Viewing styles

Well here we are friends, blogger world.

I’m excited about these blogs that Jason and I will be writing. There promises to be a lot of variety between the two of us, so I hope you all find something interesting in at least one of our posts each week. I can’t wait for feedback, so please engage. Ill respond to what I can.

One film conversation that has always interested me is what I call “viewing style”. Many people who watch film regularly may not know that they have a viewing style but everyone does. We all bring our philosophies and presuppositions into anything we do, including the way we watch movies. The way I see it there are two major viewing styles, and then a third is created when the two styles are blended together into a hybrid style of viewing.

The first viewing style is what I call the “objective viewing style”. This style is characterized by people who watch films and judge them according to their elements and execution. This would include judging things from within the film like cinematography, art direction, acting, sound, editing, etc… The objectivist need not even like a film to rate it very high if they can say that they believe that on an objective level the film was done well. The objectivist usually looks for a standard as far outside of themselves as possible, appealing to consensus of those that are knowledgeable about the movie making process to determine what constitutes good filmmaking versus bad filmmaking. The more knowledgeable a viewer becomes about film the easier it is to recognize which films meet these objective standards and which ones fall short.

I have a friend that is as true of an objectivist when it comes to viewing styles as I have ever seen. When he watches a film that is an objective masterpiece, he can easily hand it a 5 star rating – even if he didn’t care for the film. But when a film like “Rush Hour” comes along, one he really enjoys, he can rate the film at around 3 stars without conviction because he knows that while he enjoys the film much more than the previous film he gave 5 stars to – Rush Hour is not really a good movie from an objective prospective.

The 2007 film “There Will Be Blood” was a great benefactor of this style of viewing. The film was nominated for multiple Oscars because it met every objective standard. No one viewing the film objectively could ignore the brilliance of the cinematography, art direction, score, and perfect acting. But when I asked people if they enjoyed the film, most said that they didn’t.

The vast majority of film critics would fall into this first group.

The second viewing style is one that I call “subjective viewing style”. This style is very much the opposite of the previous one. People who watch films subjectively care far more about their enjoyment of a film that they care whether or not the film is actually any good. The elements and execution of the film are far less important than whether or not you were entertained. The objectivist could outright reject a film like “2001: A Space Odyssey” because they were bored or didn’t get it, but they could readily embrace a film like “The Fast and the Furious” because it was fun and kept their attention.

Obviously the vast majority of the movie going public falls into this group, which is why Oscar nominated films don’t make much money and critics slam on films that make more money than the national debt. (And yes this is the real reason – not because critics don’t know anything).

So which do I ascribe to? I fall into the third group which is a hybrid of the two. I was recently watching a movie review given by the great film critic Michael Phillips on the film “Whip It”. He said, paraphrasing – “The critic in me hated this film for being formulaic and predictable, but the fan in me loved this film for being charming, fun, and entertaining, so I say see it!” This is a very healthy way to see film. Phillips knew that the film wasn’t any good, but he decided to like it anyway.

Sometimes I lean towards the objectivist in me when a film makes too many mistakes, but I also want to be able to give 4 stars to “Cant Buy Me Love” simply because of the nostalgia of what that silly little movie means to me. If a film missteps too much, its death. But some films misstep just enough to keep it from death and the fan in me embraces the film despite its problems.

Here is how it works for my ratings. A film has to meet both standards – my objective and subjective standards – to receive 4 ½ or 5 stars. If a film is brilliant but I don’t enjoy it, I can’t give it more than 4. If I enjoy a film but it’s not very good, I can’t give it more than 4.

What about you? Where do you lean?