Subjective Vs. Objective, can film be "bad"?

The only criteria that I believe a movie should be judged on is all of the technical and creative aspects that were brought to the film, as well as how the actors performed their parts. The technical are things like how the film was photographed, what sort of things went into the film to make it visually impressive, how the sound is, etc. The creative deals with the entertainment side -- the formation of the story, the plot, how interesting it is throughout, etc. The creative side can be difficult to judge and is more open to subjective opinions. The acting is, of course, making sure that you don't have Anna Nicole Smith-like performances throughout, because why shoot a movie and let bad acting slide?

I feel that the most subjective matter concerning a movie is the content -- what does the movie deal with, what are its issues, what sort of things does it show us, what are its messages, its philosophy, its reality and so on. This, to me, is the realm that invites only those watching that want to be invited, that accept whatever kind of invitation the movie has. This is an area where people's preferences, prejudices and personal psychologies will come into play and roads will open up where the viewer will either travel to a dead end street (meaning, they don't like or care for the film) or they travel to a vast, spacious, harmonious substitute reality that reflects a room inside their own inner world. They have become in sync with the message or the values or just the overall chemistry of what the movie is and they are a match with it. If the movie they love was a bag of blood, you could give it to them, because they and the movie would be the same blood type.

I believe that one of the greatest errors of any movie critic is to judge a movie based on its actual values and message and content and not the more technical and creative aspects. It's like with horror movies (speaking of blood again) -- I've noticed that Roger Ebert used to be quite vocal about hating slasher movies and such just because it's nothing but vile, disgusting, dark and depressing messages to the youth about how you can't plan for the future or anything because Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger are gonna get you before you turn 18. I don't feel that his opinion is something that is wrong, but if you're going to give the movie a half a star out of four just because of these opinions, you're doing it out of your own prejudice. Meanwhile, some nauseating happy-fest film will get four stars. To me, this is bad film criticism. It is just so apparent to me that movies are judged, first and foremost, on a technical aspect, but secondly, with a strong personal agenda. This is what, to me, erodes a good swimming pool of cinematic discussion and even life discussion -- dismissals of things you don't agree with leads to stagnation and rust and puts film and philosophy evolution into a coma. I know I am guilty of this a lot myself (well, probably) in my own reviews of movies, but I am just saying this because it is what I believe to be true and I know that I should be more open and adaptable to different film experiences as well.

But... with all that said, I think that movie criticism is also in its own way a form of entertainment and that it's not fun to have all movie critics be robots that spout the same kind of opinions from their lips or fingertips. Want to read a movie reviewer who speaks mostly about the amount of sexy male celebrity screentime in the film? Go to me. But I do think that, with very serious film discussion, what I was just talking about applies.

I'd be interested in hearing a more detailed counter argument to the above!

Well, there's better at being a film, and then there's better at just sort of being a curiosity. Car attacks aren't "better" than driving normally, but we're way more interested in them when we go by. I'd say that bad films are still bad, but have an appeal outside of their value as movies. Its value is on a different scale.

I find it hard to believe one can draw a comparison between bad and interesting in art. I never want to watch The Room again, wish I never did. I don't see bad things as interesting. Car accidents are not art, they're humans that can't drive. Bad humans are interesting.

I believe in the concept of objective film criticism, but the Japanese Me or the Nigerian Me would undoubtedly have a different concept of objectivity than I would. This would be based on different personal experiences, so in that way, it's difficult to champion the concept of objectivity in any artistic appraisal. However, I'm also sure there are very bad films, many of them agreed upon by most viewers. The funny thing is that I believe that some of these bad films are also the most-critically praised, so I don't believe a consensus opinion is an objective one either. I will say though that there has always been a critical standard (or multiple ones) in which critics would discuss the quality of certain films. It's just that as time goes by, it's amazing how what was considered weak in the past is now considered a good thing. I'm talking about incomprehensible storytelling, lousy acting, crap photography, boring dialogue, ridiculous endings (or even worse, non-endings), etc. It seems that nowadays, you just turn on a camera and all of a sudden you're an auteur who deserves respect because you can figure out the On/Off button.

The only criteria that I believe a movie should be judged on is all of the technical and creative aspects that were brought to the film, as well as how the actors performed their parts. The technical are things like how the film was photographed, what sort of things went into the film to make it visually impressive, how the sound is, etc. The creative deals with the entertainment side -- the formation of the story, the plot, how interesting it is throughout, etc. The creative side can be difficult to judge and is more open to subjective opinions. The acting is, of course, making sure that you don't have Anna Nicole Smith-like performances throughout, because why shoot a movie and let bad acting slide?

I disagree with pretty much all of you.



That's a very odd comparison, and not a very good one. Would people pay money to watch people "drive normally" and is it not possible to crash your car while doing so? Actually, it is the other way around. People DO pay money to watch car crashes on the screen every day - the spectators want the spectacle. This is called the action genre and it also happens to be the genre I dislike the most (in fierce competition with another spectacle genre - the musical). But since many action films make huge profits for the production companies I think we can draw the conclusion that lots of people like these films - they think they're good. Critics, on the other hand, tend to give these films low ratings - they think they're bad. Are these films good or bad? Are they "car crashes" or "driving normally"?

Is The Brown Bunny (2003) by Vincent Gallo a good or bad film? Laughed and booed at during the screening on the Cannes festival and Roger Ebert calling it the worst film in the history of the festival - ever. The mode value on imdb is 10/10 and the second mode value is 1/10. Is The Brown Bunny a good or bad film? Is it interesting or uninteresting?

To me the terms good film and bad film are becoming more and more irrelevant. If people didn't constantly ask me whether I thought a film was good or bad I probably wouldn't use them very often. Ten years ago or so my morning paper began to add ratings on their film reviews - and in that second, they went from film critique to product information. I had a favorite critic (Jan Aghed) who'd been writing for the paper for ages. I remember that you could read a review by him - really interesting and intriguing - and afterwards you didn't have a clue if he liked the film or not. That's an art form.




What you're saying is that bad can't equal interesting, which means that interesting is good. Which is what I'm saying too, an interesting film can't be dismissed as entirely bad.



No offense, but you're kind of saying that films that are challenging your mind set on what makes a good film good are basically fake and a case of the empereror's new clothes. I'm sure the technical evolution has made it possible for more people to make their own films, with various results. But I don't recognize what your saying about everyone being an auteur all of a sudden. Can you give some examples?

I have seen lots of great films with open endings (or "non endings"). And can you give some examples of films that you think have "incomprehensible storytelling, lousy acting, crap photography, boring dialogue, ridiculous endings" that are considered good? To me, that sounds like one of the thirteen-on-the-dozen films that Hollywood spews out every year.



This I agree with. I regard myself to have above the average knowledge about film but I'm certainly no expert - and I have many blank spots. But the way I engage in a discussion about film with someone depends as much on the film knowledge of the other person as on my own knowledge. It's not a competition. I wouldn't learn anything new if I didn't listen to what the other person has to say just because I consider myself to "know better".



Yes. And no. I think you're kind of right, but I think the technical side is open for subjective interpretations and judgements just as much as the creative aspects. And I also think it's hard to seperate the technical and the creative aspects - even if I understand what you mean; the technical side has to do with cameras and computers while the creative has to do with stories and actors.

An example: The Blair Witch Project (1999) by Myrick and Sánchez, which is one of the cleverest movies ever made, in my opinion (and VERY good, too). The technical aspects of the film are nothing special - and that's kind of the point. They're part of the creative aspects to create the illusion of that we're watching a documentary. I was absolutely blown away by the brilliance of this film when it came out, but today - when there's been so many fake documentaries and mockumentaries - my guess is that kids that watch it for the first time don't see the genius of it (I was sad to see that it merely got a lousy 6.3 rating at imdb).

Another example is Bloody Sunday (2002) by Paul Greengrass. Shot with handheld cameras and with deliberaty gritty photo and with real soldiers playing soldiers, Greengrass aimed at a realism that he couldn't have achieved with classical Hollywood filmmaking techniques.

The rest of your post was really interesting, Sexy, but I will have to respond to it on a later time (I'm at work... ).

That's a very odd comparison, and not a very good one. Would people pay money to watch people "drive normally" and is it not possible to crash your car while doing so? Actually, it is the other way around. People DO pay money to watch car crashes on the screen every day - the spectators want the spectacle. This is called the action genre and it also happens to be the genre I dislike the most (in fierce competition with another spectacle genre - the musical). But since many action films make huge profits for the production companies I think we can draw the conclusion that lots of people like these films - they think they're good. Critics, on the other hand, tend to give these films low ratings - they think they're bad. Are these films good or bad? Are they "car crashes" or "driving normally"?

An example: The Blair Witch Project (1999) by Myrick and Sánchez, which is one of the cleverest movies ever made, in my opinion (and VERY good, too). The technical aspects of the film are nothing special - and that's kind of the point. They're part of the creative aspects to create the illusion of that we're watching a documentary. I was absolutely blown away by the brilliance of this film when it came out, but today - when there's been so many fake documentaries and mockumentaries - my guess is that kids that watch it for the first time don't see the genius of it (I was sad to see that it merely got a lousy 6.3 rating at imdb).

By the way, a good example of this distinction is that people say "so bad it's good." They never just say "good." They qualify the way in which it's good because they know calling it a "good" film is not what they're usually trying to convey when something is stupid, but entertaining.

Ditto for people who refer to a film as a "guilty pleasure." It means they like watching it but acknowledge it's not very good as an example of its art form.

I almost stopped reading when you said that you don't like action films or musicals.

However, I continued and I have some issues (of course). First, I think acting can be just as technical as any other aspect of film. Yes, it's far more subjective than something like bad camera work, but most people can tell a bad performance when they see one.

I agree with Yoda on The Blair Witch. I wish Pidzilla hadn't brought it up as an example. It's not a bad film. All the technical aspects that are bad are done so with purpose. Sure, it's not to some people's taste, but it's not a bad movie.

Watch Catwoman, Wild Wild West, Plan Nine, Troll 1 & 2, or The Room to see genuinely bad things. From terrible stories to acting to effects to writing to poor aesthitic choices (Halle Berry acting like a cat!?!?!), those films cover it all!

It's not supposed to be a perfect analogy, it's simply illustrating that "good" and "bad" are context-sensitive words. What makes for good driving does not necessarily make for good entertainment, and vice-versa. Bad films are bad films, but that doesn't mean they're not good in some other way, which is to say, not good as a film, but good as an excuse to make fun of something with your friends.

It'd be like asking if beer was a good drink. Good for what? Quenching your thirst? No way. Good for relaxing? Yep. Similarly, entertainingly bad films don't become good films; they're good in a different way.

By the way, a good example of this distinction is that people say "so bad it's good." They never just say "good." They qualify the way in which it's good because they know calling it a "good" film is not what they're usually trying to convey when something is stupid, but entertaining.

Ditto for people who refer to a film as a "guilty pleasure." It means they like watching it but acknowledge it's not very good as an example of its art form.

Also, what made you fall so in love with The Blair Witch Project? There were mockumentaries before it like This is Spinal Tap, Zelig, and A Hard Day's Night.