But that's not actually an answer to his question. He already knows that those movies were not **** to those people. He's asking why.
2: No one is "simply" entertained by things. Entertainment is not an objective quality of the universe. There are reasons why people are entertained by the things that entertain them, having to do with their values, emotional needs, and the level and form of their critical thinking process. Saying "they were simply entertained" kind of shuts down conversation for no reason.
He's asking why those people give TF the same rating in their book as a Van Gough even though it fails to meet the checks and balances of what he deems necessary for a film to get that score. He wants to know why they were still entertained. Two ways to answer this question and I did both. Again, maybe the 'acting' wasn't crappy to these people that love the film, this is subjective(given it's art). The greater point however is perhaps even if that stuff was all **** to these people there is something else there for them that grab hold of, to speak to, and they were STILL entertained. For if that other stuff still happens in spite of all these things he himself is deeming important for a film to be good, then... high score(from millions of people no less). I'm not shutting down anything rather opening doors actually.
2) Yes, I made almost this similar point back in post 80, about entertainment being influenced by a great many variables, more than we can even comprehend(even those affecting a critic that morning), I said it's these sorts of variables that can determine if Sally finds a film entertaining, not simply if dude or critics think the acting wasn't on point. There is no shutting down of anything other than the fact that just because the acting(and the 4 other things he listed) sucks, doesn't mean something can't still be entertaining to an individual. And again, if something, some piece of art is entertaining(and or a few other things I listed such as inspiring etc), then it will probably get a pass or high score to said individual. If someone finds a way to derive entertainment from some artists thesis or endeavor then there is a success. That's the sort of thing that leads to millions of people watching a full series in spite of so called bad acting. Not at all saying if something is entertaining then discussion as to why or if the actin is good need be shut down. Rather the why people can still.
1: The opinion of critics isn't given value because they have a title. It's given value because (generally) they spend much more time and energy thinking about and analyzing the art form with a critical eye and they (generally) draw from a greater experience with the broader historical and social context....
2: I think ending the conversation at wether or not the largest amount of people connected with the work is a little shortsighted....
That does little for me when I'm told that a certain critic found the acting unconvincing or the visual effects poor or the story un-engaging. The two keys for me to know if some idea/execution an artist has is engaging is my own personal experience and that of if it was engaging to some other person or many others, at which point, I can no longer say "it is not". Better example: was said movie scary? Well let's find out what joe critic thinks about this experience. Interesting opinion he has, but why is it my little brother can't sleep in his own bed for a week...The film being loved or hated in this case boiling down to someones experience of being scared or not. The artists intent successful or not. Let me get the opinion of some critic, a few of them rather, let them give the informed opinion on the experience for the masses. No good for me.
As for the idea that they can shed some light on things due to studying the history and text books and theory and greater analysis, that's all well and good, truly. But if a ride is scary or if a love story speaks, rather will speak to
you before you see the film, that goes beyond some weighted opinion. Next we'll have these people give us this service for roller coasters.
2) I think if an artist wants to create an experience and he finds and connects with an audience, that's the game. Giving more or less value to how people connect with certain things is something I personally don't agree with. Again, if your favorite song in the world is as such because it(and the artist) takes you some where deemed less meaning full than Mozart(for example), I see that more as an attempt at control than a respect for expression, they want more Mozart in the industry than Bieber..they want more films of this substance than of less..etc. That something is your favorite movie is greater for me than if you like it for reasons deemed 'good'.
Also, if an artist seeks to and accomplishes reaching and connecting with all the closed minded people in the world, if this then becomes his audience and they continue to have an artist to audience relationship perhaps greater than and more loyal than any such other, then I would argue this a very successful artistic expression. One I'm sure someone could argue is weak, explaining that said audience should be asking more of this and that(I see this most often in HipHop criticism). I'm talking about the achievement of an artist speaking to an audience on a personal level with his expression(ism).
A child of 6 developing his fathers most beloved piece in a collection, that's what art is to me.
I don't need Faraci or Lumiere to then tell me all the reasons it's a nonsense picture for them.
I think that saying "I'm too unique to give weight to the opinions of others" is robbing yourself of opportunities and new experiences, and it really doesn't make much sense. No one is asking you to give up your individuality.
I'm all for broadening horizons, thus getting opinions of all sorts, whether they be more learned or less is great. It even infuses and can contribute to your own experience of said art. Go into the gallery and talk to these people, learn from them even. But if you look at that "red box on white canvas" and feel it evokes some pattern that describes your life, don't let these other human beings start with the 'lack of meaning/composition/anatomy'. This is a similar phenomena to the Jackson Pollack paradigm. In which the weighted critical minds of the day weren't feeling his paint splatter based on accepted rules or their own experience and now, a greater 'truth' is revealed. As close to a truth as one can hope for with art anyways. My point was that of not simply giving more or greater weight to someone else opinion on an
experience. And it's an experience you are paying for, and critics watching the film early and warning you of that is being calculated here. No one has walked in your shoes and no one can speak for how you experience anything. That's one step removed from having someone tell you what will make you happy in a wife. And sure, there is always good learned advice, but at the end of the day, if your parents tell you that you aren't in love with Sally because
-they don't find her as pretty as you
-they don't think she's as smart as someone you should be with
-they don't think shes funny
-not enough substance..
Screw this, you love in your wife what you love(same as art) and what your parents are aiming to do with here is guide and control what said kids(audience) are supposed to look for, what they see value in. Sure, maybe loving someone for sex vs them being a well composed person is seen as less valuable but you can't quantify how much someone actually loves that one element and how important it then is to their personal list. You can't determine if another individual will have the time of their life in a movie! That might be the what Johnny needs to fall in love with something due to who his is. Giving weight, rather more weight to these learned people over your own experience is folly. Doing so in the realm of analysis is another matter I suppose. But everything speaks to us differently because we are all different.
When I say I'm too unique, I mean we aren't all cut from some mold. We all have varying love of apples and no one is going to put a number on just how much enjoyment I or my ten other friends will get out of eating an apple. "Oh but the red ones hold more nutrition and are sweeter, I know this because I am experienced and deem these things important.. and I'm going to point everyone to follow in my informed..." Point being, speak for yourself. Never said don't speak.
In closing, I think this boils down to our separate experience with critics and their work. Looking at what you are describing it's rather poetic imo. I've read film hulks stuff and I assume this is what you are pointing to when you allude to insight into social context and story method and what not. Even the controversial Armond White does a style of insightful writing and historical comparison in his 'reviews. However there is that of simply conveying their own viewing experience and how they feel, to which end I will entertain what that might bring to the table of discussion, but I won't give it some greater weight than some theater lobby discussion but with some shroud of added weight. I feel if I don't give you a direct example of what it is I'm referring to you will keep pulling this description to that of a filmcritichulk. And for the sake of this thread, it will be MOS related[YT]4FkZhvTIgeA[/YT]Sorry but I see a great deal of this in our modern critical landscape. You explain:
"They are voicing their own opinions and putting them in a wider cultural and academic context, and they are asking the audience to think about why they like what they like much more critically." I don't recall being asked to see anything to the point of why I like anything. Not this time anyways. I'm just seeing some opinions and little more. I see alot of this. Some given more weight then others apparently.
As for your last part, I worded that wrong. I meant the TS, wanted a mos discussion and a rating on mos. Something to the end of a "once and for all...rate....mos', and my long posts have nothing to do with that end.
This very post for instance.
