Actually no they are not. Have you ever read a translation of anything? Then you haven't read the work. For example I've read the Count of Monte Cristo. That means I've read the Count of Monte Cristo as interpreted by the translator. I've never read Le Comte de Monte Cristo because I can't read in French. Similarly, there is the case of watching a movie without sound. But you're stumbling over a point here. If you watched the Avengers and said you hated it because it was about Medieval English politics and you hate movies about Medieval English politics so it was bad your opinion would be wrong because your reasons would be objectively inccorect (using objective in the sense that pnoom was using the word).

Btw I don't know what you think you're proving with that Ebert quote but I can guarantee it undercuts your argument.

No, I have a good understanding of what I do and don't like and how movies often lose me. It comes with frequent attempts at deeper understanding. If I enjoyed something in spite of it breaking the "rules" (and wanting a lead is not any sort of rule or anything I recall coming up in past movies), I would consider what it was that made it different. I mean, I see some truth in the narrative arc, but it's not like I sit there waiting for the point of no return. If something goes wrong, I might think about why and decide that it didn't build enough to the climax or there wasn't any conclusion to speak of. If a movie eschews the traditional arc, and it works, cool.

I also think it's funny that you're complaining about my step-by-step explanation when part of the reason I gave it was because you were complaining about the more casual explanation. I didn't like the movie, dude. Ask me again tomorrow, and you'll get the same answer.



Okay, but if that's the only language you know, then I wouldn't consider that an invalid way of judging them, and not just because it's unavoidable. The value of a piece of entertainment is contextual. If you're blind, you won't appreciate 3D. If you're a gay man, you won't appreciate Scarlett Johansson's ass (at least not the way it was intended). If you have a paralyzing fear of men in iron suits, you won't appreciate Iron Man's heroism. And if you don't read French, and the English translation of Monte Cristo isn't as good, then it's disadvantageous for you that it was written in French. Value is determined by individual needs. I mean, sure, you can judge it separately from your own interests if you want, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to. Again, perspective.



What I'm saying is his opinion changed, but that doesn't mean it was moving toward a more accurate reflection on how the movie pertains to him. He was getting older. Granted, I think Hoffman's character was obnoxious as hell, but relating to the youthful indiscretion side because you're young isn't wrong.



We're kind of backtracking, but I think you're missing my point here. If people saw me as being taller than the Empire State Building, they would just be seeing wrong if it was objectively taller. As for your argument that there is no truth beyond human perspective (or at least no truth that we actually know, which is fair), okay, say that's true. So your definition of objectivity exists within human perspective. Okay. I'm still waiting for a definition. I'm still curious what definition of objectivity allows pnoom to dismiss someone's reason for not liking something when that's their reason. I mean, sure, if it bears no resemblance to what they're even talking about (like Weekend at Bernie's), but how does that apply to a badguy's last name?

Let's go full bore with it and say that someone comes on here claiming that The Avengers sucks because there aren't any tacos in it. They thoroughly checked, and no tacos. Now, unlike those who would mock and insult and get up in arms about it, my first instinct would be to ask why tacos matter so much. Let's say he has a taco fetish. He doesn't normally like movies, but he watched this one in the hope that Scarlett Johansson would eat a taco. And there was not one damn taco in sight.

Obviously, you and I and most other people wouldn't share his assessment, but what makes him "objectively" wrong? What does that mean? You said yourself, all we have is our collective perspectives. No universal truth outside of what we perceive and think and feel. He has his perspective, and we have ours. The vast consensus is that tacos don't matter, but what does that have to do with his perspective? Books on film theory place no emphasis on tacos, but he doesn't care. Nothing you could say changes the fact that the only thing he wanted from this movie was for Scarlett Johansson to eat some lettuce and hamburger in a tortilla shell, and she didn't do it.

I'm sorry, you can define objectivity as influence or critical acclaim or an Egg McMuffin if you want, but it doesn't change that having a different perspective is not the same as being wrong. I, for one, would welcome taco guy. He seems like an interesting sort.

this is a great debate, keep it going guys

i hope it continues for a few more pages

This argument of yours is flawed in so many ways. To show that, I'll share a story:

I once recommended The Tree of Life to a friend, since, in my opinion, the film managed to encapsulate so much about humanity and its place in the universe, despite its flaws. It was a great film from my perspective, and I thought that by recommending it, other people could see why. He messaged me the next day, telling me he fell asleep in the first five minutes. I asked him why. He then elaborated on how he expected a terrorist with a machine gun to show up while everyone was crying and being all solemn, because "it seemed like the time". Now, I'm not saying he's wrong in his desire to see a terrorist tear up a small suburban neighborhood with a machine gun because, after all, it's a possibility and people like violence. What I had a problem with was that his approach to films made him severely limited as a viewer.

Now, to your taco guy analogy. His opinion isn't wrong, and I'm not going to tell him he's wrong because he's entitled to his own viewpoint. My main issue is his taste. If he wants to watch films about tacos, then that's setting limitations for himself in taste. Should every good film feature tacos? What about films from before tacos became mainstream? Are we not allowed to disagree with this guy when he says that Nashville is a bad movie because there were no tacos? That's a piss poor way of approaching films, and if I went along with your "I don't care if it sucks or makes no sense; it's what I want" philosophy, I would still be watching Disaster Movie and The Order of the Phoenix and calling films like Citizen Kane "boring".

Can someone elaborate on The Tree of Life's alleged flaws? I've heard this comment very often but after four viewings of the movie I cannot find one single flaw that isn't directly related to personal taste (for instance on a pictorial level: the only single comment I have on this film is that Malick uses very wide angle lenses in a few shots that don't make the shot look nice)

It honestly drags at times, and the entire last sequence could have been executed better. Also, the sequences featuring Sean Penn could have used some work on, you know, not confusing people. Aside from those relatively minor flaws, it's perfect. I think the point where I started to really appreciate the film was when I read "The fruit of righteousness is a tree of life" somewhere. Then everything just made sense. Amazing film.

Yeah, my only gripe would be that it's a bit slow at times.

I have actually very deliberately avoided saying anything about what overall verdicts on films are allowable or not allowable, and focused on the objectivity of reasons. I have not talked about whether it's ok, objectively, to like this movie and not that. I've talked about reasons for doing so. And I called your reason (that SJ is hot) petty. Because it is. It's a bad reason to think a film is good. I don't know how you could even argue with that (it's bit like arguing murder is OK) unless you had a prior commitment to the subjectivity you're endorsing. If you take a radical subjectivist line on morality (which, honestly, you pretty much have to if you take such a line on aesthetics—another point in my favor), then of course it falls out that morality is OK for you so long as you think it is, but you certainly can't use that conclusion to argue for your position.

There's no reason why someone has to be convinced by one of, say, Dreww's analyses of a film. All I'm saying is that, even without accepting them, it's possible to recognize the goodness of his reasons (and moreover that they're better than "the lead actress gave me a boner. boner good.").


I already have. Go back a few pages.

Drew must be a great man to be featured in so much discussion that he is taking no part in. I can't wait for him to show up.

Fuck people who don't like slow films. A faster pacing would have hurt the film.

I'm not exactly saying the pacing was slow (all the sequences in suburbia are achingly gorgeous, and the cosmic stuff is breathtaking): all I'm saying is that there were some parts that didn't really need to be there. But it's relatively minor, like just a scene or two I didn't feel comfortable with. My qualms definitely don't take a lot away from the greatness of the film.

I still haven't watched all of The Tree of Life because for some reason I kept putting it on when I was tired and kept dozing off.

Hub had yen to see: Trouble with the Curve, Argo and The Paperboy ... all in one weekend. Argo was well paced. Paperboy fell apart near the end, probably the best of three. Curve was a little bland but still entertaining for all that. Casting for Argo was well done. Paperboy is very Tennessee Williams and Matthew McConaughey is no Paul Newman. And while Kidman is good, she lacks that southern something.