The Big Picture: Baggage
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I fully agree. Right now, I study Literary Criticism, and boy let me tell you, it is AMUSING to say to least when people still bring about arguments that a said book is 'objectively better' or 'worse' because it contains 'more levels' or 'less levels' or 'more nuance' or 'less fluff' than any other.
There is no such thing as 'Objectivity', and any form of 'Bias' is simply ONE way of looking at something.
So no, There is no 'Truth' here either. There is no 'X book or movie is bad BECAUSE X, and this is universally true'. There are only truths. Try to comprehend as many truths as possible, people.
There is no such thing as 'Objectivity', and any form of 'Bias' is simply ONE way of looking at something.
So no, There is no 'Truth' here either. There is no 'X book or movie is bad BECAUSE X, and this is universally true'. There are only truths. Try to comprehend as many truths as possible, people.
Just for clarity I'm going to use the pronouns group a and group b to describe people who agree with the video and people who don't, respectively.Desert Punk said:
My issue with that opinion assumes that group b's view of the source material is more valid than group a's. The argument pretty much comes down to group a see something that they find distasteful because of their biases. But wouldn't group b find that something perfectly fine because of their biases?
Also I don't think biases is really the best word for this, as it's more than a little bit loaded. But it's the word we have. *sigh*
Interesting video, Bob.
It got me thinking and I suppose that's the point.
Concept indeed should not invalidate good execution. If something is done well, the way it was done doesn't really matter.
However, I think holding concept on a high pedestal is a dangerous road as well. Good concept should not validate poor execution.
I'd really rather not bring her up even more, but since she was your example, I'll do it. Sarkesian is a good example of someone who had a great idea for a concept, but executed it very, very poorly. Just because the idea was good does not mean the completed product is valid.
The knife cuts both ways.
It got me thinking and I suppose that's the point.
Concept indeed should not invalidate good execution. If something is done well, the way it was done doesn't really matter.
However, I think holding concept on a high pedestal is a dangerous road as well. Good concept should not validate poor execution.
I'd really rather not bring her up even more, but since she was your example, I'll do it. Sarkesian is a good example of someone who had a great idea for a concept, but executed it very, very poorly. Just because the idea was good does not mean the completed product is valid.
The knife cuts both ways.
It seems to be a thing for highly vocal homophobes to have at least somewhat homosexual tendencies. I'm not sure why that is, but it has happened enough for it to be viewed as a pattern.Cybylt said:
So, Orson might be gay (or bi), is what I'm saying, and due to any number of external factors of his upbringing he has turned his insecurities about his orientation into anger at the entire notion of homosexuality. Quite common among fervent preachers who spout anti-gay bullshit, and I suspect it's not exclusive to the cloth and just homophobes in general.
OT: I'm glad you touched on the topic of Objectivity bob. For years I used to think that objective critique was the purest form of criticism, but recently I've found it to be a pipe dream. How can you be objective about something unless you are highly knowledgeable of the processes that came to create the piece being critiqued? You can't. The more comprehensive a review, the more it has to dip into subjectivity as the reviewer must use his own personal opinion to make calls on aspects that they don't understand.
When it comes to reviews, the only thing that matters is whether the reviewer shares similar tastes as the reader/viewer. Bob, for the most part, thinks much the same way about films as I do. We might not totally gel when it comes to moral questions, but when it comes to the film and his take from it, I usually fall pretty close to that take upon viewing it myself. So much so that I have come to rely on Moviebob for planning a film night with friends.
I must have had squirrel syndrome while watching this, as I kept losing your message while laughing at the connections of your visuals. Honesty is the best method.
Great Video... And you're absolutely right: I'm here to see your take on the movie or game concept. After that I get to make my own mind up whether to see it or not. I decide what matters to me and you get to present what matters to you; everyone is here to hear from Movie Bob, afterall
I think the idea that reviews SHOULD be very much opinionated is one that can't be understated. I hate it, especially in game reviews, where reviewers seem deathly afraid of deviating from the nuts and bolts of the game. On the other hand, most reviews aren't like that, but the issue here is simply politics. If I say "the characters in GTA V suck" then there might be people who disagree with me, even vehemently, but they won't accuse me of gross misconduct in most situations, they just think my opinion is wrong.
Mixing politics in with it, though, changes things dramatically. In the end, "this game is sorta sexist in these ways" is functionally no different from "this game has a bad story/characters", but because it challenges something about their politics, it's more than just civil disagreement. There are some people who seem convinced that misogyny and sexism no longer exists in any significant form, so suggesting that it exists in something they actually like isn't just disagreeable, it's worth much more outrage. Even though I was just stating my opinion, I'm not in the eyes of those people, I'm "forcing" it on them like some sort of Clockwork Orange treatment. Really they're just afraid that the way of thinking might "catch on", and they clearly don't want it to.
Mixing politics in with it, though, changes things dramatically. In the end, "this game is sorta sexist in these ways" is functionally no different from "this game has a bad story/characters", but because it challenges something about their politics, it's more than just civil disagreement. There are some people who seem convinced that misogyny and sexism no longer exists in any significant form, so suggesting that it exists in something they actually like isn't just disagreeable, it's worth much more outrage. Even though I was just stating my opinion, I'm not in the eyes of those people, I'm "forcing" it on them like some sort of Clockwork Orange treatment. Really they're just afraid that the way of thinking might "catch on", and they clearly don't want it to.
For those scratching their heads as to how to know whether to see a given movie or play a given game if reviewers are inserting their perspective into it, here are some pointers:
-Have a collection of reviewers to call on. Be sure to have a good variety as well, not just ones that you agree with 90% of the time. And if one presents a perspective you don't agree with, don't get indignant. Instead, take a second to during a break in the action to see if you can appreciate their view. It's possible to enjoy something while still noticing the bits that make others uncomfortable (even you!)
-Read the whole review. Don't just skim for trigger words. Even if a reviewer has a problem with the context, if they're good they'll cover the technical aspects of the film/game/artwork as well. They'll even be nice enough to separate it from any 'issue' they might take. And just because he or she doesn't like a particular technical aspect of the game doesn't necessarily mean that it's because of the subtext.
-Know where the reviewer is coming from. Admittedly this isn't always easy, but a bit of research can tell you a lot about a reviewer. Check their archives of reviews, and see what they've liked or disliked in the past. This is why I really like Yahtzee as a reviewer, even if I disagree with him on a particular review. He owns his preferences, and if I want a review of, say, a JRPG or a multiplayer shooter, I know that he's the last person I should look to for a recommendation.
-Have a collection of reviewers to call on. Be sure to have a good variety as well, not just ones that you agree with 90% of the time. And if one presents a perspective you don't agree with, don't get indignant. Instead, take a second to during a break in the action to see if you can appreciate their view. It's possible to enjoy something while still noticing the bits that make others uncomfortable (even you!)
-Read the whole review. Don't just skim for trigger words. Even if a reviewer has a problem with the context, if they're good they'll cover the technical aspects of the film/game/artwork as well. They'll even be nice enough to separate it from any 'issue' they might take. And just because he or she doesn't like a particular technical aspect of the game doesn't necessarily mean that it's because of the subtext.
-Know where the reviewer is coming from. Admittedly this isn't always easy, but a bit of research can tell you a lot about a reviewer. Check their archives of reviews, and see what they've liked or disliked in the past. This is why I really like Yahtzee as a reviewer, even if I disagree with him on a particular review. He owns his preferences, and if I want a review of, say, a JRPG or a multiplayer shooter, I know that he's the last person I should look to for a recommendation.
Here's my sole opinion on any and all critic...
If you can put up an intelligent argument for or why something in a movie, game, or song does or does not work, I consider it valid critique.
If you just "don't like it" or "don't get it" or something, that's no longer a critique, just an opinion. I've seen critics who despise the entire genre of horror not understand why certain people enjoy being scared; I've seen game critics not understand or enjoy a game that asks them to play it different than the dozens of other games that play the same; I've seen critics toss away any redeeming elements of a song because that genre of music doesn't sound good to their ears, but offer no explanation for why it is objectively bad to listen to.
There has to be SOME substance in any review or critique to back up the analysis.
If you can put up an intelligent argument for or why something in a movie, game, or song does or does not work, I consider it valid critique.
If you just "don't like it" or "don't get it" or something, that's no longer a critique, just an opinion. I've seen critics who despise the entire genre of horror not understand why certain people enjoy being scared; I've seen game critics not understand or enjoy a game that asks them to play it different than the dozens of other games that play the same; I've seen critics toss away any redeeming elements of a song because that genre of music doesn't sound good to their ears, but offer no explanation for why it is objectively bad to listen to.
There has to be SOME substance in any review or critique to back up the analysis.
I originally only came in to say that I noticed Bob reused the same picture of TV's Frank way too often in the video, and read through the thread, and now I just have to say: From the moment anyone becomes aware of their own existence, they can no longer be completely objective. The only way to be completely objective would be to have absolutely no knowledge of anything, including language, so, how would you voice your opinion?
"These forms of criticism are just as good as this one. And this form of criticism is inferior."
...*sigh*. Okay...
How about just this: It's better for criticism to be aware of its own biases.
I get really uncomfortable these days when someone suggests that a work of commentary or criticism is innately superior for being viewed through the lens of... I don't know, take your pick. Post-modern feminism? Working-class urban culture? Third-generation African American sensibilities? Post-reconstructionist Southern pride? Sheer academic deconstructionism?
Too often such labels seem to come with as much lingo and presupposition as they do actual enlightenment or consideration. "Of course you believe 'x', it's self-evident. And if you don't, you might as well leave, because everything from here on out stems from 'x'. And you better have brought your phrasebook, because we're using a set of terms that furthers those self-evident truths, and if you don't understand explicitly what those terms mean, you're not going to be able to keep up anyway."
There's nothing wrong with a critic being smart, and as I say, it's great when critics are aware of the lens through which they view media. It's far less of a good thing when their lens renders them arcane to anyone who isn't already in the know, or who stopped following after the first paragraph because the critic made an assumption that to them was capital-T Truth and to the audience was so much dogma. It's way too easy for the critic to stop "educating their audience" and become self-congratulatory for their own allegedly superior view, content to preach to their small choir and never actually reaching out to those who might benefit from a broader range of ideas. Too often such criticism becomes unimpeachable in the eye of the author, its polarized view making everyone who disagrees part of a vilified subclass whose intentions are equally self-evident and can be dismissed through scholarly analysis- analysis which often, perversely, imagines itself objective.
MB hits on the idea of "objectivity" as an unreachable ideal, but kind of fails to follow through with what that really means. While there will and should always be room for criticism that views things through particular cultural and ideological lenses, many- perhaps most- critics should strive for a degree of objectivity. That doesn't necessarily mean putting all biases or cultural touchstones aside (which is likely impossible anyway), but at least being aware when a particular piece of media is hitting a critic's sweet- or sore- spots that others might or not possess.
I can't help but remember an early review of the movie "The Handmaid's Tale" by Owen Gleiberman, of Entertainment Weekly, that in the very first sentence described the origin work as a "paranoid feminist 1984." All I could think for the rest of the review was, "Gleiberman, you worthless hack, you should have recused yourself."
...*sigh*. Okay...
How about just this: It's better for criticism to be aware of its own biases.
I get really uncomfortable these days when someone suggests that a work of commentary or criticism is innately superior for being viewed through the lens of... I don't know, take your pick. Post-modern feminism? Working-class urban culture? Third-generation African American sensibilities? Post-reconstructionist Southern pride? Sheer academic deconstructionism?
Too often such labels seem to come with as much lingo and presupposition as they do actual enlightenment or consideration. "Of course you believe 'x', it's self-evident. And if you don't, you might as well leave, because everything from here on out stems from 'x'. And you better have brought your phrasebook, because we're using a set of terms that furthers those self-evident truths, and if you don't understand explicitly what those terms mean, you're not going to be able to keep up anyway."
There's nothing wrong with a critic being smart, and as I say, it's great when critics are aware of the lens through which they view media. It's far less of a good thing when their lens renders them arcane to anyone who isn't already in the know, or who stopped following after the first paragraph because the critic made an assumption that to them was capital-T Truth and to the audience was so much dogma. It's way too easy for the critic to stop "educating their audience" and become self-congratulatory for their own allegedly superior view, content to preach to their small choir and never actually reaching out to those who might benefit from a broader range of ideas. Too often such criticism becomes unimpeachable in the eye of the author, its polarized view making everyone who disagrees part of a vilified subclass whose intentions are equally self-evident and can be dismissed through scholarly analysis- analysis which often, perversely, imagines itself objective.
MB hits on the idea of "objectivity" as an unreachable ideal, but kind of fails to follow through with what that really means. While there will and should always be room for criticism that views things through particular cultural and ideological lenses, many- perhaps most- critics should strive for a degree of objectivity. That doesn't necessarily mean putting all biases or cultural touchstones aside (which is likely impossible anyway), but at least being aware when a particular piece of media is hitting a critic's sweet- or sore- spots that others might or not possess.
I can't help but remember an early review of the movie "The Handmaid's Tale" by Owen Gleiberman, of Entertainment Weekly, that in the very first sentence described the origin work as a "paranoid feminist 1984." All I could think for the rest of the review was, "Gleiberman, you worthless hack, you should have recused yourself."
I'm sorry but whenever a critic relates a movie or a game or any piece of art to a real world context or issue (something that Moviebob does fairly regularly) I can't help but treat the review with skepticism. I will always listen to your reviews but I will also always search for criticism with less focus on context as well, not because the issue isn't one I don't want to think about but simply because it opens up the possibility that a critic liked or disliked a movie because they agree or disagree with its stance on said issue, rather than because of the film's merits.
Movies can mean different things to different people, new views on socio-political issues will always emerge and movies from today and their themes may be interpreted entirely differently in the future. Context may seem hugely important to us but a good movie will be considered long after the context that produced it vanishes
Movies can mean different things to different people, new views on socio-political issues will always emerge and movies from today and their themes may be interpreted entirely differently in the future. Context may seem hugely important to us but a good movie will be considered long after the context that produced it vanishes
Lemme get this straight.
Movie Bob expects me to be happy when someone takes something that I love and proceeds to knock it's fucking teeth out, in the name of something else, which they clearly and demonstrably love more that thing I enjoy.
How about..
No.
Movie Bob expects me to be happy when someone takes something that I love and proceeds to knock it's fucking teeth out, in the name of something else, which they clearly and demonstrably love more that thing I enjoy.
How about..
No.
terribly sorry. my mistake. what I meant was: their statistics don't mean jack. the screaming of fanboys is not representative of the opinion of the general audience. Other than that: two out of two wrong. I haven't just taken statistics classes, I tutor them. So perhaps you might consider the possibility that I understand it better than you do? Averages aren't holy.medv4380 said: