Do you believe in obectivity in film?

[B-side]

Well, this question could extend to art in all of its various forms, too.

As for my answer to the question: absolutely not. Film is an entirely subjective medium.

[Skitch]

Only if the film claims to be a documentary.

[Amnesiac]

No documentary can ever be absolutely objective, either.

When there's human agency involved, subjectivity is sure to follow.

[Sycophant]

Are we talking about creation or perception?

The answer is no on both counts, of course. Though some try hard to prove otherwise.

[Skitch]

No documentary can ever be absolutely objective, either.

When there's human agency involved, subjectivity is sure to follow.

Completely agree. I should have included the word attempt with my previous post.

[MadMan]

I don't believe objectivity actually exists in film.

[Watashi]

Brad Bird films.

[Sycophant]

Brad Bird films.
Objectivity, not objectivism.

Zing?

[Duncan]

Zing? Yes.

[Watashi]

Objectivity, not objectivism.

Zing?

Not really. Bird's philosophies have nothing to do with Rand's.

[Watashi]

Q: "The Incredibles" generated quite a lot of ink on op-ed pages, where pundits debated the film's thesis that mediocrity is celebrated in America and that people with special abilities were being discouraged from being quite so special. Were you surprised?

Bird: The idea that "The Incredibles," a mainstream animated feature, was thought of as provocative was wonderful to me. I was very gratified, though I thought some of the analysis was really kind of goofy.

Q:Such as?

Bird: Some pieces compared the viewpoint to the objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand. I thought that was silly and the writers were humorless. I was into Rand for about six months when I was 20, but you outgrow that narrow point of view. Some compromise is necessary in life.

Bird has denied it multiple of times.

[Sycophant]

Not really. Bird's philosophies have nothing to do with Rand's.

Yeah, I know. In fact, I've defended his films against allegations of Randy tendancies in many arguments.

But I saw an opening and I took it.

[Watashi]

Yeah, I know. In fact, I've defended his films against allegations of Randy tendancies in many arguments.

But I saw an opening and I took it.
Why you sly dog.

*shakes computerized fist*

[Benny Profane]

Charlemagne had to be the all-time most annoying debater on this topic.

The answer is no.

[Duncan]

Watching Ratatouille, especially towards the end, The Fountainhead was all I could think of. I wasn't surprised at all to see the connection brought up by others.

The Incredibles is a different story. I think the two films approach similar themes from only slightly different angles, but the end result is significantly different.

[D_Davis]

Charlemagne had to be the all-time most annoying debater on this topic.

The answer is no.

Really? Does he post here? Haven't seen him anywhere in a long time.

[Benny Profane]

Really? Does he post here? Haven't seen him anywhere in a long time.

I'm going way back to the golden age of RT, circa 2002 - 2003. I have no idea of his whereabouts these days.

[Sven]

I don't think objectivity exists anywhere but in the mind. The universe has no sharp edges, etc.

[D_Davis]

I'm going way back to the golden age of RT, circa 2002 - 2003. I have no idea of his whereabouts these days.

Last seen, he was hanging out at icine, but that was last year.

[number8]

I believe in maintaining an illusion of objectivity, but not objectivity in of itself. Which is to say that I like ambiguity.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Charlemagne had to be the all-time most annoying debater on this topic.

The answer is no.

I thought he was a fantastic debater. I thought he was wrong in a lot of situations, but he always argued thoroughly and kept his wits and kindness intact.

[Spinal]

I'm confused as to why people prefer the pretense of objectivity when they know it's not possible. I prefer a filmmaker to openly confess to and/or embrace their subjectivity and then proceed from there. I wish everyone could see the opening 20 minutes of Peter Watkins' The Journey where he tackles this notion head on.

[Raiders]

I wish everyone could see the opening 20 minutes of Peter Watkins' The Journey where he tackles this notion head on.

Or pretty much the entirety of F for Fake (which I know you don't much like).

I do need to see Watkins' film.

[Spinal]

Or pretty much the entirety of F for Fake (which I know you don't much like).

I do need to see Watkins' film.

Yeah, Welles is a great example of a filmmaker who embraces and relishes his subjectivity.

[Derek]

I'm confused as to why people prefer the pretense of objectivity when they know it's not possible. I prefer a filmmaker to openly confess to and/or embrace their subjectivity and then proceed from there. I wish everyone could see the opening 20 minutes of Peter Watkins' The Journey where he tackles this notion head on.

Don't you love Wiseman's High School? I mean, I don't think his films are objective - simply the choice of subject matter, placement of the camera, how its edited together, etc. shatters that idea - but are they not presented under the pretense of objectivity?

Just curious, since I otherwise agree with you.

[Spinal]

Don't you love Wiseman's High School? I mean, I don't think his films are objective - simply the choice of subject matter, placement of the camera, how its edited together, etc. shatters that idea - but are they not presented under the pretense of objectivity?

Yes, they are. And Wiseman's objective posturing is kind of silly since he clearly has a fierce agenda. But, he still makes good films. (Only seen two.)

[Winston*]

Only if the film claims to be a documentary.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll39/colpot10/comic2-675.png

[Mysterious Dude]

Bird has denied it multiple of times.
Brad Bird doesn't actually have the final say on his films. Just because Bird says something isn't in his film doesn't mean people can't see it in there. That's subjectivity.

[chrisnu]

I'm confused as to why people prefer the pretense of objectivity when they know it's not possible. I prefer a filmmaker to openly confess to and/or embrace their subjectivity and then proceed from there. I wish everyone could see the opening 20 minutes of Peter Watkins' The Journey where he tackles this notion head on.
I agree entirely.


Brad Bird films.
Bah, his worldview is as plain as day in his films, The Incredibles and Ratatouille in particular. Also, under the surface, they're an ode to how awesome he thinks he is.

[SirNewt]

Objectivity is expensive and that is why it exists in so few places in our society today. Matters become so complex and so deep that we have to trust the experts otherwise we'd suffocate under the weight of research. Problems would come to crisis before we had enough time to fix them. In other words, the damn would break while we decided whether wood or brix were better for shoring up. We lack objectivity in places where it's critical such as the press, politics, and science. Little wonder it so rarely flourishes in film.

[Sven]

Objectivity is expensive and that is why it exists in so few places in our society today. Matters become so complex and so deep that we have to trust the experts otherwise we'd suffocate under the weight of research. Problems would come to crisis before we had enough time to fix them. In other words, the damn would break while we decided whether wood or brix were better for shoring up. We lack objectivity in places where it's critical such as the press, politics, and science. Little wonder it so rarely flourishes in film.

A noble view, but fundamentally flawed. In my experience, the farther into research you go, the less things become clear. There is only negotiation between schools. That negotiation is the closest thing to objectivity we can achieve and it depends entirely on the subjects, ironically. This I believe to be objectively true. Heyo!

[D_Davis]

Can objectivity exist in a consensus? If enough people agree that certain things are needed to make a well told story, then could those things be considered objective reasons? For instance, something like active voice versus passive voice, or telling rather than showing.

[Sven]

Can objectivity exist in a consensus? If enough people agree that certain things are needed to make a well told story, then could those things be considered objective reasons? For instance, something like active voice versus passive voice, or telling rather than showing.

I would say absolutely not. It speaks only of rules of a particular ideology.

[SirNewt]

A noble view, but fundamentally flawed. In my experience, the farther into research you go, the less things become clear. There is only negotiation between schools. That negotiation is the closest thing to objectivity we can achieve and it depends entirely on the subjects, ironically. This I believe to be objectively true. Heyo!

So all objectivity is subject to compromise?

[Melville]

So all objectivity is subject to compromise?
I'd say objectivity consists of compromise. It's the intersection of all subjectivities. Or something.

[Wryan]

Foucault had some things to say about trusting experts.

I haven't seen a bad Bird film yet.

We need the veneer of objectivity. If everyone in the world suddenly and jointly engendered in themselves the belief that all life was purely subjective, I think the world would explode into chaos.

/growls like Jurassic Malcolm

[Melville]

We need the veneer of objectivity. If everyone in the world suddenly and jointly engendered in themselves the belief that all life was purely subjective, I think the world would explode into chaos.
That seems a bit too much like equating subjectivity with solipsism (or like the argument that without organized religion to guide them, people would behave immorally). People who insist that their opinions are totally objective are just as hard to work with as people who insist that their opinions are totally subjective. Either way, they're shielding their opinions from opposing ones. I agree with Kant: all our experiences and views are purely subjective, but our subjective experience has a form that is nearly universal (we all have basically the same perception of space and time, basically the same ways of processing information, etc.), meaning that we do wave a common "objective" framework to work in. Realizing that life is subjective but that it possesses important commonalities seems like the only way to achieve true consensus.

[Wryan]

all our experiences and views are purely subjective, but our subjective experience has a form that is nearly universal

Stretched to the limit, I'd agree with that.

[trotchky]

Anyone who answers the titular question in the affirmative is a fucking idiot.

[SirNewt]

I'd say objectivity consists of compromise. It's the intersection of all subjectivities. Or something.

See, I think objectivity exists as understanding. The objective mindset is attained through questioning. Unfortunately, any question reveals still more questions so that an objective permanence can never be attained. At some point, a film or book or discussion has to conclude implying an end to the asking of questions and an end to objectivity. So perhaps, art that hints at the greater complexity of things is as close to objectivity as art can come. True objectivity is perhaps found only in the unending questions of people yet to be. Objectivity exists at an infinity, that appears only as future dissolves into forever.

[D_Davis]

What about in technical matters such as keeping stuff in focus, or using proper lighting, or editing, and sound? Would you question someone who professes love for an out of focus movie so dark you couldn't see a thing, with sound so bad you couldn't hear anything clearly and editing so random it looks like the film was chopped in a food processor?

[Amnesiac]

What about in technical matters such as keeping stuff in focus, or using proper lighting, or editing, and sound? Would you question someone who professes love for an out of focus movie so dark you couldn't see a thing, with sound so bad you couldn't hear anything clearly and editing so random it looks like the film was chopped in a food processor?

But doesn't that have less to do with objectivity and more to do with clarity and quality of presentation? I mean, wouldn't a film that is in focus, uses 'proper' lighting, is adequately edited, and has proper sound... still not be objective? I mean, there are standards of quality but those standards don't necessarily equate to objectivity.

Again, there is still a human agent behind the camera who has to, for instance, choose a perspective from which he will shoot whatever he/she is shooting. A film can never be a transparent rendering of reality, nor can it maintain a sense of objectivity... I think there are too many variables involved for this to happen. Too many particulars and subjective decisions attached to the filmmaking process.

[D_Davis]

I don't know.

[Izzy Black]

I have really come to detest the use of the words "subjective" and "objective." It is worthwhile to distinguish between a cinema that highlights the personal experience over an omniscient camera, but to talk about subjectivity and objectivity with regards to truth claims is like talking about politics where everything is reduced to contingencies on a left and right spectrum. It moves almost into a kind of binary dualism that really gets away from what it means to talk about the world. The fact that all of us are individual points-of-views or perspectives on the world is not to take away from a coherent world picture that can be described in any universal terms. Perspectivism even supports this idea; that all of us sitting in a classroom might view the teacher from different positions, but that does not suggest that one point-of-view is more right or wrong than the next. Quite the contrary, it suggests that we are at different points of perspective, and that these points-of-views are essential in providing a coherent and meaningful worldview. Melville is correct, I think, to reference Kant, in that there is something to be said about our basic subjective experiences that is shared in form. None of this is to say that "anything goes" though - but that what we experience can be placed and arranged within a broader worldview, even if not necessarily taken for use the same as another perspective.

[Qrazy]

Objectivity exists at an infinity, that appears only as future dissolves into forever.

Stop it.

[eternity]

See, I think objectivity exists as understanding. The objective mindset is attained through questioning. Unfortunately, any question reveals still more questions so that an objective permanence can never be attained. At some point, a film or book or discussion has to conclude implying an end to the asking of questions and an end to objectivity. So perhaps, art that hints at the greater complexity of things is as close to objectivity as art can come. True objectivity is perhaps found only in the unending questions of people yet to be. Objectivity exists at an infinity, that appears only as future dissolves into forever.

...

[Qrazy]

I have really come to detest the use of the words "subjective" and "objective." It is worthwhile to distinguish between a cinema that highlights the personal experience over an omniscient camera, but to talk about subjectivity and objectivity with regards to truth claims is like talking about politics where everything is reduced to contingencies on a left and right spectrum. It moves almost into a kind of binary dualism that really gets away from what it means to talk about the world. The fact that all of us are individual points-of-views or perspectives on the world is not to take away from a coherent world picture that can be described in any universal terms. Perspectivism even supports this idea; that all of us sitting in a classroom might view the teacher from different positions, but that does not suggest that one point-of-view is more right or wrong than the next. Quite the contrary, it suggests that we are at different points of perspective, and that these points-of-views are essential in providing a coherent and meaningful worldview. Melville is correct, I think, to reference Kant, in that there is something to be said about our basic subjective experiences that is shared in form. None of this is to say that "anything goes" though - but that what we experience can be placed and arranged within a broader worldview, even if not necessarily taken for use the same as another perspective.

Yeah pretty much, although I was going to use nature/nurture instead of politics as another example of an inefficient binary. But then I realized I really didn't want to have a lengthy discussion on the matter... and yet here I am... shit.

[Izzy Black]

Yeah pretty much, although I was going to use nature/nurture instead of politics as another example of an inefficient binary. But then I realized I really didn't want to have a lengthy discussion on the matter... and yet here I am... shit.


:)

[SirNewt]

Stop it.

Stop what?

[Qrazy]

Stop what?

Dissolving the future into forever.

[SirNewt]

Dissolving the future into forever.

:P

[Amnesiac]

The fact that all of us are individual points-of-views or perspectives on the world is not to take away from a coherent world picture that can be described in any universal terms. [...] Quite the contrary, it suggests that we are at different points of perspective, and that these points-of-views are essential in providing a coherent and meaningful worldview. Melville is correct, I think, to reference Kant, in that there is something to be said about our basic subjective experiences that is shared in form. None of this is to say that "anything goes" though - but that what we experience can be placed and arranged within a broader worldview, even if not necessarily taken for use the same as another perspective.

But doesn't that plethora of perspectives imply that objectivity is kind of difficult to conceptualize, let alone present, within a film? Unless we're off the 'is objectivity present within film' discussion. Or are you actually suggesting that we have this broader world view that accommodates these disparate perspectives and kind of grounds them in a collective understanding of something objective, holistic, coherent, etc.

I mean, by your own admission, one point-of-view cannot be deemed more right than the next. Then it becomes about a subjective 'feeling it out' sort of process, right? Highly personal, either way you look at it. One person tilts the camera this way, getting a 'feel' for the character of an object, then another tilts it another way, and gets a 'feel' for it that way. I mean... doesn't that challenge objectivity? It can't exist, right? Too much stimuli is tempered by the way we choose to perceive it. Or is all that inconsequential because we have that 'broader worldview'?

[Izzy Black]

But doesn't that plethora of perspectives imply that objectivity is kind of difficult to conceptualize, let alone present, within a film? Unless we're off the 'is objectivity present within film' discussion. Or are you actually suggesting that we have this broader world view that accommodates these disparate perspectives and kind of grounds them in a collective understanding of something objective, holistic, coherent, etc.

Well, you cut out the bit about:


It is worthwhile to distinguish between a cinema that highlights the personal experience over an omniscient camera, but to talk about subjectivity and objectivity with regards to truth claims is like talking about politics where everything is reduced to contingencies on a left and right spectrum."

In other words, the way we talk about "objectivity" and "subjectivity" about truth claims, such as, observations about the world, are slightly different than the way we use these terms with regards to cinema. It is largely a semantic thing, but with cinema, the use of these terms is less suggestive; it is not really employed as a philosophical implication. We talk about objectivity, in large part, with regards to omniscient, distant, or detached character narratives. That is not to say it is easy or difficult to decide when we are saying something is being conveyed objectively or subjectively in the narrative, as many great artists attempt to blur these boundaries, but that the implications are a bit different for art than they are for everyday activity. We can look at a film and use particular practices of interpretation to decide whether a certain technique is highlighting more the personal or the impersonal.


I mean, by your own admission, one point-of-view cannot be deemed more right than the next. Then it becomes about a subjective 'feeling it out' sort of process, right? Highly personal, either way you look at it. One person tilts the camera this way, getting a 'feel' for the character of an object, then another tilts it another way, and gets a 'feel' for it that way. I mean... doesn't that challenge objectivity? It can't exist, right? Too much stimuli is tempered by the way we choose to perceive it. Or is all that inconsequential because we have that 'broader worldview'?

Ah, now this is slightly different, but still along the same lines. This is talking about objectivity and subjectivity more in the phenomenological sense; that is, what is the relationship between our own experience and the meaning of the actual event. (Thus moving from talking about objectivity/subjectivity in the film - which I will do some below in an example anyways - and talking about objectivity/subjectivity with regards to how we view the film.) This is where I would shift into Wittgensteinian mode and start talking about language games, or linguistic modes of practice. In plain terms, yes, the perspectivism, to a large extent, is already informed by shared cultural cues, beliefs, and ideas. Our interpretation is merely where we find ourselves within this web of meaning and work through it. This implies that, the more socially attached to the culture we are that fostered the given film, the more we have to work with in terms of shared meanings. This invariably has an effect on interpretation and interactions. That is, a tilt of the camera might not mean the same thing for everyone in some given culture, but there are certain parameters to which that experience will be interpreted by nearly everyone in it.

For example, a close-up of a woman crying in silence (and, for the sake of argument, let's assume this is a scene in isolation) is not going to be interpreted as something comedic, undramatic, or extremely impersonal. We might think Bergman. Yet, if we had the same scene with the camera in a long shot backed by a score of an upbeat Mozart melody, we probably would not call the scene outright poignant, melodramatic, or serious - but rather, ironic, impersonal, and possibly even comedic. We might think Kubrick. Disagreements may ensue as to what emphasis these points are implied, but there will most likely be a pretty solid ground of consensus on the general mood of what is being conveyed by the scene.

The point here is not that there is a single proper interpretation of all things, but the more embedded within a culture one is, and the more you understand the language and meanings within a culture, the more you share with these individuals in terms of understanding or interpreting meaning in things such as a film. Which is to say, there are certain grounds and collective boundaries by which we can draw conclusions, but that is not to say that competing and various interpretations are rendered "inconsequential;" quite the contrary, these competing and nuanced interpretations are precisely what shape the shared meanings that we presently have. It is our individual contribution that adds inflection and interpretation on the rules and meanings of our practices. So, instead of awkward binaries like objective and subjective, the way we interact with the world can be more accurately described as "intersubjective" - but I still find such labels do more of a disservice than justice to describing our experiences.