Sometimes I wish my interests were things like basket weaving and stamp collecting

But they're not. One of my hobbies is watching movies. Foreign. Indie. Black & White. Subtitles.

You get the idea.

The new critic darling, Whiplash, is lighting the indie movie world on fire. A Sundance favorite, it has garnered many admirers; with these admirers come typical defensive remarks when a critic goes against the the almost consensus view.

The "you didn't 'get it'" card and to be a "qualified movie critic" one shouldn't be offended by the scenes that garner the R (or NC-17) rating. Interesting. I never knew reviewing films had such  qualifications.

And this -

"It's a movie!"

On another comment, on another review, not liking the film is "being cool" for the sake of it.

Wait, I thought the ingrained belief/common-thought was that art was subjective? I guess not, at least not when it comes to indie, foreign and Oscar-type pics that win the critics' hearts. It also turns out that subjectivity is put aside when a movie widely rejected by most critics.

Take for example Andrew Niccol's The Host. I thought it was a decent sci-fi/romance movie. It was at times uninspiring, but overall it was solid. Now, compared to its precedent Stephenie Myer adapted work, the Twilight series, The Host was practically disemboweled; the franchise wasn't met with warmth, but Niccol's movie was just crucified. 

WARNING: SPOILERS ahead.

The Whiplash love I "get", but I can't bring myself to share the same enthusiasm as the critics and its admirers; the "drive to be the best" was way overdone and it resorted to tired cliches (ie musician in family isn't understood, the football player is lauded) to downright petty scenes (mentor framing his student's father as a loser due to the mother/wife leaving them, the "rather be remember than not" mentality). Some of the critics who shared their negative reviews I also "get" -- I can see why the didn't like it (mentor's teaching method rendered him a  borderline sociopath).

I see it all often that when people say a movie is "overrated" - even when giving reasons why - the defenders resort to "So are you saying that all the people who liked it are wrong? Are you seriously saying that so-and-so from NYT/LA Times/Tribune/IndieWire/Hollywood Reporter is wrong?"

Wait, so are the critics the priests/judges now? I thought art was universally said to be subjective so if a a review is negative then it's equally as valid as a positive one. Hmmm. That seems to be not the case.

Those familiar with the movie making world, and not fully on the train of "ma feelings", would agree that it is wrought with amorality, subjectivity, relativism and nihilism. It's a very modern medium. I'm not talking about blockbusters, I'm talking about films that are screened at festivals like Sundance, TIFF, Cannes, and NY FF. Granted not all films are like this that are accepted & screened, but most of the lauded ones - the ones entered in the main competitions or the ones that are the most anticipated, tend to be tackle the similar themes (sexual angst, some sort of LGBT theme, inner turmoil). Basically, they try to humanize many things that might be a taboo to Western culture. I wouldn't really object to one saying that those films is said film fests were pretentious and self-involved without even realizing.  

But, like the person who said that critics who are offended by the contents of R rated movies, maybe I might  not be "qualified" to be interested in such a hobby.