Film taste is largely subjective

Submitted by 85Millennial t3_127sa65 in movies

As a film lover, I don't mind in engaging in civil discussions and critiques of films, actors and so on.

But it strikes me that some people cannot just enjoy the films they enjoy without imposing their views on others.

Much like music, personal taste cannot be 'right' or 'wrong' - it just is. Some films we find gripping, moving or entertaining and some just don't work for us.

It is for this reason, I do not not rely on the opinions of film critics. A film critic will likely have studied the industry and be able to make an eloquent argument to back up their views on a particular film. But ultimately, whether they like it or not is just their take. I have heard critics rubbish a particular film and then find I personally quite enjoyed it. And on the other hand, I have heard critics rave praise about a film and I just wasn't that taken in by it. It strikes me as absurd to say well a prominent critic has this opinion, so they must be right. Of course sometimes I agree with the critics too.

Taste is not a question of empirical facts. 'Paris is the capital city of France' is a fact.

'This film is a masterpiece and you are an idiot if you can't see this' - is not a fact, it is a blowhard opinion.

Now, don't get me wrong. I appreciate that people who are passionate about film will naturally be inclined to argue more passionately. For instance, Titanic is my favourite film. I think it is a masterpiece and I will argue my reasons why. I may get defensive if I think that critique about a film I like is very misplaced or unfair. But I am not going to insult someone just because they were not that taken in by Titanic. I may not understand why but I respect their right to see it as they wish.

Take any famous film - Citizen Kane, Star Wars, Pulp Fiction, the Godfather etc and you will get people going out of their way to defend it. And anyone who thinks outside the box and doesn't jump onto the blind praise is dismissed as an 'idiot' who doesn't know film.

If someone finds Citizen Kane boring or Star Wars overhyped, that is their personal taste. It doesn't mean they are right of course but I think it is just as wrong to imply that their personal taste is not valid.

There is also a certain snobbery about some film critics and film students (and I am not saying this is universal - so if you are a critic/film student don't take that personally) - so they may understand camera angles, frames, the history of the industry etc better than the average person going to the cinema - but that doesn't mean their preferences are the only valid ones.

No matter how clever or pioneering a film may be - if it doesn't appeal to a lot of people, if people get easily bored watching it, then that will have an impact on the 'popular opinion'

I will get off my pulpit now. To conclude, I totally understand people wanting to defend a film they respect. But personal taste is something that I feel is very overlooked. Just because a film is popular with many people doesn't oblige everyone to have to jump on that bandwagon. People are not 'idiots' if they are not that keen on Citizen Kane or Titanic. Put simply, I think a case can be made whilst respecting individual tastes.

Thanks for reading.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

g_st_lt t1_jefnrdg wrote

First I'm hearing of this.

13

A_Song_of_Two_Humans t1_jefp3bj wrote

Yeah. I mean what about all the objectively good films. The ones that are proven to be the best. Factually.

3

frightenedbabiespoo t1_jefwnc7 wrote

I didn't like Sunrise very much. I'm sure I misread the film a little bit, but the man sure doesn't let up his abuse of the women, even while considering the time it was made.

Not factually great

1

DoopSlayer t1_jefpqys wrote

I don't really see how this applies to the usefulness of film critics.

To me at least, there are the movies I like. It is my assumption that there is more that groups these movies than just me liking them. I look to knowledgeable critics to define the elements that unite movies I like; which are, with good odds, movie elements that I like, and then to those critics to find new/other movies that I have not seen but have those elements and presumably I would enjoy.

popular opinion/general audiences typically can't define why they like what they like. Someone saying "I liked Top Gun because it's cool" tells me nothing about if it'd be a movie I'm likely to enjoy and then spend my time watching.

But I don't read film critics that call people stupid for not liking the movies they consider good so maybe that's the disconnect between this post and I. Youtube reaction bait incendiary critics are trying to get engagement more than they're trying to consider movies

6

tacoman333 t1_jefmn9g wrote

Wonderfully said! I agree with every word. One of my biggest problems with modern movie discourse is the accepted use of false objectivity to bolster one's opinion, so I always appreciate when someone calls that behaviour out.

4

maxpowersr t1_jefoebn wrote

Also, your taste changes over time. 20 years ago I'd be all about a John wick type film ... These days I can't deal with all the realistic killing.

Wes Anderson used to be enjoyable. Now I see a trailer for asteroid city and I think, not this shit again...

4

Greedy-Loss9030 t1_jefkgnf wrote

Sums up my feelings nicely. I really appreciate your post!

3

MartinScorsese t1_jefw0ma wrote

> Film taste is largely subjective

FTFY

3

tacoman333 t1_jefy510 wrote

A person's opinion of a film is supported by things that they see, hear, or otherwise experience in that particular movie.

For example, the opinion "Character A's character development was good because of X, Y, Z" is supported by events X, Y, Z that objectively happened in the film. The impact and importance of those events is entirely subjective, but the foundation of a person's opinion on a particular piece of art is often built on facts. I think that is the reason for OP's qualifying statement.

0

MistakeMaker1234 t1_jegfkl6 wrote

That’s a lot of words just to say, “People have different opinions on things.”

3

TheCosmicFailure t1_jefkzr6 wrote

That's a well thought out and composed post. I agree with everything u said. Discussion is totally worth having cause it's cool to get another person's POV and see where they are coming from. I just hate it when the discourse is about shitting on another person's opinion or like u said forcing your views on others.

2

Intelligent-Age2786 t1_jefqfmy wrote

I feel like there’s a section of the film bro community that will not accept any opinion they don’t agree with. Like if you like a certain thing then you don’t have good taste or shit like that. There are too many people out there who act as if their opinions are facts, and try to spread a toxic form of filmbro highbrow ideology. Personally, I’m not picky so I enjoy all movies. I love Infinity War and The Dark Knight just as much as I love The Godfather Part 2 and The Irishman. It’s all subjective taste. And there’s nothing wrong with liking things others don’t, and there’s nothing wrong with not liking things that others do.

I feel like some people listen to critics too extensively to the point they basically pick up their opinion before they are able to form their own. I feel some people let critics influence their opinions way more than they admit.

There is no right or wrong opinion. That’s why it’s an opinion. We need diversity in the film industry and world. We need differing opinions and products cuz not everyone likes the same things as everyone else. We need stuff for everyone to enjoy.

2

Sonny_Crockett_1984 t1_jefra57 wrote

Dollman is a great movie, goddammit, and I don't care what anyone says.

2

odinnoh t1_jefo7e5 wrote

As composer Jean Sibelius said, "Pay no attention to what the critics say. A statue has never been erected in honor of a critic".

1

The_Lone_Apple t1_jefud94 wrote

People having opinions other than mine are not imposing them on me because they have no authority or agency to do it. They might be nasty or annoying or just plain contrary, but they're not imposing anything. I still like the film I like and continue to not agree with them.

1

TheShadyGuy t1_jefvoip wrote

Wow, I never thought anyone could be as wrong as you are today. Nice work!

1

djprojexion t1_jefxwh8 wrote

I first started using the film boards on imdb back around 2000, which was over 20 years ago. The same type of people were posting the same kind of "hey Citizen Kane is wayyyy overrated" posts, which were met with the same type of reactionary responses. This will always happen, if you are going to be bold enough to go against the grain, then you have to be bold enough to deflect any harsh comments and keep it moving.

1

Ndtphoto t1_jeg1mjj wrote

When it comes to friends/family/co-workers, I'll only recommend films that i think are in their wheelhouse after talking about other things they liked.

My grandma isn't going to get a damn thing out of watching The Godfather except that it was horrible about the horse. Meanwhile my cousin would probably be riveted.

As for critics, their job should be to inform THEIR audience. If you have a national generic audience, you should recommend/pan things with no particular person in mind. I would say something like Top Gun Maverick is exactly the type of film a national critic would review with everyone in mind. Versus a critic working for a horror website, they should review films with horror hounds in mind.

That said, it's actually wise to find specific critics or reviewers that have similar tastes to yourself - it'll give you a better idea if you should spend your time watching something.

1

Unblued t1_jeg95s0 wrote

Reminds me of when the third Matrix movie came out and I saw a Siskel and Ebert segment about new movies releasing that week. I don't recall who it was, but one of them clearly didn't like it. There was a comment about it being ridiculous for the fate of Zion to come down to a bunch of guys shooting gun at robots. That point immediately killed the credibility of the review for me. Apparently the whole film sucked because the rebels hiding underground from an extreme chance of genocide couldn't scrounge up lasers or nukes or something? It was already kind of wild that they managed to build hover ships and mech suits with whatever they scavenged, but whatever.

1

reedzkee t1_jeg93xz wrote

whether you like a film or not is 100% subjective.

but filmmaking is just as much a CRAFT as it is an ART. Craftsmanship can be somewhat objective. and that's where critics and other filmmakers/artists might have a leg up.

i also think quality of storytelling can be somewhat objective but thats much grayer.

it's an interesting subject.

−1

bbobeckyj t1_jefo14a wrote

I feel like you're ignoring an important aspect, you're only giving examples and talking about films that are objectively well made in this post. There are probably many films we all like and enjoy more than other films that are objectively better made. Ultimately how we rate a film is often strongly correlated with how we feel at the end of it, and especially the relationships the characters have. The best film makers do this well.

−2

WAdogfood t1_jefrndi wrote

I disagree. Obviously you shouldn't insult anyone for having bad taste, but that's a bit of a strawman version of a snobby film fan or critic. Bad taste does exist and it is possible for a movie to be objectively bad or objectively good. If you are a film lover, you should probably see all the movies you mentioned and be able to appreciate them, or at least recognize their importance in the context of film history, even if they aren't your cup of tea. If you don't you probably aren't really a Film Lover, you're a Person Who Likes Movies, which is fine too. Also, all the movies you listed are very accessible. They were huge hits and aren't really snooty films at all.

−2

tacoman333 t1_jefw5zi wrote

>Bad taste does exist and it possible for a movie to be objectively bad or objectively good.

Ironically, this is objectively wrong. Like with all art, movie quality is determined almost entirely by one's perception and personal opinions, in other words, it's subjective.

2

WAdogfood t1_jefx3x1 wrote

You're contradicting yourself. How can my opinion be objectively wrong but a movie cant be objectively bad? What if the camera is out of focus or the actors mumble their lines?

−2

tacoman333 t1_jeg1es1 wrote

Because I can show that every judgement of a movie's quality is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, and is therefore, by definition, subjective.

The camera being out of focus can communicate a character being disorientated, or act as a shorthand for a quick motion, or direct the audience's eyes to something more important in the shot, or maybe a filmmaker wants to make a dreamlike film, where like in a dream, it feels impossible to focus. Leaving the camera out of focus is just yet another tool in a filmmaker's belt, and using that tool isn't "objectively bad." Similarly, having actors mumble their lines is a choice to try for a more realistic conversational style at the expense of clarity, it is neither an objectively good or bad thing, just a personal decision made by a creative.

The idea that every movie should be clear in its message and visual presentation to be "good" (an opinion I see repeated a lot) is much like believing that realism is the only valid style of painting. It's pretty silly to me, but then again, it's all subjective so it's perfectly fine if you have that opinion just don't pretend you are objectively right.

2

WAdogfood t1_jeg2orw wrote

It should've been obvious to you that i was talking about movies made unskillfully, not directors or actors choices.

−2

tacoman333 t1_jeg67pq wrote

Mistakes made during a movie's production are a part of the movie, and whether they have a positive or negative effect on the overall quality of the film depends entirely on one's personal opinion.

Also, distinguishing between an unskilled director making a poor movie and a skilled director making one would only be important if you held the opinion that an artist's intent matters, which is in itself subjective.

1

WAdogfood t1_jeg770j wrote

I did not make that distinction. Talented people and untalented people can do good or bad work regardless of intent and i never asserted otherwise.

1

tacoman333 t1_jeg8596 wrote

>It should've been obvious to you that i was talking about movies made unskillfully, not directors or actors choices.

You did make a distinction. If intent didn't matter to you then there would be no difference between a director choosing to film an entire movie out of focus and a filmmaker who doesn't know how to operate a camera doing the same thing if both movies were, in your opinion, total shit.

1

WAdogfood t1_jeg8j2z wrote

That's the opposite of a distinction. Both those directors would be making a bad movie.

1

tacoman333 t1_jegaqka wrote

The difference between the two would be intent. The experienced filmmaker tried to do something for a specific reason, while the amatuer filmmaker didn't have the skill necessary to produce the film they envisioned. You said it should be obvious to me that you were "talking about movies made unskillfully, not directors or actors choices" implying that you make a clear distinction between the two.

The bottom line is film quality like as with all art is subjective. For every element in a movie whether unintended or intended, made by an experienced filmmaker or an amatuer, the final decision of whether it contributes positively or negatively to the quality of the film is purely a subjective one.

1

WAdogfood t1_jegdl9g wrote

I said that because you purposefully misconstrued my question to make your own point. And now you've been arguing a movie where you can't see or hear anything would be "good" by some measure. I don't think you actually believe that so I'm not going to engage with this anymore.

1

Chamber53 t1_jefmruu wrote

I personally could care less what a single critic has to say about a movie. But if I hop on Fandango and I see a large majority of critics praising a movie, then that has some substance. And exactly the same can be said when a large majority of general moviegoers are praising a movie.

−3

meowskywalker t1_jefpo2k wrote

If I asked 200 people on the street if a movie was worth seeing and 180 of them said “yeah” I would probably believe them. Definitely going to believe 180 out of 200 people who literally watch movies for a living. That doesn’t mean I’ll see it. I don’t want to see a Top Gun sequel. 98 percent of critics agreeing its good doesn’t change the fact that I don’t want to see it. But it’s a perfectly sensible barometer to determine if something you are interested in is worth spending your time and money on.

1

Chamber53 t1_jefzyiw wrote

Right, exactly. Minus the part of someone pushing you to see something you don’t wanna see, hope that’s not how you took my comment.

1

lookoutcomrade t1_jefll7m wrote

Personal taste can be right or wrong. Maybe you like garbage? You may think "Far Cry" is a cinematic masterpiece, or some such nonsense. That may be your taste, but then you like the taste of garbage. ;)

−9

Cool-Kangaroo-2021 t1_jeforb3 wrote

I’m going to guess anyone who likes Far Cry wouldn’t be a big enough douchebag to say “cinematic masterpiece.” But even if you like the taste of garbage, it’s still subjective. More power to you

3