Objectivity vs. subjectivity

There’s a pretty common thing you might hear about certain movies, “it was so bad, it’s good.” The idea here is that a movie can be made so poorly that people actually find amusement from it. More often than not, people find humor in the low quality of the movie. Personally, I think this idea is total garbage. If a movie is bad, then it’s exactly that, bad. Calling that movie good, even in an ironic sense, is an insult to movies that actually are good. Movies like The Room should not be grouped together with Inside Out by calling it a good movie. If people enjoy watching bad movies, that’s one thing. However, they shouldn’t call them “good” movies.

With all of that said, this idea does propose an interesting question, “Can the quality of art be evaluated from an objective point of view?” Filmmaking is an artform. There shouldn’t be any question about that. Where paintings convey messages through still images, filmmaking conveys messages through movement and sound. As is true with all other forms of art, filmmaking is inherently subjective. The messages conveyed through the story can vary from person to person. Even though the director may have intended for something specific, viewers can interpret other messages. Additionally, viewers will have their own feelings towards the quality of the movie. Their opinion almost always is determined by whether or not they liked the movie. This is what makes filmmaking inherently subjective, along with all other art.

Even though filmmaking is subjective, I would argue that there is, or at least should be, an objective standard by which movies are viewed. Even though someone may like to watch bad movies, that doesn’t change the fact that these movies are bad. The story doesn’t make sense, the acting is garbage, and the editing is disjointed. You might find humor in all of that, but that doesn’t make it a good movie. On the other side, a film could have an engaging story, compelling acting, and music that really immerses you in the plot. However, you may not like movies that are over two hours long, thus you don’t like this movie. All of these feelings toward different movies are valid. Just because the majority of people have certain feelings about a movie doesn’t mean you have to feel the same way. However, personal feelings should be involved as little as possible when analyzing the quality of a movie.

A couple examples I like to give are the movies Boyhood and Tommy Boy. I’ll start off with Boyhood. This movie examines the life of a young boy from his childhood to his first day of college. The interesting thing about this movie is the fact that it was filmed with the same actors over a twelve year period. You’re literally watching the main character grow up in front of you. Personally, I’m not a big fan of this movie. It’s a three-hour long story that could’ve been made shorter. Also, I felt it was a bit overrated when it was released. At the same time, I can recognize that this is a staple in the history of film. No other film had done anything like what Boyhood did. This is an objectively good movie, but I have little interest in watching it again.

Tommy Boy is an example of a movie that is enjoyed by many, but isn’t really all that great when compared to other movies, or even other comedies. Don’t get me wrong, Tommy Boy is among my favorite comedies. Chris Farley is at his best, and the jokes are funny no matter how many times I watch this movie. My family and I often quote the line “No, it’s gotta be your bull” whenever there’s a situation where we’re trying to figure out if something is right or not. Let’s be honest though, the movie itself is pretty middle-of-the-road. The story is formulaic, some jokes get repetitive, and the romantic connection between Tommy and Michelle doesn’t do much to service the plot in any meaningful way. Despite all of this, this is a movie I would watch multiple times. It’s a good one to watch if you need a laugh.

With regard to a standard of quality, I don’t necessarily think this needs to be a literal standard that’s written and published. It’s more of an idea that points to how art’s enjoyment and overall quality can be separated. With the examples I just gave, the enjoyment I got from these movies is totally different from how I feel about their overall quality. Most people don’t know how to detach their own feelings from looking at the objective quality of a movie. Whether or not they liked a movie will determine if they say it’s a great or terrible movie. Honestly, this is fine. When discussing movies among friends, I don’t expect all of those conversations to be super analytical. However, I feel there ought to be lessons for aspiring critics on how to analyze films on an objective level. Even though personal perspectives dictate how people perceive movies, those perspectives shouldn’t determine if a movie is viewed as good or bad. You genuinely might enjoy watching Sharknado. That’s totally fine. However, just because you like that movie doesn’t make it good. There is no such thing as a movie that is so bad, it’s good.