 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.1.145.72
In Reply to: Re: Can Any Reliable Conclusions Be Drawn About A.... posted by RGA on January 7, 2006 at 12:55:49:
the inept star rating system should be put out to pasture? If so,
what replacement guidelines would you suggest? ~AH
Follow Ups:
Well I think Roger Ebert has explained the star rating system in that one should be reading the review and not just looking at the star rating. I used to be an amateur critic just for the fun of it and I used a 4 star system -- but what I simply did was rate by genre. If I gave 4 stars to Halloween that does not mean it would be equally as good as a 4 star drama. What the four stars meant was that it was one of the best films of the genre.Later I went to 5 stars --- which was to differentiate between all the 4 star movies. A 5 star system also worked better to convert to a Letter grade set-up. Then for each star category there would be a paragraph or two outlining what a film has to ewntail to achieve that grade (similar to what a teacher in English Literature gave us as a letter grade guide -- an A paper is blah blah blah and a b paper has some elements of the A paper but is weaker here or less insightful etc.
***** = A++ or A+
****1/2 = A
**** = A-
***1/2 = B+ or B
*** = B- (Recommended)
**1/2 = C+ (Recommended rental)
** = C or C-
*1/2 = D
* = F
1/2* = F-
No Stars= F-- (filmakers should be drug out into the street and shot)The other major problem with star ratings is many critics just have
**** excellent
*** Good
** Fair
* PoorI find this fine but for the creation of top 100 lists the letter grade set-up provides more searchable criteria.
I can give Halloween 4 stars which I have done but Halloween for a long time was on my top 100 list. I can do an Exel search listing films that got 5 down. I have seen say 1300 films 17 films I have given 5 to (1 film got an A++) so it's just easier to top down the films.
I even though of a system out of 10 to one decimal place. So my number 8 film all time might get 9.7, one film gets a 10 etc. But it's meaningless if I'm the only person doing it.
Lastly If I ever was a critic and I decided to do what all the main critics do and go to a four star system then I would round all my 4.5 and 5 star films down to 4 but I clearly like some 4 star films far better than others.
I don't think Roger Ebert's 3.5 star rating is anywhere close to what he gives 4 stars from more serious genres. And sometimes the guy is seeing something in movies I just don;t get especially drivel like Anaconda.
I mean he gave Splash and the Usual Suspects *1/2 and Anaconda ***1/2 and if anything this should be reversed IMO. Even if you don;t like any of them -- I think the Usual Suspects deserves some filmmaking credit and performance quality marks. Anaconda is a monster movie that Ebert must have felt was doing camp to pay homage to films of that genre -- personally I thought they were going for a straight up monster movie and it stunk.
Splash had Daryl Hanah and her great hair walking the streets nude -- how is that alone not worth 2 stars? C'mon Roger.
some genres are intrinsicly superior to others, so a relative
hierarchy would not be that difficult for you to formulate. But
do you think films can be so neatly categorized, without overlap of
any sort? Would you think a film drama rated 1&1/2stars would be
superior to a western rated 4stars, by let's say, Ebert. If not, might this imply genres
are not necessarily superior per se? Keeping in mind, however,
the best dramas might be considered superior to the best westerns.
~AH
Well Unforgiven is a drama and a western so that line gets hard.Ebert's thumsbs up or recommendation is 3 stars regardless of genre. So if a horrior film gets three stars and a drama gets 2.5 then the horror movie he believes is better.
So do I. 3/5 from me means I recommend you see the film. 2.5 I do not.
I do not believe a drama is inherently superior to comedy. I think that drama is more equal to great literature (or can be) than a horror movie. Arthur Miller versus Stephen King. It is conceivable that King wirtes a better story but if both write ont her subject matters to the best of their abilities then it is like Pet Cemetary versus Death of Salesman -- and the latter is IMO vastly superior.
Great drama can be re-viewed and is a cathartic experience -- Comedy or Horror generally is not. Though IMO there are exceptions which is why Dawn of the Dead is very high on my list of the best films.
For Dawn of the Dead I rate it as a horro film where within the genre it gets top marks -- but it is far more ambitious than that and what it is is a social commentary of the best kind - and the value it has supercedes the horror film aspect. The reason it and night of the Living dead resonate is hardly the special effects or zombies -- there are tons of movies that have that -- maybe some that are 'scarier.'
A film Like Halloween is scarier than Dawn of the Dead but there is nothing underneath the visceral with halloween so while both would get a top 4 star rating for me it is "Dawn" that goes a step beyond and is comparable to some of the best dramatic films.
Obviously this is subjective because I know many would laugh Dawn of the Dead off as a quant(Sp?) little horror film.
I can certainly argue the case for Dawn of the Dead in a critical paper far easier than I can say for Young Frankenstein (which is very high on my all time top 100). Every actor and director and writer will tell you death is easy comedy is hard. But comedy is highly subjective. Young Frankenstein's Mel Brook's brand of humour may fall completely flat for one viewer and makes me bust a gut.
Why should I hold it to be lesser than great drama when everyone in the industry knows comedy is harder. Of course my leaning towards comeduy is a little different because I like Shakespeare's comedies more than his drama - largely because I believe Twelfth Night holds up better than Hamlet.
Still I think that my top 100 list would still be drama heavy because I can find more faults with comedies in general. I like Plains, Trains, and Automobiles very much buit it does have technical foibles and consistency errors so I can find faults on a technical level --- being generous to horror and comedy I am willing to forgive such issues in those genres because generally budgets are small and after all they're not attempting grandious historic documentary resonances.
Pulp Fiction which I view as a darkish comedy is a film about Redemtpion viewed from several characters -- technically it is very sound and it is to me utterly hilarious and hilarious when it ought not to be hilarious which makes me question the depths of me. That to me is a powerful comedy and is why it places highly in my top 100. It's deeper than it looks and that is its power and probably why it has become a cult favorite.
I dislike rating genres lower than others -- I put a hefty bias on the Subjective "GUT" reaction. If it can make me laugh or cry it's really doing something. it can be the smartest thing with great ideas but if that's all it's got it ain;t getting top marks from me. Emotion versus intellect -- Emotion is first intellect is second and if it's got both then it's gonna be in my top 100 - regardless of genre.
Your thoughts are generally resonant, but I find one of your
statements problematic. You said, "Great drama can be re-viewed
and is a cathartic experience -- comedy or horror generally is not."I believe this is semantic due to phrasing. Statement seems to imply
drama does not follow general distributions similar to other genres,
i.e., excellent,good,fair,poor,etc. However, if you believe that
great comedy or horror is non-existent or cannot evoke catharsis, then I'd have to disagree. I think comedy, horror also
have excellent representatives, though likely less in number than
drama for reasons you have stated.My assertion here is that excellent films, regardless of genre, have
capacities to evoke deep catharsis, with lesser quality films providing varying reduced degrees of cathartic release.Consider what I believe a good representative of the oft lowly-
thought-of sci-fi genre, E.T. The Extraterrestrial. That film ,
especially when first viewed, but also upon subsequent viewings,
evoked a number of deep emotions in me: wonder,awe,laughter,sadness,
empathy,anger,etc. IOW, the film genuinely moved me and I found
those viewing experiences extremely enjoyable, cathartic and of
generally high value.As you said, emotion first, intellect second. And as a corollary,
quality before categorization. ~AH
I think we're in agreement. And catharsis a bit of an open term for me it is a term for profound lasting life changing art. Certainly horror and Comedy and certainly science ficition can have this - though interestingly it can often be in dramatic sequences.E.T. to use your example is first and foremost a human dramatic story -- IMV all great films tend to place the human drama at the forefront no matter what the genre. We care about Elliot, Girty(sp?) and the rest of the family and that is why that film resonates. It is Spielberg's Casablanca (and I like it better than Casblanca) because it is also darn well sweet.
The Exorcist? We can identify with the mother's frustration and her plight. I'm not religious in the least bit and it resonated with me as one of the most powerful films I've seen - even if much of the power is through sensory shock.
Some films like 2001: A Space Odyssy is less human drama -- so there are exceptions -- though one could argue that that movie was human race human drama.
2001: A Space Odyssey. I had been thinking about that film in relation
to grandiose themes - omniversal, (how much bigger can one get?)
Yet on that cosmic scale, human significance diminishes drama-tically as we put
humanity into perspective. (Just from our own galactic scale perspective,
earth is small as an electron, one would need a microscope to see it!) So
bigger one gets, things tend to get rather impersonal. For an
interesting take on relative impersonal coldness of 2001 vis-a-vis
Tarkovsky's warmer,more personal Solaris, go to Underman's Review
at www.underview.com/2001/Solaris.html. ~AH
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
