Cracker: Wallywood
735 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 20 21 22 23 24 … 30 Newer→ Last
-
Took me a while to write this, and things moved on. Oh well.
Should you give equal weight to an uninformed or misinformed opinion as you would to an informed one? (If so, why? / If not, why not?).
Yes, but, who are the arbiters of what information is relevant and what isn't? Unless you can prove some sort of a priori hierarchy of value, the results will be subjective by definition.
When comparing the quality of a repair on a broken motorcycle, you have the workshop manual, or manufacturers specifications as the 'informed opinion'. When standing in front of a work of art, do you carry round the canon of art critics through the ages to guide you in your impression, or look at it and say 'I like that' or 'that's crap' as the mood takes you?
There is no uniformity of context, and therefore it is subjective. Yes yes, we can argue 'commonality', and 'technical proficiency', but 'quality' and 'taste' are not natural bedfellows. You could agree that The Mona Lisa was a 'great painting', but still not like it. Or vice-versa.
-
3410,
If you'll forgive me, there seems a relatively short route between "Well... who's to say what's 'right' and 'wrong' in this modern world?" and - sorry - fascism.
Except for the very small detail that Fascism is predicated exactly on forbidding whole categories of people to have a say on what's right and wrong.
That's what I'm saying!
-
That's what I'm saying!
Is it? Well, I can safely say I'm totally confused now.
-
3410,
Nothing. It's a free world.
Or have I misunderstood the question?
No, but aren't you then saying that if my opinion being contrary to the consensus means nothing, then so does everyone else's opinion mean nothing, therefore even consensus (the balance of a group of opinions) also means "nothing"?
-
My take on this: The question of the existence of independent anything is not resolved, nor could it ever be. The choice of position itself will never be made on purely logical grounds.
We can't prove we exist at all. We can't prove the universe exists. We can't prove anything about the world, and that especially include values existing in this universe, or out of it, or in whatever this "objective space" is.
I can't prove this point either. I can only say that we've had a damned good go at it, and it still remains unresolved. Perhaps some simple proof, or some horribly complicated one, lies just around the corner. Perhaps I'm wrong, and it has been proved, and I just can't handle the proof.
The problem with this position is that it isn't a position. It makes no stand. It is not 'progressive', just cautious. It's actually the people who do take stands that move these debates forward. They may drive forward against all reason, but at least they're trying to understand things. I applaud this, and generally try to do so myself. But it can fail too, like all processes, particularly when the debate stagnates, stops being constructive and creative, stops allowing alternate perspective, obstructs new entrants from allowing their POV to develop any sophistication. Then the debate is 'degenerating'.
-
3410,
Is it? Well, I can safely say I'm totally confused now.
I say A leads to B. You say B is predicated on A. We agree!
-
There is a strange feeling that this debate has been going on since I joined in December, under different headings, but ostensibly the same. As Ben says, we can progress in our understanding, but only really as individuals in a common context (well, I said that, but agree with what you said), not as some sort of 'hive mind' who all arrive at a higher level of understanding, and then move on to conquer the world.
Or can we? PASsers of the world unite and take over!
-
They're different lists produced by different categories of people. They are both interesting and useful.
That was my point: in response to the idea that there is a consensus, I was saying that there is more than one kind of consensus. The critical consensus -- that BFI list -- strikes me as more useful than the other because it is informed by tastes or judgements you described as more "sophisticated":
I appreciate that this training is valuable, but it's still a form of taste, however sophisticated.
What does sophistication mean in this context? I take it as meaning a more developed ability to discern artistic quality, based largely on training and experience. Your implication is that some tastes are more sophisticated than others.
-
What does sophistication mean in this context? I take it as meaning a more developed ability to discern artistic quality, based largely on training and experience. Your implication is that some tastes are more sophisticated than others.
Yes, it is. I'll give you an example: the Listener used to employ a very able critic that in the little space allowed for describing the films that were scheduled on TV on any given week was able to tell you not only if he regarded them as good films, and why, but also give you a pretty good idea of whether they'd be to your own personal taste, by drawing wide-ranging comparisons to other films. That takes a whole lot of skill, and is very valuable.
When this chap moved on, the magazine contracted the column to two of its feature writers. They were able journalists in their own right, but nowhere near able to aspire to the title of film critics, alas. One of them once called Bernardo Bertolucci a French director. But beyond that, it was just painfully obvious that neither of them could offer the services of their predecessor. They lacked the breadth and depth of knowledge of cinema, as well as the ability to condense it in a dozen or more weekly mini-reviews.
That's obviously where I want a critic, and not a general punter. But that's not to imply that the critic sits atop something called the "objective artistic merit" of a film or work of art. That to me is entirely a social construct, modulated by the community of critics, the film industry and the public at large in complex ways. And let's face it, sometimes critics are the last to catch on to the value of an innovative work. The critical history of Bonnie and Clyde is a good illustration of that.
-
Fair enough. I find very little to argue with there.
-
We miss you, is what I'm trying to say. :-)
-
It's like a thread taken over by a PHIL 101 tutorial group out of control.
-
Do they have surprising outbursts of emotion there too?
EDIT: I hope it doesn't sound like I'm taking the piss. I'm really pleased you remember what I did there. It was a good gig but sadly I had a whole bunch of reasons for going.
-
What does sophistication mean in this context? I take it as meaning a more developed ability to discern artistic quality, based largely on training and experience. Your implication is that some tastes are more sophisticated than others.
That one is not particularly hard to answer. Discernment is simply learning to see things (or any other sense). You definitely can't have a 'progressive' debate without it. However, people can be discerning about quite different things. In watching Avatar, you could be a very discerning audience wrt the 3D element, having experienced a lot of 3D somehow, possibly through computer gaming. Most of the theatre going audience, including most critics, quite probably have almost no discernment in this respect at all, yet.
I consider myself a discerning viewer of martial arts movies. Not just because I've watched a lot of the movies, but because I've been doing martial arts since I was 10, have researched them a fair bit, discussed them a lot with other martial artists etc. When watching a martial arts movie, I'm bringing this with me. I may develop extremely different opinions than other people because of it. For instance, I tend to find the non-chinese movies these days appalling, because they use actors who have not specialized in the genre. It sticks out just how awfully slow, weak, and sloppy they are, no matter how much cinematic tricks are used. It's one of the main things I hold against The Matrix .
-
It's like a thread taken over by a PHIL 101 tutorial group out of control.
I assume this is a compliment.
-
That's obviously where I want a critic, and not a general punter.
I like that kind of critic, the one who talks to 'who this will appeal to, and why'. They're very useful, much more so than one who dismissed a horror film I had nearly died of fright in as "Chill-free yawn-a-rama time". If he'd stuck to his usual game, he might have said "Unless you are under 12, in which case you are likely to pack death, but in a good way".
-
It was a good gig but sadly I had a whole bunch of reasons for going
As a (then) loyal reader, I found it appalling that when you, Russell and a bunch of others went, there wasn't a word about it in the magazine - not a thank you, not a "he left to spend more time with his family", not so much as an acknowledgment that the writer had gone for good. It had quite a sinister feel ("Philip has gone to a farm now, he's much happier there"), but perhaps it's how it's done in New Zealand.
-
Do they have surprising outbursts of emotion there too?
Well, one that I attended nearly all died laughing about how stupid what we were discussing had got. Gabriel White was the culprit "Hmmm, I don't know, <rubs chin in mockery of about 8 different professors, and the tutor> I've played some pretty damned competitive doll's games in my time". Funny bloke, just the kind of guy philosophy needs when it all gets a bit too serious.
-
"The Listener" had an unfortunately long record of doing that Giovanni: I remember when they decided to ditch Trace Hodgson (one of my favourite cartoonists) with a snide ,IIRC, comment that they didnt think he fitted the new look magazine.
I was so happy to stop subscribing to the thing-it-had-become...
-
"The Listener" had an unfortunately long record of doing that Giovanni: I remember when they decided to ditch Trace Hodgson (one of my favourite cartoonists) with a snide ,IIRC, comment that they didnt think he fitted the new look magazine.
But that was at least a comment. I'm pretty sure that when Gordon Campbell and Steve Braunias went - two of the best writers they ever had and ever will have -- there wasn't a word about it. I'm tempted to say it must feel to the readers like that bit in one of the Milan Kundera books about politicians associated with the previous Czech regime being quietly removed from the official photos, but maybe that's a touch over-dramatic ...
-
Trace Hodgson
was there ever a book of that ongoing, deeply strange, strip he had in the Listener? I loved that...
I know there was Dismembered featuring some of his Political Cartoons from the Listener
and Awesome Aotearoa with Margaret Mahy...
I read somewhere he did all his panels huge on Gib Board or similar and had them reduced... -
philipmatthews, you're right - it was a comment. But...
Gordon and Steve - whose work, along with Russell's and your own- just vanished...small editorial notes, full of self-congratulation and no explanation to readers are not much else...That 'deeply strange' strip of Trace Hodgson's (I kept all the pages) should be republished: aside from anything else, there were a lot of unresolved plot-lines.
Another project for the 'When I Win Lotto' pile-
-
I'm not sure if this is the right thread to post this, but what is..I'm just seeing over on Facebook that Danielle (and Brent) had a baby (Bobby) at 2.30 pm, 4.4kgs (that is 9.7 lbs), 56cm, c section
Makes me feel all warm and happy (although not as happy as those two I bet).
Congrats to all three.
-
By the way, in the unlikely event that anyone wants to read more about film criticism, there is this very sensible piece from David Bordwell.
-
We really do need a social announcements thread...
Three cheers to Danielle and her family!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.