Closed Thread
And, to be clear, in critical discussions NO the tastes of the average Joe mean absolutely nothing. Zero. Not because their likes or dislikes don't matter. They do. And they can like or enjoy whatever matters to them. In that, there are never any rights or wrongs.
But in regards to Criticism, ultimately all that matters is what is SAID about a film. That's what should be evaluated as a critic. Not whether someone went to it. Not if they enjoyed it or hated it or forgot about it. Only what they have to say. And the vast majority of those who go to the theater don't actually have anything to say about their feelings. They don't particularly want to. Nor, frankly, are they equipped to. Because why should they? If they just want to be diverted from their lives for an hour and a half, let them. They don't need to be a part of these more detailed and, yes, informed discussions. They can simply be the audience members that they want to be. They can enjoy or not enjoy to their hearts delight.
The reality is most people are simply not informed about the history of film. Have only watched a limited number of them. Know nothing about different strains of art theory. Dont have a pathological need to articulate the nuances of how those films made them feel or how they managed to pull it off. They haven't put in the work to do this...and thats fine. They can recommend what movies they like or don't like to their friends until they are blue in the face. You know, the people they know, whose tastes they can specifically address. The people who might watch films just like they do.
But do what these (vast majority) of viewers have to say beyond that, matter outside of their circle of friends? Well, no. Of course they don't? Because how could they? It's a subject they do not know very much about, beyond every few weeks flopping down in front of a film. How could what that person's says have any value to the world at large? Unless they have the skills to communicate these sorts of things to people they've never met (you know, something that is a learned and studied skill), what they have to say can't possibly be more than small talk..and this isn't how criticism works.
Taking the stance that movies should predominantly be critiqued and evaluated by these average Joe's, is like me taking my pet to get a checkup to some random person I see petting a cat on a street.
"Hey, they like animals! Maybe they can drain my dogs anal glands!"
Yes, it's nearly that absurd.
Name me one other thing in the world where we defer to the consumers to be the professionals? Do people who like to eat , but don't know how to cook, make our meals in restaurants? Do seniors who watch Matlock reruns while eating dried prunes defend us in court? Do children who poke at roadkill on the side of the street conduct autopsies?
Of course not. And this is the underlying malignancy of this bullshit attitude. It is designed to turn art into something very unserious. Something frivolous. Something that doesn't have any power or agency because everyone's opinion is equal. There is nothing more to see in it than what the most detached set of eyeballs happens to see. Everything else should be distrusted. There can't be such thing as an expert when there is so much of this subjectivity floating around.
It's nonsense. The kind of thing you only hear from people who I assume feel some kind of shame when their own tastes don't align with a current critical consensus (instead of them just having the more reasonable response....to not give a **** if the critics don't agree with them).
Criticism should come from people who actually have the tools to say actual things about a work of art. To draw attention to what may have been missed. And through real criticism, if someone begins to see a film in a new light, or maybe just allows them to consider it from a new perspective, that is when criticism has done its job. Because that is basically what it is for. It should offer a bit of guidance, for those who care enough, to see things in a different light. Or simply have their feelings articulated in ways they may have not had the time or inclination to work out themselves.
It's not about simply parroting back the responses of every person who ever saw the movie and counting up the yays and nays. That doesn't mean anything in a critical sense. Because everyone isn't a ****ing critic.
And that isn't an insult. Just like it wouldn't be an insult if someone told me I wasn't a brain surgeon or a priest or a botanist. Because I'm not.
But in regards to Criticism, ultimately all that matters is what is SAID about a film. That's what should be evaluated as a critic. Not whether someone went to it. Not if they enjoyed it or hated it or forgot about it. Only what they have to say. And the vast majority of those who go to the theater don't actually have anything to say about their feelings. They don't particularly want to. Nor, frankly, are they equipped to. Because why should they? If they just want to be diverted from their lives for an hour and a half, let them. They don't need to be a part of these more detailed and, yes, informed discussions. They can simply be the audience members that they want to be. They can enjoy or not enjoy to their hearts delight.
The reality is most people are simply not informed about the history of film. Have only watched a limited number of them. Know nothing about different strains of art theory. Dont have a pathological need to articulate the nuances of how those films made them feel or how they managed to pull it off. They haven't put in the work to do this...and thats fine. They can recommend what movies they like or don't like to their friends until they are blue in the face. You know, the people they know, whose tastes they can specifically address. The people who might watch films just like they do.
But do what these (vast majority) of viewers have to say beyond that, matter outside of their circle of friends? Well, no. Of course they don't? Because how could they? It's a subject they do not know very much about, beyond every few weeks flopping down in front of a film. How could what that person's says have any value to the world at large? Unless they have the skills to communicate these sorts of things to people they've never met (you know, something that is a learned and studied skill), what they have to say can't possibly be more than small talk..and this isn't how criticism works.
Taking the stance that movies should predominantly be critiqued and evaluated by these average Joe's, is like me taking my pet to get a checkup to some random person I see petting a cat on a street.
"Hey, they like animals! Maybe they can drain my dogs anal glands!"
Yes, it's nearly that absurd.
Name me one other thing in the world where we defer to the consumers to be the professionals? Do people who like to eat , but don't know how to cook, make our meals in restaurants? Do seniors who watch Matlock reruns while eating dried prunes defend us in court? Do children who poke at roadkill on the side of the street conduct autopsies?
Of course not. And this is the underlying malignancy of this bullshit attitude. It is designed to turn art into something very unserious. Something frivolous. Something that doesn't have any power or agency because everyone's opinion is equal. There is nothing more to see in it than what the most detached set of eyeballs happens to see. Everything else should be distrusted. There can't be such thing as an expert when there is so much of this subjectivity floating around.
It's nonsense. The kind of thing you only hear from people who I assume feel some kind of shame when their own tastes don't align with a current critical consensus (instead of them just having the more reasonable response....to not give a **** if the critics don't agree with them).
Criticism should come from people who actually have the tools to say actual things about a work of art. To draw attention to what may have been missed. And through real criticism, if someone begins to see a film in a new light, or maybe just allows them to consider it from a new perspective, that is when criticism has done its job. Because that is basically what it is for. It should offer a bit of guidance, for those who care enough, to see things in a different light. Or simply have their feelings articulated in ways they may have not had the time or inclination to work out themselves.
It's not about simply parroting back the responses of every person who ever saw the movie and counting up the yays and nays. That doesn't mean anything in a critical sense. Because everyone isn't a ****ing critic.
And that isn't an insult. Just like it wouldn't be an insult if someone told me I wasn't a brain surgeon or a priest or a botanist. Because I'm not.
Last edited by crumbsroom; 07-19-23 at 08:40 AM.
And the rep you gave my post too, so I repped you back...I'm nice that way!
