you may want to express a reason, but basically, you just don't like it or you do. That has a level of honesty that appeals to me. When I read movie reviews, I generally look for a critic that has agreed with me in the past. I'm buying a ticket and and want to enjoy the evening. I'll write reviews of movies I don't think I will like when somebody pays me for the reviews.

Except some people's reasons clearly have thought and insight behind them, and others are obviously about them and not about the work in question. See my earlier example about asking a child why they feel something versus asking an adult. Do you take a toddler's opinions as seriously as their parents or grandparents because it's all "subjective"? I doubt it. Just as I doubt anyone here feels angry or sad or happy and just goes "welp, guess I just feel this way now, no use thinking about why or learning anything from it."

I wonder how many people actually know what "subjective" means. It means arising from the subject. Literally nothing about that precludes discussion, analysis, or critique. It means you feel how you feel and nobody can gainsay that feeling...but they can reveal whether that feeling is formed by understanding and thought, or not, a question which exists and applies just as much to subjective things as objective ones.

Yep...exactly. What I'm skeptical about are claims of objectivity. Our common use of the word is as a pole to subjective, which seems to pick up the odor of unreasoned and completely personal (e.g., my attitude about westerns).

We all come into discussions with attitudes like that. Most people I know don't like old horror movies. I do. Why? I don't know, but what I do know is that everybody has something like that in their brain and often they're not even aware of it.

One of my strong suspicions about humans is that often we decide on things and then come up with the rationale. Logic is an interesting tool, but like hammers, which can drive a nail or crush a skull, rationalism often starts with the conclusion and then invents the reason.

I like that and would add: What is the yard stick for an informed reviewer? How intelligent, well read and informed does one have to be before they qualify as an 'expert'.

Like wise what is the yard stick for deciding what is 'a shoot from the hip' reviewer? What does that even mean? Probably different things to different people. I get the feeling that maybe we're not all polar opposites on this thread's topic but are responding to different elements within those questions that might not be obvious to other persons reading this thread.

Maybe this thing you are incapable of explaining, is something others are capable of. I dare say, it's almost like this is something some people have a talent for and others don't. Or have spent time learning about, while others haven't. Or they've bothered to actually do, while others don't even try.

But everyone's opinion is equal, people.

Now if only we could tackle that great mystery of the universe: how some people like Westerns and others don't. Someone call Leonard Nimoy, stat!

Where are you seeing those claims? Doesn't seem like they're in this thread.

This thread mostly seems to consist of people saying over and over that opinions can't be subjective, even while several people directly reply to them to say yes, we know, but who cares, we can still critique subjective thoughts . At which point they are inexplicably told yet again, slightly rephrased, that opinions are subjective.

"I don't know" and "I can't know" are pretty different. Unless, of course, you throw up your hands and decide not to investigate or try to understand things because they're subjective, in which case everything you don't know about it automatically becomes something you can't know about it. But that's a choice.

I point you again to my analogy about children. Either you value a child's opinion of art/aesthetics/whatever the same way you value an adult's (doubtful), or you already agree in principle that within subjectivity there are still stratifications of insight and thoughtfulness worth distinguishing between. Which is it?

Maybe so, but for the purposes of evaluating the opinions themselves, rather than the internal workings of the people expressing them, it doesn't really matter.

@crumbsroom I have some clarity type questions, if you don't mind answering.

You've mentioned that an 'informed reviewer' is a better reviewer than someone who 'shoots from the hip' when they review a movie. What I think you're meaning when you say 'informed reviewer' may or may not be what you have in mind. So according to you, what is an informed reviewer? Conversely what is an uninformed reviewer.

I used the phrase shoot from the hip reviewer to describe myself, what do you think I meant by that, how do you interpret it?

I think two great stumbling blocks are the conflation of "objective" with "absolute" and the failure to recognize the role of the intersubjective. A rule might be objective without being absolute (e.g., it is a good objective rule of thumb to slow down for yellow lights, but if someone is bleeding out in your backseat and the streets are clear, you should punch it). A rule may also be absolute and subjective (e.g., I have no tolerance AT ALL for iceberg lettuce in a salad). If we're agreed about my preference regarding iceberg lettuce, that preference may inform our immediate conversation (e.g., what sort of salad should we order?). Relativism offers more wiggle room than pure subjectivism.

Your (somewhat less ambitious) stance still offers us a rational test, coherence. Whatever standard a critic invokes is a personal commitment. Thus, if your elaborated and avowed standard admits of measurable (i.e., objective) features (e.g., a good salad won't have iceberg lettuce), we can (minimally) inquire as to whether the critic is consistent with their own standards. And this means that even your minimal view ("let's just try to understand each other by sharing") offers prospects for evaluation.