If what you state is true, then film and literary criticism in general is meaningless. The Oscars are useless (which is kind of true) where The Room should be as lauded as Citizen Kane and Twilight should be considered to have as much literary merit as to kill a mockingbird.
I really dislike the “everything is subjective” and “there is no objective measurement” argument that is being made about art. Yes there is or there wouldnt be any way to judge what works are good or bad and does a disservice to the writers and directors that actually spend their time honing their craft. After all, their hard work is the same as the average youtuber pointing their camera at themselves and farting because “good art is subjective.”
I think the question is "good at what?" when it comes to "good art."
If it's "is this good at entertaining me?" then that's gonna be subjective. If it's "is this technically proficient?" then that'll be more objective.
Personally, I don't think
everything is subjective. I think taste is, though. As in, what you dig, what moves you, what hits you viscerally in an enjoyable way. That's subjective.
Technique is usually objective. Like, there is objectively a right way to do a plie in ballet, and there are wrong ways to do a plie. If you've got one foot pointing forward, and the other to the side...you ain't doin' a plie, and that's not really up for debate or interpretation or "but I
feeeeeeel like I am." You can feel like you are, but...you aren't. Your foot's pointing the wrong way.
There are things that objectively don't work, and things that subjectively don't work. And then there's stuff that's...perhaps up for debate, but not a whole lot of debate that is kind of in-between.
Some stuff objectively doesn't work. When people speak of "plot holes" and use that term
accurately, what they're describing is something that (for example) violates logic in some way. Not "doesn't make sense" in terms of "I wouldn't do that," but actually violates something structural in either the universe as we know it or the universe as established in the story (or both). Like, if the story says "Wizards can only cast spells on Sundays," and then you have a wizard cast a spell on Thursday AND you don't explain how this wizard was able to do so, that's a plot hole. Objectively. You've established a rule in-universe, broken that rule, and haven't bothered to explain it. Or if a story says "Rey has the power to resurrect the dead," and then Finn dies and Rey says "Oh no! If only I could do something to save him! Oh well. I guess Finn is dead" and that's that, that's a plot hole. You've already showed that Rey has this ability, knows she has this ability, and now she's acting as if it doesn't exist
without explaining the inconsistency. Again, objective plot hole. Not really open for debate. It'd be like Superman leaping off a building and plummeting to the ground without explaining that there's a Kryptonite ray blasting him when it happens. He just...falls. And the audience is left wondering "WTF?!"
Some stuff
subjectively doesn't work. Luke's behavior in TLJ is a good example. People
subjectively dislike it because it doesn't track with their understanding of the character as established in the OT. I think it works because I accept that Luke's behavior is informed by events that occurred almost entirely offscreen, but that -- if we take those as a given -- Luke's choices make sense, even if they're unpleasant. (And I think they make more sense than what you have to come up with to justify Luke being sidelined for the events of TFA.) BUT, I get that this is a
subjective discussion, and I think it's reasonable to take issue with TLJ's characterization under the circumstances (those being that we didn't actually see anything that happened in between, except for the one "I ignited my sabre for one instant" Rashomon bit, which may not be enough for some people). I think it's
valid criticism to say "That didn't work for me. It wasn't enough. If Luke is in this state, the filmmakers needed to do a lot more to explain why, beyond just this Rashomon bit." But again, all of this is
subjective. Valid, but subjective.
Then there are things that are kind of in-between. Like, I mentioned up-thread that my 7-year-old finds Jar Jar annoying and not funny. In my experience, that's how most people view Jar Jar. However, I can imagine that there are at least
some people who
might find his antics funny. I've never met anyone who did, mind you. Like....ever. But I accept the possibility that it could happen. Still, I think this is one of those examples that is arguably subjective, but is
so nearly universal that it looks
almost objective (i.e., that Jar Jar isn't funny and is annoying).
It's ultimately that last battleground that I think most of the Star Wars debates are fought, and why people tend to appeal to mass opinion. It's an attempt to push something that would perhaps otherwise be subjective into the realm of "So widely believed that it might as well be objective fact." But because there are absolutely people who disagree with them...they push back, and now you have a forum fight on your hands (or at least a generally civil debate like we've had here because we're not a bunch of jackasses).
I agree. While I hate the ST in terms of its story, I do think they were able to get a talented cast and did right by not hiring a bunch of already famous actors to play the characters like Marvel is doing now. Yeah it seems the cast apart from Adam seem to struggle to find work thanks to the Star Wars curse (only one actor seems to get to experience a thriving film career after the films in front of the screen) but they were talented and did what they could with what they were given.
The staff also seemed to love star wars and the different ship designs with worn and used looks did look Star Wars ish. The ST had the trappings of star wars films with improved CGI that I think reached what Lucas really wanted and envisioned when he first thought of Star Wars and it makes it all the more of a shame how poorly the people at the top screwed it up.
I think the jury's still out on what the actors will do. I know John Boyega was incredibly proud of his role in Smallaxe (which I haven't seen yet, but plan to when I can figure out where to view it). Daisy Ridley, Boyega, and especially Kelly Marie Tran each experienced some truly reprehensible fan behavior. And separate from that, I think it's got to be pretty damn grueling to do three enormous Star Wars movies (especially when they're received with mixed reactions from the audience), so I can understand why many of them might shift to doing VO or stage work or whathaveyou, where they're not having to do press junkets and put up with a ton of lunatic "fans" who want to attack them personally.
Where do English teachers get off grading a student's short story? They guage their grade by how well the student expressed their ideas or used techniques like foreshadowing or symbolism (insert literary technique here) in their work. So either there is some sort of objective criteria to make a judgement on a work of fiction, otherwise a teacher's grade is arbitrary and they could fail a student because reasons , thus affecting that student being able to graduate. If the parameters are undefined, then grades are meaningless. Good and bad are meaningless. An A+ or an F- are equally valid.
Art and literature can't be entirely arbitrary and subjective. Personal preference will play a factor. It always does. Though literary tools are very real and it's intellectually dishonest to act like they don't exist or that they don't matter.
I think I've addressed this above, but I just want to reiterate that I'm not remotely suggesting that
all criticism is subjective. As I said, some stuff is truly objective. I just think a lot of the discussions around these movies tend to claim objectivity about stuff that's actually subjective. Which still doesn't invalidate the subjective reaction, but does invalidate the claim of objectivity.
Yep, that's why Siskel and Ebert didn't always agree. See, the problem with saying art can be objectively evaluated, is that it then casts a disparagement on folks who don't like it. Citizen Kane is only one of the greatest films of all time because the vast majority of people recognize it as such. I personally think it's a boring, meandering slog; it's a performance and not a story with a point. Does this mean that I am lacking as a person in some way because I view it that way?
Yes. Now, present yourself for the ritual beatings. Sorry, I don't make the rules.
