Reviews and Ratings Discussion

Man, they are awful. Sometimes I wonder if they actually go out and look for the worst art they can find. Though I actually believe it's just the paintings of the spouses of our executives. They're usually for sale. None of them ever sell.

And I know what you mean, man, I hate it when they do that.

First of all, to Jinn, re: your point that you’re not interested in the creators who score low on empathy - do you even know who they are? What’s your logic behind this? Oh, if I found out this person felt no empathy, I wouldn’t like their work anymore? Just like that? Or do you think you actually know which people score low on empathy? Because, again, speaking from experience, you are not doing to advertise that about yourself unless you’re anonymous online. No, sir.

Speaking as I was predominantly from experience, in my case, there is a bit of a both and definitely a certain link/correlation. Or perhaps there’s just both at play without affecting each other. Medical professionals disagree on that. But I have discussed the empathy thing with doctors, even the kind that have known me for decades. And as you admit yourself, neurodivergent people may desire connection (or they may not and often do not!) but they are also at a disadvantage as creators if we’re judging a work of art on its ‘humanity’. They can either make everything about themselves (This film is about how I don’t relate to the world, a bit like in I Am Not a Serial Killer) or try to make art ignoring these aspects of existence. I, for one, respect people who can and choose to do this.

I think this strand of the thread actually illustrates quite well something that’s part of the ‘representation’ problem. It looks like for me to speak about autism/empathy/psychopathy and the intersection of the three, I need a disclaimer statement at every turn that this ‘is true as far as it applies to me’. Do we really want to spend time deciding who we don’t want to offend when writing a screenplay? Everything is written by humans, so every story will include human assumptions about things. So yes, a lot of it will misrepresent other people, medical conditions, etc. Is that reason enough not to include any commentary on autism, Asperger’s, or psychopathy? With the latter I do speak from experience, no, medical professionals don’t necessarily agree on what it is, but I have been ‘told off’ by so many relatives for not having enough empathy for this or that person at this or that funeral (how would they even know what I think or feel, though?).

When we make films about historical figures, we tend to be totally chill about bending their sexuality, race, who they slept with, what religion they had, what they thought about other historical figures and events. But when you’re saying anything about your contemporaries or making a general statement, you can’t make a single extrapolation or you’re bigoted? Says who?

You are referencing your friends and acquaintances, I am referencing myself. Neither is objective or even comes close. You don’t, in the end, know what they think and how they feel. Besides, your last line: psychopathy is also a neurological condition or at least something one is born with or, rarely, acquires through injury. Athena Walker, the ‘voice of the psychopaths’, has addressed this all better than I ever could.

In your post above, you suggest that if someone doesn’t want ‘treatment’ or to learn to get close to people, they are less deserving of sympathy or adjustments being made for them, and declare that understanding people that don’t need human connection, like psychopaths, should not be ‘normalised’. Why is that? Because there’s fewer of them? Isn’t this the bit where, were this the stereotypes thread, we’d agree that ‘underrepresented minorities’ should be understood/treated fairly? Or does that not apply to ‘nasties’ without empathy?


Re: subject at hand, I agree with crumbs that proficiency is partly subjective, but less so than other newfangled metrics flaunted in the debate, such as ‘fun’ and what spoke to who personally.

I didn't say that anyone is unworthy of empathy or treatment, but that psychopaths - those with anti-social personality disorders - are notoriously averse to seeking out treatment. The "pathology" is the part which distinguishes this disorder from the norm.


But that's all aside from the fact, that I stand by, which is that anti-social personality disorder is not a spectrum issue, and shouldn't be inherently lumped into that diagnostic category. A person can both be on the spectrum and have a personality disorder, but these are not mutually dependent conditions.

Fair enough, that may well be the case.

I get what you mean, and I can only say that technical proficiency has never been something that tipped the scales for me.

I mean, I will watch things out of curiosity that are technically proficient, but that never seems to be what turns something from art I dislike into art I like. A film with the longest continuous take might get me to watch it just to check out that take, but the long take wouldn't be the element that made it a "good movie".

These two sentences are (accidentally--I'm sure the word "not" is just missing in one of them) contradictory. I think you are saying the child with correct methodology would get greater partial credit?

But here's a question: why does the child with the "correct" answer deserve any points? They stumbled into their answer through an arbitrary method that displays a complete lack of conceptual understanding of what fractions are and how to compare them.

Computational fluency and conceptual understanding are different mathematical proficiencies. What many people totally fail to understand about tests/assessments is that all assessment is aligned to a standard. Sometimes I score my students on computational fluency, and sometimes I assess them on conceptual understanding. Both are important. You aren't going to make it very far as a scientist if you are great at multiplying but don't know when to multiply and if you don't understand how it works (which enables you to spot errors).

To me, the "working out" in a movie is just the art of combining different elements. I strongly believe that a deep understanding of how elements can work together can more than make up for less technical capability. For example, there have been some really effective uses of non-professional actors. Are these people "good actors"? I would say no. But when used intentionally by a director, the produced effect can be more powerful than a performance by an actor who is technically more proficient in their craft.

I just have to keep going back to the idea that it's not about dismissing technical craft, but rather realizing that technical craft is only relevant insofar as it supports a greater purpose.

They don't have to write with emotion. And I'm not marking students down on technical standards because they lack "soul."

But I get a lot of essays that look like this:
In this essay I will be telling you all about dogs and why they are the best pets. Dogs are the best pets because they keep you company. Secondly, dogs can teach you to be more responsible. Finally, dogs are the best pets because they are loyal and will protect you. In conclusion, dogs are the best pets because they keep you company, teach you responsibility, and are loyal and protect you. Thank you for reading my essay, I hope you liked it!.

Now imagine reading 15 essays like that in a row. These essays are, by technical standards, fine. But would you say it is "good writing"?

In my experience teaching writing (from opinion essays to poetry), students write more compelling work (as defined by my reaction, the reaction of their peers, and their own pride with their work and interest in refining it) when they begin with the "heart" of what they want to convey, and throw everything out there, THEN go back to refine the technical elements. Students who begin by trying to plug stuff into a "technically correct" formula often end up with essays like the above.

It isn't about the personal emotions that someone has about a text. Essays aren't meant to be "dear diary" moments. But where, ultimately, does a cookie-cutter piece of writing get you?

Now, if you are preparing for a career where unambiguous, well-researched communication is a necessity, no big deal.

But if you have someone working toward being a novelist, or even something like a regular columnist, it is a disservice to emphasize technical skill over the "art" of writing. Believe me: a child with great ideas and expression lacking in technical skills is much easier to help than a child who is technically proficient but lacking in originality/creativity. Just like a child who can multiply but doesn't know when they should use that operation is easier to help than a child who is basically a calculator but has no clue when to use each operation.

If 99 out of 100 people say that watching a film changed their life, not due to technical elements but because of the emotion it evoked, isn't that a helpful metric? Metrics are only relevant if they align with your stated purpose. I don't think that technical proficiency is the only stated purpose of rewarding films at the Oscars.

Education always ebbs and flows in every way. Finding the right balance between emphasizing technical skill and conceptual understanding is always the fight. If you put all your energy into decoding, you get kids who can read the text (we call this "word calling"), but can't say anything insightful about it. If you put all your energy into comprehension, you get strong thinkers who can't decode (and therefore can't really access text independently).

I personally don't mind the shift toward conceptual understanding (and trust me, there are PLENTY of technical standards in the Common Core). Calculators exist. I would rather have a child who understands when and why to use multiplication than one who is a great multiplier with pencil and paper. In the real world, the conceptual kid can just use a calculator. How is the multiplier going to do anything with themselves?

That's fine---it has been interesting.

Ultimately I think that I go back to one of the first things we talked about (we meaning most of the people on the first two pages), namely why the best route might be finding the critics/reviewers who seem to value what you value in criticism/reviews.

Yes. Sorry, far from well still. I can only imagine it should have gone something like this, “I would take more marks off the child whose answer was correct but not the working out than I would off the child whose working out was correct but not the answer.”

Well, if I remember correctly, there is a kind of ‘one point provision’ for having the right answer or something, even in exam conditions. But that can be discarded as I’m operating on a vague memory. As to ‘why’, well, there’s always the small chance they’re a mathematical genius and arrived at the answer through advanced geometry, drawing a triangle and using it to get their fractions, and all that. unlikely, I know.

I would mostly agree with that. As long as the greater purpose is an entertaining film in a broad sense, something that piques people’s interest, rather than anything advancing an agenda, I’m game. But we’ve discussed that.

Just saying, the above is the best thing I’ve read today, beating The Atlantic and an Allison Pearson op-ed.

Scrap that. It’s the best thing I read all week.

I think it absolutely is a helpful metric. Unfortunately, as these things aren’t numerically measured, it’s hard to say, but perhaps it’s worth tracking.

I do feel there’s something lacking in that approach, but it does sound like the most sensible option. So perhaps you’re right.