28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Skitch]

So where does the idea of “guilty pleasure” factor into all of this? Or loving something out of pure nostalgia, and acknowledging that about your affinity for it?

Is “it’s garbage, but I love it because I grew up with it” sufficient reasoning?

I go with double scores. Is [movie] a groundbreaking work of cinema, that pushes the envelopes of the art, or pushes an emotion-inducing story? Its fine to say no, but still enjoy it.

[PURPLE]

Taste is basically a matter of cultural training. It's not as if everybody had some ineffable and unique essence that's revealed through their tastes; rather, people like the things they're trained to like. It's hardly surprising, given the time and society he lived in and the education he had, that Ebert's opinions reflect certain ideas about which qualities are essential for good art that have been pervasive in Western culture for more than two thousand years: e.g., a preference for a logical narrative construction (Casablanca, The Godfather) over violent spectacle for the sake of violence spectacle (Transformers). If someone in North America wanted to make the case that Transformers--which I still have not seen--is a good film, they would need to demonstrate either its conformity to the canons of Western taste or that there is some advantage in its violations of those canons. To fall back on subjective preferences as a substitute for having an argument ("my taste is my taste, so there") is snowflake bullshit.

The ideas about which qualities are essential for good art in Western culture is not something that predates the human experiences that established these qualities as those that are essential for good art. These qualities became known as the “essential qualities” because actual humans relied on nothing more than their subjective preferences to determine what qualified as essential qualities. It should be common sense that the essential qualities that emerged were subject to all sorts of societal influences that could only be attributed to a confederacy of dunces - or, worse, a confederacy of priests.

The idea that there are some immutable ideas of the essential qualities of good art is hilariously nonsensical and readily, readily, readily disproven time and time again. The Greeks tried, but we certainly do not reference the Golden Proportion ever, do we? Is not the history of art over the last several hundred years not merely a vicious skewering of the absolutely nonsensical “essential qualities for good art” which excluded all non-religious art, and then all non-representational art, and then all conceptial art, to name but a few of the most obvious?

To call back to “certain ideas about which qualities are essential for good art” is cowardly, and Ebert was well behind the “pervasive ideas” of what might “constitute good art” in his day. Do we really think Ebert would have been anything but a laughable simpleton to Duchamp, who skewered the confederacy of dunces’ hilariously absurd standards that Ebert still clutched to before Ebert was even born?

[baby doll]

So where does the idea of “guilty pleasure” factor into all of this? Or loving something out of pure nostalgia, and acknowledging that about your affinity for it?

Is “it’s garbage, but I love it because I grew up with it” sufficient reasoning?

Nostalgia may be sufficient reason to watch something but it wouldn't be sufficient if you wanted to convince another person, for instance, that Kindergarten Cop is a good film.

I've never really understood the concept of a guilty pleasure. If you like something but don't want other people to know about it, the emotion your experiencing is shame, not guilt. Personally, if I like something, I don't hesitate to admit it because I can usually make a case for whatever it is I like.

[PURPLE]

So where does the idea of “guilty pleasure” factor into all of this? Or loving something out of pure nostalgia, and acknowledging that about your affinity for it?

Is “it’s garbage, but I love it because I grew up with it” sufficient reasoning?

Guilty pleasure comes from the same nonsense as “Good Taste”. If you like something in “Bad Taste”, you should feel bad.

There are no good people who like nothing in “Bad Taste”. The emperor has no clothes, and yet the confederacy of dunces marches on. Art can serve many purposes, none serves all of them, and confederacies of dunces lack the capability to consider the value in variety. After all, they all think the exact same, and rhey’re all incredibly stupid.

[baby doll]

The ideas about which qualities are essential for good art in Western culture is not something that predates the human experiences that established these qualities as those that are essential for good art. These qualities became known as the “essential qualities” because actual humans relied on nothing more than their subjective preferences to determine what qualified as essential qualities. It should be common sense that the essential qualities that emerged were subject to all sorts of societal influences that could only be attributed to a confederacy of dunces - or, worse, a confederacy of priests.

The idea that there are some immutable ideas of the essential qualities of good art is hilariously nonsensical and readily, readily, readily disproven time and time again. The Greeks tried, but we certainly do not reference the Golden Proportion ever, do we? Is not the history of art over the last several hundred years not merely a vicious skewering of the absolutely nonsensical “essential qualities for good art” which excluded all non-religious art, and then all non-representational art, and then all conceptial art, to name but a few of the most obvious?

To call back to “certain ideas about which qualities are essential for good art” is cowardly, and Ebert was well behind the “pervasive ideas” of what might “constitute good art” in his day. Do we really think Ebert would have been anything but a laughable simpleton to Duchamp, who skewered the confederacy of dunces’ hilariously absurd standards that Ebert still clutched to before Ebert was even born?

It would be more accurate to say that pervasive notions about which qualities are desirable in art are intersubjective, that is to say a matter of agreement between two or more people, rather than subjective. That is not to claim, of course, that canons of taste are immutable; only that if one wishes to refute them, one must demonstrate that the refutation yields some positive result. Old fashioned as it may be, most people would probably agree that narrative coherence is a positive quality in narrative art forms (drama, fiction, cinema, etc.); of course, there are very fine films that are purposefully incoherent (e.g., L'Année dernière Ã* Marienbad) but this does not invalidate narrative coherence as an artistic principle.

[PURPLE]

“"Blue Velvet" is like the guy who drives you nuts by hinting at horrifying news and then saying, "Never mind." There's another thing. Rossellini is asked to do things in this film that require real nerve. In one scene, she's publicly embarrassed by being dumped naked on the lawn of the police detective. In others, she is asked to portray emotions that I imagine most actresses would rather not touch. She is degraded, slapped around, humiliated and undressed in front of the camera. And when you ask an actress to endure those experiences, you should keep your side of the bargain by putting her in an important fill.”

These are the echoes of “certain ideas about what constitutes good art” handed down from the priests of the Dark Ages and brought to America by the Puritans. We need do nothing more than laugh at such silly patriarchal disregard for Rossellini’s willful contribution as an artist.

[baby doll]

“"Blue Velvet" is like the guy who drives you nuts by hinting at horrifying news and then saying, "Never mind." There's another thing. Rossellini is asked to do things in this film that require real nerve. In one scene, she's publicly embarrassed by being dumped naked on the lawn of the police detective. In others, she is asked to portray emotions that I imagine most actresses would rather not touch. She is degraded, slapped around, humiliated and undressed in front of the camera. And when you ask an actress to endure those experiences, you should keep your side of the bargain by putting her in an important fill.”

These are the echoes of “certain ideas about what constitutes good art” handed down from the priests of the Dark Ages and brought to America by the Puritans. We need do nothing more than laugh at such silly patriarchal disregard for Rossellini’s willful contribution as an artist.

Labelling an argument laughable, puritanical, or patriarchal is not the same thing as refuting it.

[PURPLE]

It would be more accurate to say that pervasive notions about which qualities are desirable in art are intersubjective, that is to say a matter of agreement between two or more people, rather than subjective. That is not to claim, of course, that canons of taste are immutable; only that if one wishes to refute them, one must demonstrate that the refutation yields some positive result. Old fashioned as it may be, most people would probably agree that narrative coherence is a positive quality in narrative art forms (drama, fiction, cinema, etc.); of course, there are very fine films that are purposefully incoherent (e.g., L'Année dernière Ã* Marienbad) but this does not invalidate narrative coherence as an artistic principle.

Just because two dunces agree on some intersubjective standards doesn’t mean that it must be refuted. That’s silly. It’s silly to presume that there is only one intersubjective standard at one time. There are and have always been multitudinous. One may be published more often, and thus be the “most widely accepted”, but the publications which publish the most sound and therefore most-deserving-of-refutation standards are not the most widely read, and not the most widely accepted. As such, the idea that any person needs to refute all existing intersubjective standards is the same as the idea that someone must refute the most widely accepted standard: absolute nonsense at best, and quixotic at worst.

I take issue with the way you have framed “artisrtic principles” - and I don’t see why you did it. Why say, “Narrative coherence is a positive quality in narrative art forms” only to disprove it when you could say, “Narrative coherence can be a positive quality in narrative art forms”? That’s a fine, irrefutable principle that also accommodates a variety of both art and opinion.

The underlying problem with relying on “intersubjective concepts” is that the popularity of the concept may be, and almost inevitably IS, almost directly proportional to the commonality of that opinion and not the soundness. Suppose that you grew up in an isolated artists’ commune where abstract expressionism was the most common form of art and the stories you were exposed to as a child were wildly imaginative, as many kids’ stories are (what a shame for adults who have lost this openness!) but decidedly narratively playful and incoherent. You would find it CRAZY and BORING to be confronted with the commonality of preference for coherent narrative in Hollywood. I can relate: my favorite film growing up was Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and I loved the flights of fancy in Calvin and Hobbes, and my favorite cartoon episodes were the surreal fourth-wall breaking ones, all despite growing up in a boring suburb! No, popularity is not a substitute for soundness or ideas.

No sound idea needs to be prefaced with the refutation of an innumerable number of nonsensical ones. That is a fallacious idea if there ever was one. When does it stop? “Sir, you have refuted 9,000 other intersubjective concepts, but I found five more!” No, thanks, skip the appetizers and take me to dessert.

EDIT: The idea that some idea is not subjective just because two people agree on it is pure nonsense. Where did the idea come from? One person? Oh, right. Intersubjectivity is nonsense when referring to content. It only has meaning when talking about the social context - which is not in any way relevant to the soundness of a concept. The subjective concept that one dunce proposed is still subjective and still from a dunce, no matter how many other dunces agree.

[PURPLE]

Labelling an argument laughable, puritanical, or patriarchal is not the same thing as refuting it.

Agreed. See above: there is no need to spend time refuting nonsense.

[megladon8]

Nostalgia may be sufficient reason to watch something but it wouldn't be sufficient if you wanted to convince another person, for instance, that Kindergarten Cop is a good film.

I've never really understood the concept of a guilty pleasure. If you like something but don't want other people to know about it, the emotion your experiencing is shame, not guilt. Personally, if I like something, I don't hesitate to admit it because I can usually make a case for whatever it is I like.

My ultimate example would be Superman IV.

It is a terrible movie, worthy of no praise for anything. But as a child it was my favorite movie. And I can still watch and enjoy it now from a purely nostalgic stance (while also cringing heavily).

How would you quantify that “quality” to another?

[baby doll]

Just because two dunces agree on some intersubjective standards doesn’t mean that it must be refuted. That’s silly. It’s silly to presume that there is only one intersubjective standard at one time. There are and have always been multitudinous. One may be published more often, and thus be the “most widely accepted”, but the publications which publish the most sound and therefore most-deserving-of-refutation standards are not the most widely read, and not the most widely accepted. As such, the idea that any person needs to refute all existing intersubjective standards is the same as the idea that someone must refute the most widely accepted standard: absolute nonsense at best, and quixotic at worst.

I take issue with the way you have framed “artisrtic principles” - and I don’t see why you did it. Why say, “Narrative coherence is a positive quality in narrative art forms” only to disprove it when you could say, “Narrative coherence can be a positive quality in narrative art forms”? That’s a fine, irrefutable principle that also accommodates a variety of both art and opinion.

Why must you write in such a bullying, antagonistic manner? Anyone you disagree with you label a "dunce," any argument you disagree with is "laughable" or "silly." It seems that you are less interesting in defending your positions than ridiculing those of others without really engaging with them.

I never said that any intersubjective standard must be refuted (or accepted uncritically); only that, given the relative stability of certain artistic criteria over time (e.g., the desirability of narrative coherence), it is reasonable to appeal to them as grounds for liking, or not liking, a particular work of art. Of course, the appeal's validity depends upon what that particular work of art is attempting to do; one would not judge Resnais' film by the same standards as, say, Casablanca.

The underlying problem with relying on “intersubjective concepts” is that the popularity of the concept may be, and almost inevitably IS, almost directly proportional to the commonality of that opinion and not the soundness. Suppose that you grew up in an isolated artists’ commune where abstract expressionism was the most common form of art and the stories you were exposed to as a child were wildly imaginative, as many kids’ stories are (what a shame for adults who have lost this openness!) but decidedly narratively playful and incoherent. You would find it CRAZY and BORING to be confronted with the commonality of preference for coherent narrative in Hollywood. I can relate: my favorite film growing up was Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and I loved the flights of fancy in Calvin and Hobbes, and my favorite cartoon episodes were the surreal fourth-wall breaking ones, all despite growing up in a boring suburb! No, popularity is not a substitute for soundness or ideas.

In this example, the rhetorical "you" belongs to a culture that trains him or her to admire certain qualities in works of art. Presumably he/she shares with other members of this fictional community a set of intersubjective artistic standards that would enable them to judge one work of abstract expressionism or deconstructive cinema superior to another.

No sound idea needs to be prefaced with the refutation of an innumerable number of nonsensical ones. That is a fallacious idea if there ever was one. When does it stop? “Sir, you have refuted 9,000 other intersubjective concepts, but I found five more!” No, thanks, skip the appetizers and take me to dessert.

EDIT: The idea that some idea is not subjective just because two people agree on it is pure nonsense. Where did the idea come from? One person? Oh, right. Intersubjectivity is nonsense when referring to content. It only has meaning when talking about the social context - which is not in any way relevant to the soundness of a concept. The subjective concept that one dunce proposed is still subjective and still from a dunce, no matter how many other dunces agree.

You seem to believe that the individual is prior to the social, which strikes me as a rather dubious premise.

As to the "soundness" of an intersubjective position, you miss my point. My argument is not that one artistic standard is necessarily superior to another, or that espousing one necessarily entails the refutation of all others. Rather, the point I'm making is that, in message boards like this, evaluation is a social act. In order for your evaluation to be taken seriously, one must appeal to the widely held artistic standards of the community it is addressed to.

[baby doll]

My ultimate example would be Superman IV.

It is a terrible movie, worthy of no praise for anything. But as a child it was my favorite movie. And I can still watch and enjoy it now from a purely nostalgic stance (while also cringing heavily).

How would you quantify that “quality” to another?

You wouldn't. If it gives you pleasure to watch Superman IV that is its own justification. But it seems to me that the pleasure you get from the film has less to do with the film per se than the act of reliving your past.

[PURPLE]

Why must you write in such a bullying, antagonistic manner? Anyone you disagree with you label a "dunce," any argument you disagree with is "laughable" or "silly." It seems that you are less interesting in defending your positions than ridiculing those of others without really engaging with them.

I never said that any intersubjective standard must be refuted (or accepted uncritically); only that, given the relative stability of certain artistic criteria over time (e.g., the desirability of narrative coherence), it is reasonable to appeal to them as grounds for liking, or not liking, a particular work of art. Of course, the appeal's validity depends upon what that particular work of art is attempting to do; one would not judge Resnais' film by the same standards as, say, Casablanca.

In this example, the rhetorical "you" belongs to a culture that trains him or her to admire certain qualities in works of art. Presumably he/she shares with other members of this fictional community a set of intersubjective artistic standards that would enable them to judge one work of abstract expressionism or deconstructive cinema superior to another.

You seem to believe that the individual is prior to the social, which strikes me as a rather dubious premise.

As to the "soundness" of an intersubjective position, you miss my point. My argument is not that one artistic standard is necessarily superior to another, or that espousing one necessarily entails the refutation of all others. Rather, the point I'm making is that, in message boards like this, evaluation is a social act. In order for your evaluation to be taken seriously, one must appeal to the widely held artistic standards of the community it is addressed to.

To start, you closed your first post by categorizing a gross misrepresentation of what’s I was talking about as “snowflake bullshit”. I’m not sure what tone you were expecting in response. Secondly, “Good Taste” as opposed to “Bad Taste” is an inherently heirarchical system. If such a system made sense, I would treat it with a begrudging acceptance at best. Because it is nonsense, and deleterious to both an understanding of art and the meaningful discussion of art, such ideas should be treated with nothing less than contempt and ridicule. I hope I have treated them as such. Lastly, I want there to be no confusion about my stance, which is the philosophically accepted standard ofnaesthetics for hundreds of years - the idea of good and bad taste is absolute nonsense.

I have no idea what your second paragraph means. Your standards are prescriptive and restrictive - you immediately contradicted the sole standard you proposed - so of course you can’t use your own standards to judge different works of art. I can’t say this makes sense. It is also abundantly clear that there is absolutely no “stability of certain aesthetic criteria over time”, so I can’t even begin to attempt to refute something that doesn’t seem grounded in reality - and I have already discussed why I think that if it WERE grounded in reality it wouldn’t matter, because no person or number of people or length of time makes a standard sensible. None. Not ever.

The idea that no person can escape his or her cultural training is nonsense. If it were true, there would be no dissenting opinions. I can’t even with that idea. You act like the individual vs social priority solves this issue, but it doesn’t. Society predates specific aesthetic attitudes and principles which eventually came to be commonly held. At some point, a real person actually voiced an opinion on these matters in order for them to become specific aesthetic attitudes. Society doesn’t hold opinions. It doesn’t matter anyway, though, because it doesn’t matter, at all, how widely or how long an opinion is held.

I got repped for my posts in this thread by an actual member of this board - are you saying that this person cannot possibly agree with me because you have deemed my ideas contrary to the intersubjective standards of this forum? That is a clear example of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

it appears that you don’t question your own assumptions because you find comfort knowing that you THINK other people agree with your positions. That doesn’t really seem to be the case, and it’s certainly not any proof of validity.

intersubjecticity is the most misappropriated concept I have ever encountered on the internet, FWIW. It seems very comforting for some people, but it is usually just a form of blinding people to groupthink. It’s best avoided except for very specialized conversations, in my experience.

[Irish]

Tradition judges? Tradition is made up of some collective noise made by unnamed people. Often that collective is a confederacy of dunces. I need say no more.

Man, this is like getting into a wrassle and finding out --- too late --- that your opponent has terrible B.O.

I did not say everything is subjective

I took your meaning in context to this argument, which is about "opinion." My interpretation ends there. It obviously doesn't include everything in the world, ever. (Now what was that you said about bad faith?)

You're claiming, in terms of art, that the only thing you can know for sure is your own opinion. That's the part I find solipsistic. That viewpoint might a good start, but it's a terrible place to end, too easily mired in ignorance and self-indulgence. It's both awful and seductive, because nobody can know more than you do, and nobody can tell you different.

The “appeal to authority” by mentioning Siskel’s undergraduate degree as an indication of the validity of Ebert’s half-hearted paraphrase of an argument is the very definition of bad faith that we both know you’re better than.

No, I mentioned it to provide context for Siskel and Ebert's worldview. It's pretty easy to understand why two guys with heavy, formal educations might pay heed to the canon and find value in it, and how they might say things like, "You're objectively wrong" when talking about art.

[Skitch]

Papillon is a good 1973 film.

Papillon is a good 2017 film.

[PURPLE]

Man, this is like getting into a wrassle and finding out --- too late --- that your opponent has terrible B.O.



I took your meaning in context to this argument, which is about "opinion." My interpretation ends there. It obviously doesn't include everything in the world, ever. (Now what was that you said about bad faith?)

You're claiming, in terms of art, that the only thing you can know for sure is your own opinion. That's the part I find solipsistic. That viewpoint might a good start, but it's a terrible place to end, too easily mired in ignorance and self-indulgence. It's both awful and seductive, because nobody can know more than you do, and nobody can tell you different.

Instead of telling me what I said, quote me. I did not and never would say what you said. If you address my actual words, then we can continue. I can’t defend something I don’t believe and would never say.

No, I mentioned it to provide context for Siskel and Ebert's worldview. It's pretty easy to understand why two guys with heavy, formal educations might pay heed to the canon and find value in it, and how they might say things like, "You're objectively wrong" when talking about art.

I am college educated, and I thought the entire point of a liberal education was to empower individuals to be free thinkers and question long-held opinions. I can find no reason why they would say something like, “Youmre objectively wrong” but for intellectual laziness and, in their position as public figures, negligence. Education is supposed to be a bulwark against tyranny, not a way to encourage people not to question nonsense.

[Irish]

Instead of telling me what I said, quote me. I did not and never would say what you said. If you address my actual words, then we can continue. I can’t defend something I don’t believe and would never say.

Nah, I'm good, thanks.

I thought the entire point of a liberal education was to empower individuals to be free thinkers and question long-held opinions.

Man oh man did somebody sell you a bill of goods. Was Robin Williams one of your instructors? Have you ever stood on a desk and called out, "O Captain, my Captain!"

Best honest. We won't judge. Apparently, we don't do that here.

I can find no reason why they would say something like, “Youmre objectively wrong” but for intellectual laziness

I think Siskel's point was a little larger than that. (I've also half-convinced myself that his tongue was partially in cheek, as it often was.)

What you're calling laziness could be described as a traditional newspaperman's conciseness. He's taking 3 words to put forth an idea where others would use 6 paragraphs. Neat trick, that.

[Irish]

we certainly do not reference the Golden Proportion ever, do we?

BTW, meant to say before: find a graphic designer who works in advertising or a front-end web developer who works anywhere and say this to them.

I guarantee they will burst out laughing --- which is to say, yes, people do reference the Golden Proportion and so consistently it's become trite to do so.

[PURPLE]

Nah, I'm good, thanks.



Man oh man did somebody sell you a bill of goods. Was Robin Williams one of your instructors? Have you ever stood on a desk and called out, "O Captain, my Captain!"

Best honest. We won't judge. Apparently, we don't do that here.



I think Siskel's point was a little larger than that. (I've also half-convinced myself that his tongue was partially in cheek, as it often was.)

What you're calling laziness could be described as a traditional newspaperman's conciseness. He's taking 3 words to put forth an idea where others would use 6 paragraphs. Neat trick, that.

OK thanks for posting.

[PURPLE]

BTW, meant to say before: find a graphic designer who works in advertising or a front-end web developer who works anywhere and say this to them.

I guarantee they will burst out laughing --- which is to say, yes, people do reference the Golden Proportion and so consistently it's become trite to do so.

Are these advertisers the people who decide what is in “Good Taste”? I was going to read some of Wittgenstein’s writings on aesthetic theory but I guess I’ll just email the guy who made the “Can you hear me now?” commercial.

[baby doll]

To start, you closed your first post by categorizing a gross misrepresentation of what’s I was talking about as “snowflake bullshit”. I’m not sure what tone you were expecting in response. Secondly, “Good Taste” as opposed to “Bad Taste” is an inherently heirarchical system. If such a system made sense, I would treat it with a begrudging acceptance at best. Because it is nonsense, and deleterious to both an understanding of art and the meaningful discussion of art, such ideas should be treated with nothing less than contempt and ridicule. I hope I have treated them as such. Lastly, I want there to be no confusion about my stance, which is the philosophically accepted standard ofnaesthetics for hundreds of years - the idea of good and bad taste is absolute nonsense.

Although the opposition of good and bad taste is obviously a social construct, that doesn't necessarily mean it's nonsensical as a concept. Nor is being in good taste necessarily synonymous with popularity. Nickelback and Kid Rock are popular but have little or no cultural prestige, perhaps because their fans are mostly working class whites who themselves lack social prestige.

But even if the concept were ridiculous, what do you hope to accomplish by strident ridicule? Again, it seems you would rather try to bully those who disagree with you into submission than argue the merits of your position.

I have no idea what your second paragraph means. Your standards are prescriptive and restrictive - you immediately contradicted the sole standard you proposed - so of course you can’t use your own standards to judge different works of art. I can’t say this makes sense. It is also abundantly clear that there is absolutely no “stability of certain aesthetic criteria over time”, so I can’t even begin to attempt to refute something that doesn’t seem grounded in reality - and I have already discussed why I think that if it WERE grounded in reality it wouldn’t matter, because no person or number of people or length of time makes a standard sensible. None. Not ever.

Although it's true that taste fluctuates somewhat over time, the fact that contemporary audiences are able to comprehend and enjoy Greek tragedies would seem to indicate that the basic aesthetic criteria by which people in the West evaluate works of art (coherence/unity, complexity, intensity of effect, originality, etc.) haven't changed all that much.

The idea that no person can escape his or her cultural training is nonsense. If it were true, there would be no dissenting opinions. I can’t even with that idea. You act like the individual vs social priority solves this issue, but it doesn’t. Society predates specific aesthetic attitudes and principles which eventually came to be commonly held. At some point, a real person actually voiced an opinion on these matters in order for them to become specific aesthetic attitudes. Society doesn’t hold opinions. It doesn’t matter anyway, though, because it doesn’t matter, at all, how widely or how long an opinion is held.

I'm afraid I don't see the connection between escaping one's cultural training and dissenting opinions. One may argue, for instance, that The Godfather is a bad film by appealing to commonly held aesthetic criteria (e.g., the plot is illogical and improbable).

I got repped for my posts in this thread by an actual member of this board - are you saying that this person cannot possibly agree with me because you have deemed my ideas contrary to the intersubjective standards of this forum? That is a clear example of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

it appears that you don’t question your own assumptions because you find comfort knowing that you THINK other people agree with your positions. That doesn’t really seem to be the case, and it’s certainly not any proof of validity.

You're being unnecessarily personal here. To clarify, my argument was never that your arguments are not convincing to at least some people on this board who share your positions. My position is simply that it is impossible to persuade another person unless you and that other person share a basic set of assumptions. To take a purely hypothetical situation, if my friend said he didn't consider The Godfather a good film, in order for me to persuade him otherwise, I would need to appeal to an aesthetic criteria we both share (for example, narrative coherence) and then demonstrate that The Godfather is a film that satisfies that criteria.

intersubjecticity is the most misappropriated concept I have ever encountered on the internet, FWIW. It seems very comforting for some people, but it is usually just a form of blinding people to groupthink. It’s best avoided except for very specialized conversations, in my experience.

I'm not sure how I've misappropriated the concept of intersubjectivity (that is, something shared by more than one conscious mind). Also it's unclear to me why it is a more specialized concept than subjectivity or objectivity. If two or more people agree, for instance, that The Godfather is a great film, it seems more probable than not that they share broadly similar aesthetic standards. I don't see what's so difficult about that.

[Irish]

I was going to read some of Wittgenstein’s writings on aesthetic theory but

[MadMan]

Dead Man’s Shoes is still effectively painful. Hadn’t watched it in probably 10 years. I wish Paddy Considine had taken off more over here - he’s great in everything I’ve seem him in.

I would call it one of the best revenge films of all time...if it weren’t for the very last scene, which hammers the audience over the head with the film’s message, and ends up losing potency because of it.

As far as I recall, it gets a 100/100 from me. I didn't have a problem with the last scene. There are parts that easily make me want to reconsider whether or not it is a horror film. Also Considine is a fantastic actor-he was hilarious in Hot Fuzz.

[MadMan]

I gave Superman IV a 6.5/10. I couldn't really give it a higher rating, but I enjoyed how goofy the whole movie was. Superman fights a Duran Duran style nuclear powered villain on the moon, and it's big dumb fun.

[megladon8]

Superman IV is an objectively masterful film and anyone who disagrees is a pleb and a snowflake, and should remove themselves from any discussions of film theory henceforth.