Subjectivity VS Objectivity: Which Influences Your Ratings to a Greater Extent?

What plays a bigger role in determining your ratings of films: subjectivity--how well the film appeals to you personally, and to what extent you connect with/relate to it on a personal level, or objectivity--how technically good the film is compared to other movies, and simply just "how well" it is made.

Most of us know the difference between these two ways of looking at films and interpreting their quality, but for those of us who don't know, these are more clear definitions:

If you've seen my posts in the Movie Tab thread, in my Top 100 thread, and in my review thread, obviously subjectivity counts a lot more to me than objectivity, and plays a much bigger role in how and why I rate films. However, that being said, the movies I give, say, and above--I feel--are well-made movies on an unbiased level.

What about you folks?

*I apologize if a thread like this already exists.

__________________
"The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven."
John Milton, Paradise Lost

My Movie Review Thread | My Top 100

It depends. If you're a professional film critic you have to write your reviews from a objectivity point of view. But, if you're just a ordinary film buff that writes reviews for the sake of it, you might as well write subjectivity.

__________________

I honestly don't think there's such a thing as objectivity in film rating. Technically good is subjective as well. Which makes the objectivity subjective. So neither.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

I'll almost only give subjective ratings, in case anyone wondered. The only time I don't is if I really didn't like a film, but that I knew was good (pick a Kubrick film) or vise versa (see Charlie's Angels 2). But either way, I'll give 'my' rating and a 'honest' rating. That, or I'll recommend it for anyone who won't hate it for the reasons I give, whatever they are.

When I say "Which influences your ratings to a greater extent," I mean "your" as in you, personally. So, unless you're a professional critic, I'm not talking about that; just what affects your own ratings more of the two.

From time to time, I hear the words "subjective" and "objective" pop up here and there, so I figured I'd throw this thread out there for discussion. You may be right, but I wanted to solidify my own thoughts as to how we all rate films here.

^ Well in that case, I vote like most here; subjectively.

For me it is Subjectivity.

__________________

~In the event of a Zombie Uprising, remember to sever the head or destroy the brain!~

I agree with John McLane when he says that objectivity does not feature in film rating. Rating movies tends the stir up subjective ideals and interpretations. It tends to be the normal modus of opinion making rather than conforming to the reasonable man perception.

__________________
Comment is free but facts are sacred

Having know some professional film critics (none any of you ever heard of unless you subscribed to Houston newspapers 20 years ago), I mildly disagree. Movie reviewers writing for the general press are more balanced in that they know who are the popular stars and directors and generally support them if only to say "this latest film is not on par with his earlier successes." Yet they also have a better knowledge of the history and development of the movies, actors, directors, etc. and are quicker to recognize a stolen scene or dialogue, repetitive plots, shabby performances, etc. Unlike die-hard fans of a particular actor or director, they don't blindly praise everything that person does. They'll point out flaws along with victories. Even so, their goal is not to be totally objective in offsetting every comment on something bad with an equal comment on something good. At most, they look at a film or performance from many different angles and spot--and then comment on--both the good and bad.

But even the best don't try to detach from their own objectivity. They know what they like, and they also know they've got more reason for what they like or dislike than the average uncritical movie fan.

Moreover, a movie critic writing professionally for the Catholic Digest (if there is such a publication) or the Daily Worker or the Longshoreman's News or the Jewish Defense League is going to have a special point of view in assessing films.

As for me, I'm definitely subjective--unduly egocentric and loving it!!!

I think it's a loaded question and may well be addressed at things I've said here in the past. I'll be the first to admit that everyone is subjective and cannot really get out of their own skin. Everyone has their sacred cows and pariahs, but the fewer of those you have, the more "objective" you can be. The more different kinds of films you watch, the more "objective" you can be. I'm talking about from different eras, different countries, different subject matters, etc. If someone says, "I can't stand musicals", then I wouldn't take anything seriously they have to say about musicals. If somebody says that I love every Pauly Shore film ever made, but I hate black-and-white films, I'd say that person's "objectivity" on those subjects is questionable. However, if you're open to and actually enjoy watching all kinds of films and you have seen many, then I would think that you can have a more objective opinion about an individual film. I mean, there are just so many different things which can turn on/off somebody about a film; its subject matter, how violent it is, how much sexual content it has, if it has CGI, how "realistic" it is, if it contains "attractive" performers, its politics, its religious content, if it's got your fave or least fave actor, if you feel that you've deduced a "hidden message" within it, etc. If a person can divest themselves of their prejudices while watching a film to find the entertainment and/or art within it, then I'd say that person is more objective in their opinions on film. Of course, maybe you don't want somebody who's objective. Maybe you just want to read reviews from Commie stoners. If so, I'm still your reviewer/critic.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I tend to rate films by a mixture of both objectivity and subjectivity.

__________________
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

I tend to attempt to rate them as objectively as my subjectivity will allow...

"If it is, and the sun is over there for instance, that would be northerly. On the other hand, if it's not morning and the sun is over there, that would still be northerly. To put it another way, if we came from down there, and it's morning, the sun would be up there, but if it's actually over there and it's still morning, we must have come from back there, and if that's southerly, and the sun is really over there, then it's the afternoon. However, if none of these are the case..." - Guildenstern

__________________

Basically, I agree with your assessment. However, I've often heard the assertion (in this and other forums) that the more movies one watches, the more "objective" one will be. But at what point does objectivity morph into indiscrimination in the sense of no longer being able to discern between good and bad films, good and bad directors, good and bad actors? One may think some movie fans are too subjective in limiting the films they will watch, but isn't there an even worse danger in watching any and every film that comes along, to the point that Godzilla seems no better or no worse than Citizen Kane?

For that matter, if an objective viewer is to put aside his personal prejudices in judging a film, should he also lay aside his personal standards? What separates the two?

I thnk Guidenstern has posted in this forum before. He obviously has inspired me.

To answer rufnek, check my ratings and tell me if you believe that my ratings tend to reflect that all movies deserve the same rating. I do believe that most films fall somewhere in the middle of a rating system, but personally, I would tend to trust a system where that happens over one where half the films get 4/5 or higher and the rest get close to 1/5.

You snuck another paragraph in on me. I try to eliminate what may have been past personal prejudices in the way I "judge" people also, so it's more an overall way of looking at life. I'll admit though when judging certain things in isolation (say stories of people who apparently do seemingly inhuman actions), it's hard for me not to get pissed at someone or something (say the insidiousness of advertising). However, I would have no problems watching a movie about atrocious acts or "scumbag" advertisers no matter what the perspective was. If I believe the films are poor, I'll say so and try to say why, which probably won't be because of the subject matter, but anything's possible. As time goes by, I do make an effort to be more selective about the films I watch, especially if they're newer horror/sci-fi remakes or just seem to be uninteresting. This means that I often don't see some of the highest-grossing films of recent years at all or for several years after their release.

My comments weren't aimed at you personally, Mark. Sorry if I left that impression. I thought we were talking about the average movie goer's objectivity and subjectivity in picking and viewing movies.

I doubt if I've ever read your--or anyone's--reviews since I seldom click into that section of this forum. I almost never pay attention to how many stars or popcorn boxes or other little rating emblems are painted in on any review. Picking a specific number is totally subjective because one is then rating something on an arbitrary list of 1 to 5 (or whatever maximum). I don't believe one can accurately reduce an opinion to a number.

When I read a review, I'm much more interested in what the reviewer says about the film, what he liked, what he disliked. I get a better idea about the movie and whether I want to invest my time and money in it from what one or more reviewers say about it than all the numerical ratings in the world.

I think that in life in general, not just the movies, it's important to be open-minded without becoming indiscriminate and to stick with one's principles without it turning into prejudice. I find it a hard choice because so many times one subtly shades into the other.

PS: Looks like we're each editing faster than the other can read--I just saw your expansion of your former statement. :-)

It's good that you and others are able to plow through the atrocious and be objective about what you're viewing. That's why you're likely a much better reviewer than I could ever be, because I decided sometime ago that it's not worth it to me individually and doesn't prove anything to tolerate something atrocious. It takes too much toll on my emotions and I just won't do it any more. That's also why I don't watch TV shows that treat flying saucers, ghosts, witches, Atlantus, and the Bermuda Triangle as legitimate subjects for serious discussion. I think there's a reason why the people who claimed to have been abducted by aliens have a strong resemblence to the guests on the Jerry Springer Show.