The Big Picture: Baggage

[Mahoshonen]

I got three big issues with the idea that reviews of 'art' should be without context of controversy or politics:

1. There really is no way to define what's off topic and what's not. Is there some act or belief you find appalling? Spend an hour on the internet and you'll find someone and his friends ready to defend it. If they make a film glorifying it ("GOD LOVES BABY RAPE!") then are we forbidden from saying that it's fucked up?

2. Designating certain criticism as unallowed can serve as a shield from any criticism. Imagine if Movie Bob did his review of Ender's Game without at all addressing the controversy surrounding Orson Scott Card. Imagine if all he did was post his review saying the movie wasn't good. Do you think that the subsequent forum would be devoid of discussion of Bob's personal beliefs? Personally, I doubt it. The same folks that disliked Bob for openly interjecting the controversy into the review would instead say that the real reason he dislikes the film is because of the creator's political stances.

3. The lack of a political statement can itself be a statement. Let's face it: you'd have to be pretty deaf to not have heard about the criticism regarding Card. So if Bob had left out any mention of the controversy and instead recommended the film, then many of the posters here would rightly wonder if Bob doesn't in fact support Card's viewpoint. The fact that it would contradict his other stances would only reinforce suspicions that he's insincere about his beliefs ("equality for all!-except them, they're icky!")

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Well, I mean, there's a personal threshold... everything we touch and use in some way goes back to someone's suffering or loss, most war-age technology is what drives the very computers we use and vehicles we drive. But some stuff is closer - or perceived as closer - to us than other things. If you're gay, and struggling with rights movements, Orscon Scott Card will seem (and rightly so) like the bigger bad than the sweatshops. If you're black, casual racism will probably seem closer. If you're a Jew, Nazi-era holdovers might be offensive. We all have bias and we all have things that cross that bias. Bob's point here is that personal bias, position in society, and so on, influences both the creation and viewing of media; to ignore it in critique is to be dishonest.

It is true that it can be petty, but that's the thing about subjective perspective - what may be petty to you, may mean the world to someone else, and vice versa. To put a lid on it would be to stifle intelligent discourse.

I have to say, IMO it strikes me as a horrible example of "first-world-problem" for people to say that not getting special tax and hospital visitation benefits(i.e. gay marriage) is of more importance than a company who works their employees so much that there is massive suicide and the company has nets put around the edges of all their building [http://www.dailytech.com/Foxconn+Installs+AntiSuicide+Nets+at+Its+Facilities/article18877.htm] because so many people would rather kill themselves than work another day in horrible conditions [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9006988/Mass-suicide-protest-at-Apple-manufacturer-Foxconn-factory.html](i.e. Apple products/Foxconn).

This isn't to say that people can't care about more than one thing at a time, just that if you are going to ignore an issue, it would seem like slavish working conditions causing mass suicide would be of greater signifigance than changes in tax benefits/hospital visitation rules for a select few people.

 

[1337mokro]

Feminist theory: "Promote women's rights and blame the patriarchy for any inequality that exists."

There we go the entire theory in one sentence. We did not need a video series with a subtext of feminist theory so subtle that it slaps you in the face the first minute in.

That aside I have always looked for opinions on movies. Never for objective reviews or artificial recommendations. I tend to gravitate towards people that have similar tastes to me and with the advent of youtube this is easier than ever. So there really is only a small circle of critics that I usually consult on whether a movie is good or bad.

Critic A through D liked it. Critic E and F though... they hated it. Usually when E hates a movie I also hate it, but both A and B recommended it and it does sound interesting. Let's go see it!

The best critique is an opinion because here little preferences and dislikes can shine through and you get a far better idea for what you are in for. For example Prometheus, stupidest movie of 2012, I was warned by critic C who usually goes off on the smaller details but was roped in by friends to still see it. Everything critic C mentioned bugged the living shit out of me and more.

Had it been just a dry by the numbers review I would have probably voluntarily gone to see that shitpile and leave the theatre pissed off rather than getting exactly what I expected.

 

[Burgers2013]

I think the video had some interesting points. I actually favor objectivity, but he's right in saying that one should acknowledge his/her own biases. It actually frees you up for discussion, I think. If you admit to yourself that you can't be 100% objective about something, you can change your mind based on conversations with people who have different perspectives. You don't have to feel "ashamed" because you were wrong about something; aspects of a film/game/etc. can just be overlooked when biases are involved.

I've also been reading a lot of comments about subjective reviews being inherently bad because there's no reasoning behind it. I think that just because you are not being totally objective about something doesn't mean you can't be critical or lay out your argument logically. Like the GTAV review. A lot of people didn't think about how it could be seen as sexist; the reviewer did, and her reasoning was there. Whether you agree with it or not is up to you, but she didn't just throw the word "sexist" out there and end the review.

The idea of reviewing material in a larger social context is great. I like this idea a lot. I think this sort of discussion definitely has a place in the community. However, I wouldn't want to do away with the discussion of games in a smaller, individual context. I think there's plenty of room for both.

You know, as much as everyone complains about it, I see a lot of legitimate criticism of Annita's videos. It's everywhere actually. She doesn't own the internet, so she can't stifle conversation by disabling YouTube comments. She can shield herself from it if she wants, but we still talk about her work regardless of her presence. I still think Annita's biggest flaw was the initial case studies about Prince Peach and Zelda; those characters have like 50 games between them. Even if she had done a great job in every other aspect, the scope was way too big; she was bound to miss things, and her choices to narrow the scope were bound to be judged as biased or cherry-picking. You'd never do that in grad level literature classes. She should have picked characters who only appear in one or a few games so she had a reasonable amount of information to work with.

 

[Kameburger]

On this subject, I'm kind of glad you've brought this up because I've been having similar conversations with some of my friends recently over which reviewers we listen to and why. In the case of Movie Bob, I know where my tastes and his overlap and I know when I should take what he says with a grain of salt. It's not at all an insult, I ended up enjoying alot of movies I otherwise would not have watched if not for Movie Bob, and on the reverse side, I have seen a movie where the low expectations I had gotten from watching Movie Bob were completely blown out of the water.

Man of Steel for example, I had seen alot of what Movie Bob said about it and had very low expecations for what I was going to see there, however when I saw the movie, I actually really enjoyed it the whole way through. Sure I understood Bob's problems, and even agreed but the point is, I know sometimes that a review is subjective and that I shouldn't let that oppinion decide or even color my opinion, and instead just take into account the insight and decide for myself.

I think people who take reviewers oppinions too seriously often don't respect their own opinions enough, and should learn treat a review as a member of a conversation and not see the reviewer above you in that conversation. You can respect their knowledge, but art is subjective and it'll mean what it means to you, whether you know what the reviewer knows or not.

 

[MaximumTheHormone]

I'm fine with people openly conceding their bias in their work (it makes things more transparent in this increasingly post-modernist society) however Bob also has to concede that his biases may also invalidate his views for some viewers and potentially radically alter his own perspective on a piece.

The problem with post-modernist critique is that instead of writing for the every man, critics write for themselves unveiling a double edged sword. Its a great asset for those who have many who think like/ intellectually respect them, but also a great detriment to those whom's opinion lacks relevance. However post-modern criticism looses relevance with the greater biases that are infused, as there is less effort to empathize with the author or the work, and a greater emphasis on associating any piece with pre-concieved ideas of what is correct, incorrect, empathizable or offensive, As the critical aspect of a critique is lost and the contortion of what one observes to co-incide with pre-concieved biases becomes an all ecompassing part of critique (cough cough hmm hmm Anita Sarkeesian cough cough hmm hmm).

I believe post-modernist conscesions should be made (proclamation of potential biases) however the empiricism found in several post-modern critiques (It's my opinion therefore it can't be wrong) must quickly be abandoned with a greater emphasis on expertise and rationalization of bias.
Also, if you don't have any idea of what your talking about only clinging on to pre-concieved biases of what should be acceptable/common (hmm hmm cough Anita Sarkeesian as a valid feminist critique of modern gaming hmm cough hmm the GTA5 'controversy' cough cough)it would probably be recommended that you don't interject into the discussion.

 

[McMarbles]

@Andrew: Agreed. There is a difference between a critique with a bias and a critique aimed at pushing the reviewer's own bias upon the audience.

What's the difference?

If you agtree with it, it's "a critique with a bias." If you disagree with it, it's "pushing the reviewer's own bias upon the audience."

 

[MovieBob]

I get what you're saying bob.. but it seems to me that you shouldn't discourage people from analyzing their own biases, and trying to critique from an empathetic point rather than a "I'm different so I'm gonna say whatever I please" point.

Honesty, as objectivity, is a bit of a grey area, and you seem to take it as something that simply exists, How much of what I really feel Isn't unfair? why is it incorrect to recognize that? why would it be better to give into it? honesty like everything else, is really just a reaction to impulses... so in that sense.. honestly invalidating a critique because of it's bias is also completely valid...

I Guess it doesn't matter, its just the way it is anyway, you are speaking as if anyone could actually avoid bias... When that in itself taints perception.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Well, I mean, there's a personal threshold... everything we touch and use in some way goes back to someone's suffering or loss, most war-age technology is what drives the very computers we use and vehicles we drive. But some stuff is closer - or perceived as closer - to us than other things. If you're gay, and struggling with rights movements, Orscon Scott Card will seem (and rightly so) like the bigger bad than the sweatshops. If you're black, casual racism will probably seem closer. If you're a Jew, Nazi-era holdovers might be offensive. We all have bias and we all have things that cross that bias. Bob's point here is that personal bias, position in society, and so on, influences both the creation and viewing of media; to ignore it in critique is to be dishonest.

It is true that it can be petty, but that's the thing about subjective perspective - what may be petty to you, may mean the world to someone else, and vice versa. To put a lid on it would be to stifle intelligent discourse.

I have to say, IMO it strikes me as a horrible example of "first-world-problem" for people to say that not getting special tax and hospital visitation benefits(i.e. gay marriage) is of more importance than a company who works their employees so much that there is massive suicide and the company has nets put around the edges of all their building [http://www.dailytech.com/Foxconn+Installs+AntiSuicide+Nets+at+Its+Facilities/article18877.htm] because so many people would rather kill themselves than work another day in horrible conditions [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9006988/Mass-suicide-protest-at-Apple-manufacturer-Foxconn-factory.html](i.e. Apple products/Foxconn).

This isn't to say that people can't care about more than one thing at a time, just that if you are going to ignore an issue, it would seem like slavish working conditions causing mass suicide would be of greater signifigance than changes in tax benefits/hospital visitation rules for a select few people.

I never claimed it was justified, I'm just saying, people care more about stuff of perceived importance to them. When my copy of Windows breaks I'm far more occupied trying to fix than I am thinking about third-world countries. When I get a parking ticket I'm not gonna be thinking about Indonesian sweatshops. Our bias creates blindspots. It's not justified - it's just how our brains are designed to work. I'm honestly fine as long as people admit it, even if they can't - or don't - do anything about it.

(Also, let me just say, there are problems facing the LGBT community that are more important than just marriage and rights. Like trans* beatings and murders. And families disowning LGBT members leaving them homeless. As someone who fights for LGBT equality, I am fucking furious that there exists a 1% of gays and lesbians - usually free of intersex, trans*, PoC, etc. - that care less about actually serious issues and more about mere marriage equality, which, while certainly something that should be fixed, is far less pressing than LGBT homelessness. Or, third-world issues, countries where being gay is punishable by death. THAT'S KINDA IMPORTANT.)

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I doubt a lot of people are going to agree with me on this, but I always thought that criticism largely amounted to giving your personal opinion about your given topic, while leaving that opinion as open-ended and as nurtured with prior research as possible. You're basically saying "Here's what I think of X, and here's why I think that" while recognizing that your opinion is just one of many. People read "I think that..." and tend to immediately assume that the "I" in that sentence is going to assume some sort of authority role, some higher posture where that "I" and its proclamations are gospel, when that never happens.

People are people, and people have varying opinions. You don't need to have written published critiques at all to see this; try and discussing popular movies or games with friends of yours who don't quite like them. If you can do it respectfully, then criticism tends to mutate into something that's even better: dialog.

I really love it when a piece here at the Escapist or elsewhere on the Web triggers insightful comments, and I'm also saddened when the comments section end up containing stuff like "Well, that's 'cuz your opinion is shit!"

That's not debate. That's not the proper byproduct of criticism; it's elementary recess yard bullshit. So I think Bob's example of the "Cahiers du Cinéma" and how they became influential for the practice of criticism is excessively pertinent: I really can't dissect a game or a movie without going through its mechanical and narrative influences. If you're talking about frustrated directors like David Cage or Hideo Kojima, I'm going to have to address where their camera angles seem to be coming from, where their design conceits are rooted.

Just going "Oh, hey, it's got killer framerates and it controls like a glove. No outstanding bugs, no big hitches. Must buy, tenouttaten!" is never going to cut it, at least not for me.

I so do hate it when some relatives of mine go "I don't care about your smartypants references, how was the damn movie?!" because I actually do go through as much work as possible to make sure that background info isn't presented in a pedantic way.

Because that's part of the problem, really. The perceived snootiness of anyone who backs up their opinion of a consumer product with an actual story or aesthetic genre with more than "Whoa, dude! It's totally awesome!"

 

[PortalThinker113]

Bravo, Bob. One of the best videos you've ever done, in my opinion.

I really don't understand why so many people took such issue with the Ender's Game review. The public opinion of Orson Scott Card has been a point of debate since the moment this movie started filming. The fact that you may not have heard of it doesn't mean that's not the case. I was reading articles about "Should we boycott Ender's Game?" at this time last year. Bob would have been remiss to not at least mention it. He even provides an example of a great movie that has a horrible person for a director (Rosemary's Baby). He talked about it for about 90 seconds, then went to describe exactly why he didn't like the movie, separate from those issues. No harm, no foul.

Thematic meaning, however simple or complicated it may be, simply cannot be divorced from the content of a body of work. Why? Because truly a great work uses all of its various elements to work towards a singular, united goal. It wants to produce a feeling in the audience, impart a message, study a character, or pose a question. Every element- actors, score, script, settings, effects, and others in the case of film- works together towards this common goal, and the work becomes stronger for it. The story is now about something, regardless of what that something may be. It's thematic coherency, and this is why films that have tonally dissonant or jarring elements are so roundly criticized. We notice when something is out of sync with the greater thematic whole, and we react accordingly. As such, we cannot just rate elements on their own; we cannot simply ask "Are the actors good? Is the story good? Was the action good?" We should instead ask- "How does this actor's performance enhance the work as a whole? What is this work trying to accomplish? What emotion or meaning did I derive from the final combination of all these elements?" Sure, you can appreciate a good score or something like it in isolation, but to properly evaluate a work as a whole, we HAVE to evaluate what the work's purpose or message is. As such, we cannot simply remove discussion of that from the greater critical discourse.

(And yes, I understand that Ender's Game contains little homophobic subtext. I've read the book and seen the movie. But Card's issues in the public eye are an important issue worth talking about, as stated above.)

One of the biggest problems facing game criticism is that games are terrible at thematic consistency, for the most part. Rare is the game that has all its component parts work together to work towards a single goal. Many mechanics are thrown in just because they would be "cool" or give the player something else to do that's fun. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing- there is certainly a place for games that are about fun and nothing else. But, it does make it hard for games to tell powerful, meaningful stories when half the attention is on making the game fun and not on the themes at play. This is not an easy problem to solve, and it's not one that I have answers for.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Two big issues I see with Bob's argument.

1: I get what he's saying that one can (and to some degree should) inject their own beliefs into a review as it pertains to what you're reviewing. The problem with that and "Ender's Game" is that, say whatever you want about Card and his stance on homosexuality, gay marriage, etc., I think we can all agree that there is absolutely NOTHING in the actual Ender's Game book and movie that has anything to do with homosexuality, gay marriage, or Card's beliefs regarding any of the subjects he has become so controversial over. Thus, bringing that up is going beyond "I'm injecting my beliefs into my review of this media", it becomes "I'm injecting my beliefs into the review of this media AND its creators".

2: If the crux of his argument is "my review is no better or worse than anyone else's, since we all have different experiences", then he essentially says that critics are, in essence, pointless. If Bob's movie review should carry no more weight than Joe Schmoe off the street, then why should anyone listen to the "professional critic" anymore than a random person off the street who doesn't have a film degree? By that logic, shouldn't we simply ignore all professional critics and (in this day and age) just go to metacritic and see what the majority of people say?

 

[mrblakemiller]

Seven minutes of my life just to hear him say, "There is no normal."

Ah, well. Maybe next week.

 

[Abomination]

Do I really need to hear some feminist race theory analysis of a movie to figure out if id enjoy that movie?

If those kind of discussions are necessary/relevant/encouraged enough by the film to get the full experience of what it was trying to achieve, then the answer is...Yes. It is important to lay it out there to figure out whether you'll get anything out of the experience or not. Whether you're consciously self-aware of it or not, things like that WILL paint your perception of the film in question...

I think your hypothesis is further from the truth than you realize.

Sometimes a fellow just wants to know if the movie does what it says it is going to do in the trailers. While feminism is important in the real world an analysis of it for a single movie is really not something that many need to hear.

IF IT'S RELEVANT ENOUGH TO THE FILM AT HAND.

And as a "just sayin'" side not, you probably shouldn't trust trailers [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NeverTrustATrailer] all that much either. Advertising a movie is a totally different beast with its own rules and mechanics than the process of making the movie itself. Hell there are scenes made up SOLELY FOR trailers that never show up in the final movie but are advertised like it's one of the big setpiece moments. I mean, just look at this year and Iron Man 3's trailers. Those were INTENTIONALLY misleading in order to swerve you with its twist. And the Bridge to Teribithia [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SvqEIKP4t8] is infamously misleading. The movie is nothing like the trailer, but since Chronicles of Narnia was popular at the time, that's how they were able to sell it. The movie didn't say what the trailer said, but that didn't make it a bad movie by any means.

And if the advertising for the movie is different from what is presented then the reviewer SHOULD mention that.

The problem with reviewing art is that it frequently speaks to different people in different ways. Distinguishing something between something artistic and something commercial and all the greys in between is a difficult task but Ender's Game is most decidedly in the "Commercial" sphere. Mentioning the mind behind it is a homophobic twat is good but it shouldn't cloud the overall recommendation of the film.

A reviewer should educate and inform - not preach.

 

[Redd the Sock]

I've also been reading a lot of comments about subjective reviews being inherently bad because there's no reasoning behind it. I think that just because you are not being totally objective about something doesn't mean you can't be critical or lay out your argument logically. Like the GTAV review. A lot of people didn't think about how it could be seen as sexist; the reviewer did, and her reasoning was there. Whether you agree with it or not is up to you, but she didn't just throw the word "sexist" out there and end the review.

Actually most got why it could be sexist, we just felt that giving it a black mark because of it is kind of like complaining about the violence in Mortal Kombat: you may not like it, but it was made to be that way. "Sorry, some things are going to exist that aren't going to have been made for you. Don't act like everything should be." It's fair to say that GTAV could be an item in a criticism of the industry, but instead a form of editorial shorthand was used to make industry commentary via using a single game as a sacrificial lamb. It was more prevalent with Dragon's Crown where all frustrations about an industry heavy with T&A got taken out one one game few were really all that interested in to begin with. People are free to criticize the industry all they want, but if the webpage says "review of game X" it might not be the best time. It can even undermine your cause as project by project criticism can come off like you expect everything to fit a certain mold

 

[Ukomba]

I don't mind bias. It's always there. Before seeing the movie and before watching Bob's review, I knew full well what he would think about it. Same with White House down. I've found long ago that his political views skew his reviews. As long as you know that going in you can adjust for it. I mean, really, Ender's Game could have been The Empire Strikes back and Bob wouldn't have given it a good review.

It's the people who claim to be neutral or unbiased and really aren't I don't like.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

... and the company has nets put around the edges of all their building [http://www.dailytech.com/Foxconn+Installs+AntiSuicide+Nets+at+Its+Facilities/article18877.htm] because so many people would rather kill themselves than work another day in horrible conditions [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9006988/Mass-suicide-protest-at-Apple-manufacturer-Foxconn-factory.html](i.e. Apple products/Foxconn).

I'm curious as to why you only mention Apple in relation to this? You are aware that these Foxconn facilities make products for just about every consumer electronics company, not just Apple right? And, in fact, Apple is one of the only companies who actually launched an investigation into the issue with the aim of dealing with it, and is in fact starting to bring its manufacturing into the USA.

So, why is it that you think that a boycott of Apple (specifically) is an appropriate response to this? If you buy any other brand of electronics, you are dealing with the exact same issues, and if anything, Apple is the most socially responsible of the large electronics companies. Do you think Samsung or any of the others would investigate any of this and try to improve conditions, instead of just going for the cheapest solution?

If you were really so concerned about the issue, you wouldn't be buying any electronic products, because they are all touched by poor working conditions.

This isn't to say that people can't care about more than one thing at a time, just that if you are going to ignore an issue, it would seem like slavish working conditions causing mass suicide..

Wait, what? Mass suicide? When did that happen? If there was a mass suicide at Foxconn (or anywhere for that matter), it would be all over the news. I'm not sure you understand what a mass suicide is.

Also, the suicides rate at Foxconn is actually lower than the overall suicide rate in China. Suicide is unfortunately a common cultural phenomenon in China.

 

[optimusjamie]

Well said, Mr. Chipman.
I'm of the opinion that 'objective' journalism, not just criticism as a whole, can be somewhat harmful, especially when politics is involved. News media trying to be 'objective' is the reason people still listen to birthers and other conspiracy theorists- the news tries to represent both sides of an argument, and ends up generating publicity for the idiots who, for example, believe that somehow, the Electoral College or whoever checks if a presidential candidate is eligible to run, let someone who (the theorists claim) wasn't run for President and actually win.

 

[I.Muir]

For some reason I think some people might dislike the idea of theories like CRT and feminism contacting things they like because it makes them out to be a monster. That they must take responsibility for things they have no control over and must live a lifetime of meek subservience to right wrongs they apparently caused by simply existing. That the way they like to live their supposedly insulated lifestyles is wrong and that they should feel a shame on the level of Catholicism. That the only way to be free of this supposed racism and sexism is to subscribe to the same theory and never question it's edicts no matter who is spouting them.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I am both sick of people telling critics to check their bias and against the idea of disguising idea-pushing as reviews. So really, a fencesitter.