Why We Fight (on Movie Blogs)

There are two free-floating ideas on the film blogosphere that I would like to call out as bullshit, and my hope is that the more they are recognized as bullshit the less people will cling to them. I see them as the ‘all or nothing’ approaches. They are as follows:

1) Film taste is wholly subjective, so nothing is debatable

2) Film taste is wholly objective, so everything is debatable

Nothing kills a thread faster than someone proclaiming that all debate is futile because ‘film is subjective’. By this logic, the forum that exists is just a depository of self-contained opinions that need not even brush up against each other, lest they be challenged in any way. On the flipside, you have the predatorial approach based on the assumption that ‘everything is debatable’ including how a person must feel about the film. Sometimes this is just trolling, but more often than not it is a genuine presumption of knowing how everyone must feel. These are the extremes and unfortunately they play out on occasion on Row Three, hence my desire to put a spotlight on them.

Despite the obvious subjective quality to personal taste, opinions can co-exist, healthy debate can happen. For some, this will be glaringly obvious, but take a look at any movie forum and time and again you will see that this farce does play out. Still it takes all kinds, and there is certainly a benefit when aggressive types stick their neck out for people to get agitated enough to join in (we at Row Three have a knack for doing that, i.e. the Signs water theory, the politics of Milk), but after the ball gets rolling things tend to fall apart because somewhere, someone neglects how exactly we relate to film, and how film relates to our lives. There are useful boundaries that we can hold to, to keep the insightful threads ricocheting into the hundreds.

First, lets do away with this fallacy that film is subjective and therefore everyone is right. This is not kindergarten. At its best, a film community can be a place to confront your feelings, articulate them, come to some conclusion that you would not have independently. While there are indisputable aspects to one’s opinion (i.e. your emotional response), the causes are not so indisputable and can and should be challenged. There is a tendency for people to get upset when told that they do not feel what they feel, and it’s usually the fault of the accuser missing their mark; what is meant is not that someone does not feel the way they do, but rather the justifications for why they feel that way rings false.

Cause and effect, but when talking about aesthetics, its more like effect and then cause. Which is to say: we feel the movie first and then enshrine the experience through some sort of convincing fiction, associating the feeling with reasons pulled from the film object or our relation to it. It’s the cause that can be disputed, not the effect. I suspect all of us have watched a film, felt something, and then after prolonged discussion about it, felt something altogether different. This lack of stickiness to our causes indicates how arbitrary they can be. The whole point of having causes, taking the experience and articulating it, is in itself another kind of aesthetic experience. Still, these fictions are useful, and of relative accuracy to answering the why of the experience. The film discussion is a way of refining the why, getting beyond the obvious and perhaps inaccurate signifiers for the feeling, to new and more fascinating layers.

Despite all of these useful fictions for why we like what we like, there are ways to speak of a film critically but it depends on a mutual understanding between the people discussing it. In other words, both parties need to know the conventions of the film, its genre conventions, its storytelling devices, it’s socio-cultural significance, in essence looking at ‘film as craft’ (and considering that what I am talking about presently is behavior on a movie blog, its probably taken as a given in this context that people who write here already have this foundation). With this foundation established both parties can argue the relative conformity or deviations from formulas, (“this film adds nothing to the vampire genre because…”).

The problem, though, is that each person has his or her own threshold for familiarity. This threshold is determined in part by the saturation of experience, if you have seen the same device used in a film a hundred times, the hundred-and-first time may be the tipping point for your toleration, but your friend has been exposed to it only twenty times and sees no fault in it. If we are aware of our biases in this regard then the useless back and forth can be prevented.

In the same way that we have a threshold for familiarity, the same is true for confronting films that we have little or no built up cache to compare or contrast against. For every kind of film there will be a genus, which is to say an original encounter that leaves an impression on you as the standard, in more ways than one. Each of us at different points in our lives, different time space paths, we are all going to have different markers of what is standard, of what is new and what is familiar. When the new experience resonates strongly enough it can become a source of one’s personal mythology. We here go beyond the concern of ‘film as film’ and enter a new grammar of ‘film as art’. Every film has the potential for art, it depends only on who is in relation to the object. When you were nine, something simplistic may have impressed on you so much that it became embedded in your life, the first time you saw death depicted in a film for example, that may be something that is a marker in your development, it HAD significance.

We collect these stories, both about our relationship to the films, and the stories of the films themselves, and build a mythology around which our lives are affected. These higher echelon experiences come to affect who we are and how we interact with the world. The enshrining ‘explanations’ of the feeling are fictions we make up, but they are useful fictions to move us in a certain direction. We may argue over the objects we associate with our feelings but this too is another useful fiction, a way to further elaborate or enshrine our valued ideas. It doesn’t matter so much if we convince another person one way or the other only that we refine our own ideas.

The conflict between each of us when debating a film is attempting to reconcile these cached qualitative characteristics we impart on the films we like and dislike. Its helpful to realize which qualifiers are unique to your experience (film as art) and which can be demonstrably shown as part of the buffer zone (film as craft).
One cannot argue over someone’s impression of feeling an art experience, the best you can do is challenge the causes, and since there is no definitive cause really, its an aesthetic exercise, its two people refining their ideas about a film.

Film as craft = debate
Film as art = discuss

In summary:

– (effect then cause) We feel the movie than enshrine the experience with fictitious causes

– Film discussion is a way for us to refine our fictitious causes to suit a certain aesthetic end

– There are two ways in which a film may be understood and talked about: film as craft, and film as art, or, similarly, considering it as an distinct object amongst objects, or in relation to your self

– Serious debate can only occur when treating film as craft (to compare art experiences in order to ‘prove’ something makes no sense because we have different familiarity thresholds, different cached experiences to draw from. A film’s particular deviation or conformity to a formula can be proven, but its qualitative value cannot)

– When looking at ‘film as art’ (film in relation to yourself) one can only discuss impressions, parties working together to refine their own ideas. The motives for why someone feels so strongly about a film may be challenged, since causes are fictitious, but its not really a matter of debate, as neither side can be right or wrong in this process

DIGG this article

Mike Rot
Master of War

29 Comments

  1. Take into consideration this was written while sick from a fever, so that's my excuse. but you gotta admit, 80% of the threads here are about confusion over what each other is referring to, the film object, or the personal experience… often people unconsciously argue their 'personal' experience through elaborate shoe-horned justifications they think are in the tech talk about the film… 'if I love this film then the film must be perfect so I must defend it on all fronts'.

    thats what i MEANT to say. back to being feverish

    Reply
  2. Any who thinks they can conclusively prove Ghost World is terrible, has proven themself an idiot.

    I hate you and I hate the things you like!

    Anyways…

    Good post.

    "This threshold is determined in part by the saturation of experience, if you have seen the same device used in a film a hundred times, the hundred-and-first time may be the tipping point for your toleration, but your friend has been exposed to it only twenty times and sees no fault in it. If we are aware of our biases in this regard then the useless back and forth can be prevented."

    "saturation" isn't even a matter of being more or less exposed to a certain device. I don't know what device I could list, but I'm sure there's one out there that I am no more capable of being sick of than I am of being capable of being sick of good acting.

    Reply
  3. The MacGuffin is my favorite plot device. It'll never get old.

    That and the elaborate torture/death devices popularized in Bond flicks.

    "Do you expect me to talk?"

    "Noooo, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!"

    Reply
  4. I'm sorry to say I find little insight in this post. I mean this:

    "Serious debate can only occur when treating film as film"

    is complete nonsense, as if emotion can not be discussed. Also, a definition of "serious" is needed to understand the sentence.

    I feel belittled by the post, and not in an exposing way unfortunately. Rather, I feel like you've missed the point of talking about anything meaningful alltogether.

    Reply
  5. Yeah, thats true, maybe it isn't saturation that makes one hit their toleration threshold… but something happens, tastes evolve. But evolving tastes does not mean more complex, just different. Always looking for another genus, another new impression to stir one awake.

    Why is the Western genre so longlasting despite its strict conformity to a formula time and again? For me its a nostalgia, its the best way to dramatize big themes about good and evil, life and death where there is no middle ground… its what I remember from growing up… we are raised on fairy tales after all, and something about that education resonates as nostalgia, not as it was when you were first encountering it, then it was without subtext, it was bad guys and good guys, thats all.

    evolving tastes, going from text to subtext maybe…

    Reply
  6. "serious debate" = when two parties are trying to understand each other rather than talk at each other.

    debating vs discussing film, to debate film with someone is to debate how a film, in relation to other films, suceeds or fails in its efficiency of delivering a story.

    You cannot debate the personal qualifiers for its importance, i.e., I cannot debate how a film relates to you and your sensibilities, that is a fallacy. There is no superior threshold, no golden mean to say people are stupid who don't believe this… this 'film as art' context can only be discussed, not debated.

    Reply
  7. Sometimes tolerance is bullshit too though. Serious debate with a moron is a bigger waste of time than exchanging extreme attacks with a person as smart or smarter than yourself.

    In the end, what is the goal? I talk about stuff online because I want to. If I wanted to be an academic, I would have written the papers I'm supposed to for school, rather than talk about how much I loved The Wrestler on rowthree, and both my world and the world in general would have been poorer for it.

    Reply
  8. I see your point, Rusty, but I disagree… its not that you need to formalize, its that when you get stuck in a 'fight' it then becomes beneficial to ask are you really talking about the same thing, because there are these two aspects to film appreciation, formal or not… you love films for personal reasons, you may also love a film for its craftsmanship…

    Goon and Andrew mentioned Man from Earth as an example of a film that craft-wise they don't feedl the need to defend because they realize thats not the point of why they love that film… they love it for its ideas (i'm guessing). well it would save a lot of time and energy if people realized not to 'cross the streams' as it were, and defend to the death the craftmanship of a film when really your affection comes from something more intangible… you don't need to defend the film by its craft. likewise I can defend the craft of a film, like I did with Benjamin Button, but not have also feel the need to say how much it personally affected me, or deny any quality of craft because of this absence of strong emotional connection.

    the jargon and formal aspect is only for me to articulate a point, but in the act of doing, in discussing or debating film, all it takes is recognizing the division, listening to what the other person is saying, what they are accusing you of, and correcting them if need be.

    Reply
  9. I also see the point about being too academic, believe me… I wish I could write with less jargon, its something I aspire for. I am going to revise this post though, I can make it clearer than it is.

    but I do think there is a point, you can talk about your love of the Wrestler until you are blue in the face, actually none of this pertains to just expressing yourself, it pertains to when you are in conflict with someone else, ramming heads over an issue, that is where this comes into play. You cannot argue away the other person's feeling, you can only look at the source material and pick away at it, film as film.

    Reply
  10. Is there really a problem with that here though? If it's division you're talking about fine, obviously it's needed a child knows that, but if you're talking about leaving some things out alltogether because they muddle up the otherwise easygoing debate, lead nowhere, and will never be agreed upon, I say boo to you and your post.

    Reply
  11. "Why is the Western genre so longlasting despite its strict conformity to a formula time and again? For me its a nostalgia, its the best way to dramatize big themes about good and evil, life and death where there is no middle ground"

    A lot of childrens films are going to end up having the same message: "Be yourself" and "It's okay to be different" , and I've basically accepted that, and if I want to look for anything more than that, it's all in the little things in between, and the different aspirations they have. Kung Fu Panda wants to be a good action movie that actually seriously shows respect to the kung fu genre rather than just using it as a device, and it succeeds. Ratatouille wants to comment on art and the development of talent. But you could cynically boil them both down to "Oh great, more Be Yourself movies." if that's all you look at.

    Henrik has loved to pick on me for liking a lot of childrens films, perhaps as if I only care about that simple message, as if I'm 8 and have not dared enounter the blackness of existence. If its funny, I'll laugh. If it's entertaining, I'll keep watching. If that's all I get out of it, maybe thats okay. Life goes on.

    If I can point at either of those and get something extra out of them, whether its simply what it does with the genre, what it does differently on a technical/filmmaking level, or thematically/meaning, great. And in both of those movies, I can.

    And yet that simple "Be yourself" message is going to still be there, and there's nothing I can do to argue someone who is somehow offended that yet another movie has the same basic message. I'll hear complaints that its a simple film for simple people, when in my opinion it is them who couldn't get past the simple framework to find what was so worthwhile underneath.

    It's a reverse of "Forest for the trees" – being so obsessed with finding the simplest message, most comparable framework, most common plot device, that you can't appreciate any of the details that make someone love what to others may seem to be very average, typical movies.

    A lot of film snobs can't see the trees for the forest when they flippantly bash a lot of mainstream films. We're so used to high quality production, sound, editing, etc that we take a lot of their craft for granted.

    A lot of average filmgoers can't see the trees for the forest when they watch something like "Elephant" or even "The Visitor" – the craft, the performance, they may not care about these things, and especially don't have the means or training to justify to themselves or anyone else why they would watch Matt Damon and Casey Affleck walk through the desert for 15 minutes without doing anything.

    Reply
  12. "being so obsessed with finding the simplest message, most comparable framework, most common plot device, that you can’t appreciate any of the details that make someone love what to others may seem to be very average, typical movies."

    You talk as if only these types of high-budget movies have these things in them, which is wrong. There are alot of good movies out there, all of which have "something extra" without having the lame stuff. So why not praise those instead? Because deep down, it's the pretty colors that keep you watching.

    I mean fuck, of course I'm used to professionalism in movies. They're made by professionals! And the fact that Ratatouille costs more than probably 3-4 years of movie production in Danmark, means it better have alot of fucking awesome extra stuff to be worth it. Especially when you don't care for the dialogue or the pictures.

    I don't go around praising the childrens touchpad with the most exquisite "MOOOO"-sound either, though I'm sure there are people out there who thinks I shouldn't take it for granted, and that I'm a snob. Simply not interested.

    Reply
  13. I think the main reason for this sort of post Henrik, is to basically admit to ourselves that we're all guilty of being full of shit and calling out other arguments for things we do ourselves. It isn't a plea for tolerance, and I don't think anyone wants to censor how they actually feel.

    "Serious debate with a moron is a bigger waste of time than exchanging extreme attacks with a person as smart or smarter than yourself."

    I can appreciate this, but you and I may have very different ideas and thresholds as to when to come to the conclusion someone is a moron and need to move on.

    "Goon and Andrew mentioned Man from Earth as an example of a film that craft-wise they don’t feedl the need to defend because they realize thats not the point of why they love that film… they love it for its ideas (i’m guessing)."

    As far as I'm concerned thats about it. I never defended its craft as being any better than it actually is, but if you looked at the way I rated it, one might expect a much better crafted film than it is.

    I didn't like Primer very much at all, but understand a lot of people love it, mostly for its ideas and the way it is structured. I've seen a lot of people basically admit its hard to watch that still love it.

    And then of course there's a lot of movies we like ironically, but don't even realize we like ironically. I mean, when I saw Commando the first time, I wasn't thinking "This is so stupid", I was thinking "YEAH!" – as if all the stupid shit in that movie HAS to happen for me to like it. Commando has to have an absurd body count the same way that Motley Crue have to be singing about their cocks. There's stupid that should be stupid, and stupid that shouldn't be stupid.

    The Wicker Man and Showgirls probably weren't intended to be stupid, and were made by people who aren't that stupid.

    Commando and Motley Crue's albums are made to be fun and stupid, by people who could be smart or stupid, who either way basically knew what they were doing.

    So if someone asks me what I like ironically, I'm probably going to say the Wicker Man or Showgirls, and not AC/DC. The latter is a 'guilty pleasure', something you basically pretend to like ironically, but that you actually like closer to its own terms than you would care to admit.

    Reply
  14. "You talk as if only these types of high-budget movies have these things in them, which is wrong."

    Time after time I've given example after example of things I get out of certain bigger movies, and the only thing I get in response is a "No" and a finger back to the simple framework/overall message thing I talked about already.

    "There are alot of good movies out there, all of which have “something extra” without having the lame stuff. So why not praise those instead?"

    This is not the point. The point is to be fair enough to recognize the good stuff in things you didn't like overall rather than trying to convince everyone it was completely without merit, and to give consideration that maybe some of these movies you didn't like actually had something you didn't see, and are actually good. What's the point of discussing if you only interesting in pushing your predetermined view? Harsh arguing or not, I have dozens of movies I've come to like or reconsidered because of arguments on R3 or FJ.

    if I didnt reconsider Shaun of the Dead, I probably wouldnt have seen and loved Hot Fuzz, and probably would have seen or extremely loved Spaced.

    "Because deep down, it’s the pretty colors that keep you watching."

    In the last thread you complained about potshots, but here you are again pushing things already, trying to goad into a flame war which you will surely blame on the other person. If you say one more thing like this instead of actually making points, you will be ignored.

    "means it better have alot of fucking awesome extra stuff to be worth it."

    It's very rare that I let expectations get out of control for myself, and I especially do not place expectations based on how much something cost. Partially a personal reason there. I had one teacher one year that gave everyone else regular marks, and put me on a curve grading scale for any subjective assignment (art, writing, etc) because she expected more from me. Kind of unfair to be singled out, especially when kids compare grades with each other/not developed enough to understand what the teacher was doing and why. Some kids resented that I was being treated as 'extra special' as much as I did. One took it out on the teacher with a massive fit in class, one of the dumber kids took it out on me and threatened to kick my ass (I got lucky there). So that my own pyschiatrist couch response to that. I understand why a lot of people have relative expectations based on past successes, or expect anything new to be more innovative or different than anything else.

    I don't that often. Sue me.

    "I don’t go around praising the childrens touchpad with the most exquisite “MOOOO”-sound either, though I’m sure there are people out there who thinks I shouldn’t take it for granted, and that I’m a snob."

    Well maybe a parent would. if you had kids, would you give them a childrens book with a good story and artwork, or whatever, and just assume they don't care becuase they're a kid? If parents watch movies with their kids – and they do – they care to be able to have something they can enjoy too at least once in a while.

    So they try to have better animation, better stories, and little things going on, as well as the simple message that is supposed to nurture a child. I don't see how hard it is to recognize this, but you always write it off as if something like Kung Fu Panda is the equivolent of a pullstring toy. Trees for the forest.

    Reply
  15. "Well maybe a parent would."

    This is the point I have been making all along, saying that movies like Kung Fu Panda or Ratatouille are a waste of time for anyone who is not a child or gets something out of the fact that a child would get something out of it. For me, who is neither, they are a waste of time. I have said this on numerous occasions.

    I probably did go over the line with the deep down thing. Sorry Goon.

    "What’s the point of discussing if you only interesting in pushing your predetermined view?"

    What's the point of anything? Like I said, I do it because I like it. If what I'm doing is always pushing my predetermined view I guess then that is what it is, but I assure you I have no interest in it. What could I possibly gain?

    Reply
  16. "This is the point I have been making all along, saying that movies like Kung Fu Panda or Ratatouille are a waste of time for anyone who is not a child or gets something out of the fact that a child would get something out of it."

    This is not what I wrote. When I say a parent wants to enjoy it too, they want to enjoy it on their own terms, not simply enjoy it because their child also enjoys it. I make fun of parents, but they are people too, and not everything is about bonding with the kid. if they're going to pay for it and be stuck in a seat for 2 hours, they want something they can get something out of.

    Even if there is absolutely no message to get beyond the most simplistic one, animation and the production behind it is a sophisticated enough craft that you should be able to sit and appreciate it and keep going back to it without being called childish. If someone only went to see a movie for its cinematography and nothing else we somehow wouldn't have to hear apologies for it.

    "I do it because I like it."

    Doing something for your own enjoyment is fine, but I hope if you are ever arguing and conversing with absolutely no consideration for who you are talking to, you at least do not expect any reasonable response, and don't even complain about the moronic ones. Self expression/honing argumentative skills is something, but its not the only thing.

    Giving a shit about the other opinions, working beyond simply 'liking it' is what separates a board like this from anonymous comments on news sites where everyone just tries to be louder and harsher than everyone else in order to get noticed.

    Reply
  17. "I hope if you are ever arguing and conversing with absolutely no consideration for who you are talking to, you at least do not expect any reasonable response, and don’t even complain about the moronic ones."

    Why? If moronic stuff was all that came back, I would no longer enjoy it, and I would complain that something I used to enjoy had gotten ruined.

    "animation and the production behind it is a sophisticated enough craft that you should be able to sit and appreciate it"

    Sure, and if only the people who praise Pixar would praise only these aspects, I would have no argument to make. Production value can raise even Michael Bay into the top 10 of the year, and Pixar as well, and Steven Spielberg etc. I would never argue that they don't have great production value, or animation, or visual effects, or sound design and whatnot. They just lack what's important to me, and therefore I find them a waste of time. The fetichistic approach to filmmaking does little for me, there are only so many times you can be impressed with motion capture, just as there are only so many times you can be impressed with slow motion kung fu, bullet-time, dinosaurs etc. etc. The people who are consistently blown away with the obvious steps forward in these areas – the same people who gush over the new issues of FIFA or MADDEN every year – I find childish and shallow.

    Cinematography is different. I am not impressed with the ability to capture flesh tones movie after movie. And animated movies basically are like poor-to-average shot live-action. I mean people were raving about the long take of the kitchen in Ratatouille? Why? Simple because it's animated, that's great, but means nothing, and is no accomplishment other than that of microchips being able to render it now. They didn't invent anything creative. Not to me at least, I'd seen it before, just never in an animated film. But since I don't hold stock in IBM or Apple, I could give a shit wether or not the artform is progressing in and of itself, I'm going to judge it on par with all the other movies that are (or, in America, aren't) released.

    Reply
  18. "I hope if you are ever arguing and conversing with absolutely no consideration for who you are talking to, you at least do not expect any reasonable response, and don’t even complain about the moronic ones."

    Why? If moronic stuff was all that came back, I would no longer enjoy it, and I would complain that something I used to enjoy had gotten ruined.

    "animation and the production behind it is a sophisticated enough craft that you should be able to sit and appreciate it"

    Sure, and if only the people who praise Pixar would praise only these aspects, I would have no argument to make. Production value can raise even Michael Bay into the top 10 of the year, and Pixar as well, and Steven Spielberg etc. I would never argue that they don't have great production value, or animation, or visual effects, or sound design and whatnot. They just lack what's important to me, and therefore I find them a waste of time. The fetichistic approach to filmmaking does little for me, there are only so many times you can be impressed with motion capture, just as there are only so many times you can be impressed with slow motion kung fu, bullet-time, dinosaurs etc. etc. The people who are consistently blown away with the obvious steps forward in these areas – the same people who gush over the new issues of FIFA or MADDEN every year – I find childish and shallow.

    Cinematography is different. I am not impressed with the ability to capture flesh tones movie after movie. And animated movies basically are like poor-to-average shot live-action. I mean people were raving about the long take of the kitchen in Ratatouille? Why? Simple because it's animated, that's great, but means nothing, and is no accomplishment other than that of microchips being able to render it now. They didn't invent anything creative. Not to me at least, I'd seen it before, just never in an animated film. But since I don't hold stock in IBM or Apple, I could give a shit wether or not the artform is progressing in and of itself, I'm going to judge it on par with all the other movies that are (or aren't) released.

    Reply
  19. I tried to remove the in America part, because it probably would be misunderstood. And I'm not even sure I can properly qualify it. So feel free to delete the first comment (and this one subsequently I would say).

    Reply
  20. I'm not going to rehash all the same shit I've said about what I got out of each specific Pixar movie. if you've actually read them and ignored them there's nothing more I can do, but nothing you've said there convinced me of anything, because in my opinion you just wrote them off out of hand, and broke it down into the most simplistic framework, trees for the forest, as I'm saying here again.

    So as far as me in the thread, anything more right now is redundant posting.

    Reply
  21. alright, Henrik, first you say what I wrote was obvious, and then in every subsequent aspect of debate you prove exactly why this kind of consideration is needed.

    Let me say that everything has the potential for art, it depends only on who is in relation to the object. When you were nine, Henrik, I am sure something simplistic impressed on you so much that it became embedded in your life, the first time you saw death depicted in a film for example, that may be something that is a marker in your development, it HAD significance. What is the point of raging on about how PIXAR cannot have an art value, it cannot have an art value maybe IN RELATION TO YOU. Contrary to your belief, you are not the center of the universe.

    Like I said, you cannot argue over someone's impression of feeling an art experience, the best you can do is challenge the causes, and since there is no definitive cause really, its an aesthetic exercise, its two people refining their ideas about a film.

    This is why I think the division is necessary, so you realize you can critique the film as film aspect, the craft in relation to other craft, and also question the other person's motives for liking the film, to see if it is about the literal message or something else, and its up to the other person to figure it out. At this point, when talking about film as art, you can only really discuss, not debate.

    Film as craft = debate

    Film as art = discuss

    There is a variable in the film as art idea that makes it futile to argue. Its something you feel.

    Reply
  22. "it cannot have an art value maybe IN RELATION TO YOU."

    Duh. I have to say I'm sick and tired of people wanting me to constantly throw out qualifies that I'm talking for myself, and my opinions are solely my own. If you can't figure out that what I am talking about is my own opinion, then you probably have no place reading opinionated comments in the first place.

    Reply
  23. Henrik, your opinion is that PIXAR is simplified bullshit, you are talking about this product, nothing mentioned about yourself, so yeah, thats kinda important… that is why you are fighting with Goon, who is in turn trying to explain his connection with the films… YOU ARE BOTH TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS YET ARGUING AS IF IT IS THE SAME.

    You are talking about your relation to PIXAR, Goon is talking about his relation to PIXAR, neither can be DEBATED because in both cases you are talking about personal sensibilities, there is no right or wrong in that case, each is right for where each of you are in your lived-in existence. The eight year old has his connection with PIXAR too, and it is right for him.

    Is this a language barrier? You cannot debate art, you can only discuss it, because the art is not in the work, its in the relationship with the audience. Art is relative. Discussing means you do not need to have a right or wrong answer, its not about uncovering truths but refining both of your ideas of truth to suit your needs.

    Reply

Leave a Comment.


three + = 8