MetLife

newcomer said:When I say "pure," I mean the fact that space and time are synchronized to such an extent that there is no need for any mental exertion when processing information.

Of course there is a need for information processing. In a more complex film, it will be easier for you to connect cause and effect if you reflect on them while the movie is still playing.

The simpler the concept, the more accessible the film is to a wider audience... the more complex the concept, the fewer people will find the film good.

1. Why, when discussing Bresson, should we even consider the opinions of people who view cinema merely as entertainment?
2. And what about that whole "time will tell" argument? That approach often fails, at least in my experience.

And now we arrive at the concept of worldview, which is exposed to the film's concept; therefore, the 'critiques' written by someone are essentially an intimate window into the personal worldview within which the film attempts to install itself.

Not everyone is the same. There will always be more objective and less objective people and critics. I enjoy Lynch too, yet his 'Cowboy and the Frenchmen' was mediocre to me. Same with Dune. Of those two mentioned, neither aligns with my "worldview." I put that in quotes because I am not sure we even agree on the definition of the term.

I find reading such 'critiques' absolutely fascinating.

I do as well. However, the causal link between one's worldview and their critique (whether such a link exists or not) is much easier to establish when someone completely trashes a film.

Not to mention those who went mad after such a realization. Or even worse.

For example?

You don't even need to take a close look at Transamerica to realize that Smoogj was spot on in that first post. Honestly, I tend to shy away from movies where characters feel the need to verbally explain their emotions during those quiet moments between major plot points.

goldenhound32 said:Not everyone is the same. There will always be people who are more or less objective critics.

Oh, really? That’s quite the delusion. Criticism is subjective by its very definition. Anyone trying to claim otherwise is just being a poser. It sounds like something written for people who want to act high and mighty—lots of deep words and fancy cards.😁 👍dustyscout53?

http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/c...f-judgment.txt

Oh, come now, Rachel, is that all you have to say? I have a sneaking suspicion that dustyscout53 actually believes you are capable of composing a truly decent film critique!

Jesse Sanchez7 said:Is that so? A profound misconception, truly.

Perhaps if you took a moment to actually reread my sentence, you might finally grasp the point I was making.

Rachel said:I find myself avoiding movies where characters feel the need to verbally dissect their emotions during those quiet beats between major plot points.

Is this just a theoretical observation, or have you actually seen this happen frequently enough to notice? If it’s a recurring pattern, I’d be interested in a few examples of films that fall into this trap.

Furthermore, I'm curious about why this strikes you as a negative trait. Is it because you find it unrealistic, or is there another reason? I haven't seen the film in question, but you've certainly piqued my interest.

goldenhound32 said:Go ahead, read my sentence again. You’ll probably get it this time.

My bad. Let me try that again.

"Not everyone is the same."

Fine. I wasn't even arguing against that.

"There will always be more or less objective people/critics."

What you just said implies there's a spectrum of objectivity among critics. My point was that "objective criticism" doesn't actually exist because, by definition, all criticism is subjective. So, claiming some are more or less objective is nonsense. The only things that actually vary are the level of information provided, the strength of the arguments, and the writer's specific stylistic preferences.

Your logic is like saying water from the Atlantic Ocean is wetter than water from the Mississippi River. Or more specifically: "Not all water is the same. There will always be water that is more or less wet."

Get it?🙄

This is exactly the kind of movie that deserves this level of debate.

The debates over whether a movie is a 'subjective masterpiece' or just an 'objective flop' never seem to die down on this subforum. It’s honestly a bit exhausting, if I'm being real.

The persistent notion held by some that there ought to be such a thing as an objective critic is a theory that simply refuses to die in certain minds, isn't it? It is truly a pity, I must say.

Jesse Sanchez7 said:Therefore, claiming some reviews are "better" than others is pure nonsense. Subjectivity is baked into the process; the only real difference lies in how much information is provided, the strength of the arguments used, and the specific stylistic preferences the critic chooses to champion.

Do you actually agree with this logic:
If a person genuinely enjoys a movie, won't they subconsciously ignore the flaws they noticed while watching?

I realize when you say 'subjective,' you're talking about the emotional experience, but where does the behavior I just described fit into your framework?

Richard Hernandez13 said:Arguments regarding "subjective impressions" versus an "objective assessment" of a film never seem to subside on this subforum.

Could you provide a few links?

Unfortunately.

Why "unfortunately"? If people reach the same conclusion after ten years of debating the exact same impression, does that mean there's no point in discussing it in the eleventh year? Perhaps I haven't quite grasped your meaning.

Terry Ramos60 said:Some people just can't stop obsessing over this whole idea that "objective critics" actually exist—it’s honestly kind of sad.

Such an enlightened soul. 😁

She really ought to write a book about all this wisdom and go on a guest spot on Oprah.

And it's not like everyone can just drop by Taylor Swift's place whenever they feel like it 😢

Paul Mendoza8 said:not everyone can just crash at Taylor Swift's place😢

Not sure if this even fits the thread—but hey, I’m living proof that anyone can actually pull off a visit to Taylor Swift's house. 😁

dustyscout53 said:I’m not sure how this even relates to the topic, but I have to point out that I am living proof that absolutely anyone can land a guest spot at Taylor Swift's place. 😁

I wouldn't go that far. It's not everyone—just the people who are absolutely desperate for some publicity. And honestly? Some of them turn it down anyway. 😉

P.S. Glad we’re finally back to the real topic—dustyscout53! 👍

Paul Mendoza8 said:p.s. glad we're finally back to the real topic—dustyscout53! 👍

As soon as you show up, we'll get back to business. 😁

Thanks. 😳

Love you guys, no matter how old you are. 😍

dustyscout53 said:Once you arrive, we'll get back to the actual topic. 😁

Thanks. 😳

Kisses to all my fans, regardless of age. 😍

When someone is desperately hunting for an audience, the least we can do is give them a little attention. Thank you 😍. After doing this good deed for the day, I can finally go kick a bum off the sidewalk. I'm out!

Paul Mendoza8 said:when someone’s out here begging for attention like this, the least we can do is give them a little spotlight, right? thanks to you 😍, after doing my good deed for the day—now I can finally ignore that guy busking on the corner. gotta run!

So I'm basically begging for an audience now... even if it's just some retirees! 😍

Good grief, is the movie actually any good or not? And since when did the 'Transamerica' thread turn into 'Transamerica'? 😕

It’s like comparing The Da Vinci Code to the Church of Silence; if the Church had just stayed quiet, the movie wouldn't have gotten a fraction of the hype. I can't believe you all fell for dustyscout53's little bait 🙂