So this conversation I had about a year ago, which I forgot about until now, came about somewhat randomly when talking about how much Ghostbusters: Answer the Call sucked loads of diarrhea ass. You may find it worth a read.
But that’s not what I said. I said, “People have subjective tastes in films, and there’s probably nothing more subjective than a sense of humor. But I can prove that the original is objectively better than this one […]”
Subjective tastes indicate subjective ways of being entertained. People can be entertained by low brow humor, people can be entertained by high brow humor, or the stuff in between. But being entertained by a movie doesn’t mean it’s a good movie. People enjoy films all the time that they readily admit/claim is trash, just as people enjoy films that they admit/claim is not trash. There is criteria to be met for a film to be considered good, and this film falls short of that, at the very least. I consider it trash. Doesn’t change the fact that viewers can be entertained by trash.
Well it’s about damn time someone got confrontational with my statements. Care to expand on how those truth claims with the study of film?
I stand by my opinion regarding those who like the low brow humor of this movie, but I believe I should clarify that this applies to only this movie. There are varieties of low brow humor, and this film only has 1 of them (for the most part anyway). This isn’t the same as Troll 2, Ted or Ted 2, Rick and Morty, etc.
The statement, “if you like the film, then your opinion and experience is worthless” isn’t entirely accurate. I would rephrase it as, “if you like this film, then your opinion of this film is worthless.” Key words there being “this film.”
With that said, I’ll relent a bit. It’s not right to say “if you like this film, then your opinion of this film is worthless,” because there is usually something to be gained from one’s sincere opinion, even if you don’t agree with it. Some who like a movie but admit it is trash should serve as a fair warning to others. Those who like a movie that is trash but don’t admit that it is trash, and refuse to admit it is trash, those are opinions that are worthless. You can argue that films can’t be objectively labeled as trash or good because films are an art form and art is subjective, to which I’ll reply, “I would love to see your arguments.” Bring them on.
I don’t have that book handy. I’d rather see a quote that supports the claim that disagrees with my statement.
Big dictionary words in this. Used to dabble in works such as this, but that was a while ago, so I’m a bit rusty. From what I gather, it’s arguing that a critic has no boundaries, no limits, to how films are critiqued, thus he can reset or move the boundaries whenever he desires. Interpretations are tricky, and so are the words that are to be used for film criticism.
Well, I do believe I can at least respond to the boundaries claim. There are boundaries that can be set. Take acting for example. The actor must react to a situation in a certain way, and must look convincing when doing so (unless this is to be a parody or a documentary, in the case of the former, the actor must intentionally act unconvincing if the scene or film calls for it). So the situation must be analyzed and consider what is called for.
For example, in the portion of Citizen Kane where Orson Welles is playing an old man and throws a tantrum, the situation calls for realism, to demonstrate how angry Kane becomes when he doesn’t get what he wants, when he realizes that there is something he cannot possess to illustrate his desire to possess everything. As an old man, raging rather meekly and stiffly demonstrates how pathetic and childish he has become, while also realistically demonstrating that this is how an elder would get angry, as opposed to the youth that Orson Welles actually is at the time who would more effectively, more terrifyingly, and more energetically break things in a fit of rage. That’s the situation. And it can’t really be argued that the performance didn’t effectively portray this. That being said, if an actor came on to the role for this sequence who didn’t look angry, didn’t move liken to an elderly, then it would be a bad performance for that scene.
I believe the reason the author claims critics have no boundaries is because he doesn’t take into account that films have different situations, or may have the same situation but desire a different performance from it to deliver a different mood, atmosphere, or message. One must consider each scene, each situation, consider the intention, and critique accordingly. And it’s not just with actors, but the music (much more difficult to critique, but possible), the directing style, the coloring, lighting, mise en scene, etc. And then of course you have to consider the film as a whole, and consider the situation in context with the film as a whole, if all the “situations” within the film mesh well together for the entire film. Difficult, but not impossible.
Boundaries can be set, but they must be set relative to the situation at hand. If boundaries can’t be set, then there wouldn’t be near-universal agreements on the status of certain films. Troll 2 is considered a bad film, but there are those who would disagree, and I say their opinion doesn’t really matter because they’re not sane, and their reasons for thinking the movie is good are not logical (such as the director and at least 1 actress, as highlighted in the film Best Worst Movie). But the film is still popular in a cult status way because people think the film is good entertainment for reasons different from those few exceptional dissenters.
On the opposite side of the spectrum is Citizen Kane, a film borderline-universally considered good, where many essays and books (much less reviews on this site) highlight why it is good. And once again, the dissenters opinion doesn’t really matter because their arguments against it not being a good film (not their arguments for why they didn’t enjoy it mind you) are flawed.
As for this film Ghostbusters: Answer the Call, the boundary I set is that it takes more than comedy for a film to be good, even if the film itself is a comedy. All famous comedy films that are remembered decades later have more going for them than just their comedy, the most famous example being Dr. Strangelove. As for another example, It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, it also has great set pieces, great stuntwork, little messages about the downfall of those who are ruled by greed or refuse to stand up for themselves against the will of others. That movie, a movie that is very centered around its slapstick comedy antics, has more contained within it (length aside) than the new Ghostbusters film does.
So, what else have you got?
Uh, ok, but that isn’t giving me a reason to be dissuaded from my stance unless I see some sort of critique against it, as opposed to, “the critiques are there, just not here, they are coming someday.” I’ve made my argument, I’ve made my shot, the ball is still in your court.
No, this isn’t enumerative inductionism. That indicates that you have to consider multiple actors and how they could’ve done the role better or worse, or even the same actor. I am not considering it, nor am I saying that should be taken under consideration. A film shouldn’t be critiqued on what-ifs, it should be critiqued on what is, and compared to other things also set in stone (other “what is’s”, if you will).
Acting a priori? Are you telling me that research for a role isn’t based on evidence? Deduction, evidence, acting can be performed and analyzed through both. Do actors not do research for a role? Do they not find evidence that the character they are portraying, even if fictional, isn’t based on some real life figure that there is evidence for? Acting caters to our perceptions, thus it must exist within our perception. If it exists outside of it, such as we can’t perceive this, how would that even work? I do know one thing, the acting done in Citizen Kane at the very least makes sense to our perceptions, both when it was made, and in the present.
Citizen Kane is a movie that does have Orson Welles in it acting as Charles Kane. Fact, objective.
Orson Welles does act like an old man in that scene. You could argue that there are old people that don’t move like that, but on the other hand, there are old people who do move like that. He would only have to replicate the look and movement of one of them. Fact, objective.
The scene portrays the character as an old man who is currently angry and ill-tempered, and Orson Welles acts angry and ill-tempered. You could argue that not all angry people act like this, some would skulk rather than break inanimate objects, but there are people who do act this way. We know people act this way because we’ve seen people act this way, we have perceived and understood it. Fact, objective.
The reason the scene calls for Welles to act this way relates to a previous scene in that his wife left him. People can get angry for such reasons. It also calls for him to act in this way for thematic implications which are not difficult to fathom, as other reviews would be more than happy to point out. The acting not only portrays an angry old man, but also gets this message across, because audiences can “perceive” this, because perceptive individuals exist. Fact. Care to demonstrate how this isn’t objective, or how precisely one can’t arrive to that conclusion?
You see, this is why you should debate by example. State your hypothesis, your theory, make an example out of it, and/or demonstrate how it topples an example set forth by an opposing theory. If you do this, and be as specific as possible while doing so, your message gets through more clearly.
I’m not sure what definition you’re using, but according to google, enumerative inductionism is reasons from some instances to all instances, such as by claiming all swans are white if you have seen only 100 swans that are white. That is not what I am basing my theory on. I am saying actors base their performance off of a way specific individuals act, and that replicating that specific individual brings about the desired performance. Because that is accurate enough. Not to say there aren’t other ways to act better or worse, but enough for what the situation calls for. As an even better example, some actors act in a role that replicates the way only 1 lone individual acts, which is hardly similar to the way anyone else would act, such as Bronson with Tom Hardy. I’m not seeing anything close to enumerative inductionism there, but if that is the case, you need to tell me how it is, with specifics.
Premise: we’ve scene that people act this way. (Specifics)
Conclusion: it’s reasonable to believe that one of those types of people can act that way in that situation (specifics).
It’s wrong to generalize everyone who shares similar traits that the actor portrays the same way it is to generalize actors who act similarly with everyone they supposedly represent. No generalizations. Case by case, situation by situation, basis. Case in point, it’s wrong to generalize by stating women and men in general act like the women and men portrayed in Ghostbusters: Answer the Call. That is not the conclusion I am drawing, nor the argument I am supporting.
Or do we have failure to communicate?