Do you tend to rate on a high or low scale and on what merit?
For me personally, I tend to rate high. I'm really passionate about film, (as I know we all are on here), but for me there's just as much of a charm to a low-grade film as there is to something more high-brow. To me watching something like Fair Game or Scream of the Wolf proves just as valuable an experience as my experience as with something like Casablanca or something from "Second Cinema" like Bergman or Tarkovsky. In that too, experimental works prove to me very valuable. Seeing the works or Deren, Brakhage, or Baldwin and Menken are rejuvenating to me. It really makes me see beyond the limits of what cinema can and can't do. Plus it's just interesting to see, (at least for me anyway), what can be pushed outside the limits of narrative and even beyond non-narrative structures. As such, and this is just my own personal way, I can't really bring myself to rate too terribly low. Though there have been some exceptions, (like Black Devil Doll from Hell), the general rule for me is to give my lowest score a 2/5 Stars just on the merits of "mere existence."
So what say you?
__________________
Imagine an eye unruled by man-made laws of perspective, an eye unprejudiced by compositional logic, an eye which does not respond to the name of everything but which must know each object encountered in life through an adventure of perception. How many colors are there in a field of grass to the crawling baby unaware of 'Green'?
-Stan Brakhage
Imagine an eye unruled by man-made laws of perspective, an eye unprejudiced by compositional logic, an eye which does not respond to the name of everything but which must know each object encountered in life through an adventure of perception. How many colors are there in a field of grass to the crawling baby unaware of 'Green'?
-Stan Brakhage