|
Some simple formatting, along with deletion of post designation, subject line, and sig lines:
Here's the discussion from the Crash thread
Elster88
Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:35 pm
Best movie of the year means five stars to me. Vic called it the best movie of the year and RealityChuck called it the best Hollywood film in years, and one of them gave it 4.
I remember someone saying they only give 5 stars for one of the best movies of all time.
Not that either way is better or worse.
Or maybe we don't need a single system. This is a baseball forum.
sharpie
Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:08 pm
A movie could be the best movie of a particular year and still not be an all-time great.
Elster88
Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:49 pm
I realize.
But when it is worth five stars? Hmmmmmmmmmm?
You see where I'm going with this?
Willets Point
Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:12 pm
It's worth five stars when it's FUCKING GREAT and we want to give it FIVE FUCKING STARS! Fuck yeah!
sharpie
Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:52 am
I'm on record somewhere else on this thread about this, but 5 stars means an all-time classic. CRASH was a fine movie, but not a 5 star candidate, IMO. Citizen Kane, Rules of the Game, The Bicycle Thief, Lawrence of Arabia, Raging Bull, Casablanca etc. need their own spot free from merely very good films like Crash.
Edgy DC
Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:21 am
Yes, but many of those movies become all-time classics only with the passage of time and the perspective it lends. If one is to do this thing, he or she has to make snap judgements on films that have been recently been released, without the benefit of time, and the perspective it lends, to say nothing of the years of exposure to the winds of critical consensus (and the erosion of original thought that they lend).
And if that means you risk over-reacting to a film you saw last night, and you're afraid you'll wake up years from now to find you gave a perfect or near perfect rating to the equivalent of Rocky III, too bad. A life well lived is a life of risk.
Elster88
Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:25 am
I have no desire to ever see Citizen Kane, despite the fact that its cinematography was out of this world when it was first released.
sharpie
Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:48 am
Why, Elster? Hearst partisan, are you?
Vic Sage
Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:54 am
Quote:
Yes, but many of those movies become all-time classics only with the passage of time and the perspective it lends. If one is to do this thing, he or she has to make snap judgements on films that have been recently been released, without the benefit of time, and the perspective it lends, to say nothing of the years of exposure to the winds of critical consensus (and the erosion of original thought that they lend).
And if that means you risk over-reacting to a film you saw last night, and you're afraid you'll wake up years from now to find you gave a perfect or near perfect rating to the equivalent of Rocky III, too bad. A life well lived is a life of risk.
i could not agree less.
i mean, i suppose i could, but its highly unlikely.
Edgy and I have discussed this before, without satisfying conclusion.
Time, context, perspective... according to Edgy, these lead to an understanding that "erodes original thought"? How about the notion that new information builds on the past to lead to a greater understanding of a subject, not an "erosion" of it?
As for this rating procedure, all we have to do "to do this thing" is either rate a movie we've just seen on a purely SUBJECTIVE basis (e.g., "this is one of my favorite films ever! 5 stars!") or attempt to rate it on a more objective basis (e.g., "while i only saw this film yesterday, i realize that it exists in the context of the entire history of film to date, so while i really enjoyed it, upon reflection i can see that its not quite in "Casablanca" territory, so I'll give it 4 stars instead of 5.")
The point Elster made is that people are using both bases to rate it, so the result is confusing. Personally, i think you should "do this thing" using whatever criteria you want. Its not a scholarly treatise, its a way of giving consumer information to our fellow CPFers about movies we've seen.
That being said, I think "over-reacting" to a film you saw last night is a much more SIGNIFICANT danger to a real understanding and valid evaluation of a movie than viewing it in historical context. If a viewer is rating it without putting it in historical context, then his/her rating is simply a reflection of whatever he/she liked last night... which itself can be a reflection of mood, energy, level of distraction and whatever was eaten for dinner. And why would i care about that? It is the logical fallacy of the new.
Contrary to edgy's assertion, "historical context" doesn't mean bending to the will of scholarly consensus. If you've seen CITIZEN KANE and don't like it, fine. that's an expression of preference and needs no further justification. But if you don't think it's a "good movie", that's an objective evaluation, and that's fine, too, but the burden of supporting that assertion is on you, because, for the last half century, people who study film for a living have come to a consensus that its the best movie of all time. That doesn't mean that you couldn't make a compelling argument for it NOT to be deserving of such accolades. (wow, a triple negative!). In fact, many an interesting discussion can be had on that subject, which does not ERODE our understanding of KANE... it augments it. But, like anything else, the more you KNOW about something, the more pursuasive your arguments are likely to be.
As for me, when rating films here, my subjective evaluation is informed by my objective understanding of the historical context of the film being rated. You might be rating films as a pure expression of personal preference, regardless of context. If enough people respond, then whatever bases they use, the aggregate numbers should reflect a "consensus" (it rears its evil head once more!) of opinion that others on the CPF might find useful.
but be aware that the more 5 star ratings you hand out, the less meaningful they are. This is why a great review by Jeffrey Lyons is entirely meaningless.
|
