One age-old debate about movie appreciate is that of "best" vs "favourite". Some people (especially populists) tend to argue that "best movies" and "favourite movies" designate two completely different things, and that there is no correlation. Liking movies, in that perspective, is completely different from appreciating a movie, and personal criteria are the final word on a movie.
Some other people (especially elitists) tend to argue that "best movies" and "favourite movies" are the same thing - that the most well-made movies are those we like. This implies that objective criteria (that which composes what we call "best") are the final word on a movie.
Now, I have to say right away that I am an elitist. However, I am also fair-minded and I think the truth is more complex than this simple "best"-"favourite" opposition. My theory is that our "favourite" movies are the "best" movies that fit our preferences. As such, the only difference between the two comes from the fact that we cannot watch, or like the genre of, all the movies there is.
No one would dispute that there are a number of objective criteria by which we can judge a movie. Something as mundane as the quality of the image or sound itself, to more important things such as acting, cinematography, lack of movie clichés or irrational/unscientific events, quality of special effects (if any), inventiveness, as well as more profound attributes such as depth and quality of story, the quality of the subtextual content, clarity of purpose and vision, all these things can be discussed in objective ways.
Of course, the means to discuss them, as well as the importance of each of them (depending on the genre), may change, but that does not mean they cannot be discussed. For example, we can say that in a science-fiction movie, acting is less important and depth of ideas is more important (in a good science-fiction movie, anyway), but that does not mean that acting is irrelevant in all cases. So it seems to me that all the possible ways to quantify the quality of a movie can be designated as an objective criteria.
On the other hand, each of us has preferences of genre, setting, cinematographic style, and so on. These preferences restrict the field of possible movies to us by making us watch and appreciate these movies which are closest to our preferences.
As such, I contend that the idea that there is a dichotomy between "best" and "favourite" is wrong, but that they are also obviously not equal. One could, hypothetically, make a quantitative list of what the "best" movies are, but while such a list would be extremely interesting (much like people talk about the AFI lists), it would not tell us anything about actual preferences, except that the average person is more likely to prefer those films that come out on top.
In this view, the role of critics is to provide an accurate evaluation of movies from the viewpoint of their personal tastes. The reader's role becomes finding a critic which is close to one's personal tastes, and rely on his judgments more heavily. This also seems like a reasonable position.
|
|