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.

Subjectivity IS Annoying

IMDb is a special place, amongst other sites I visit and participate in. One thing reigns supreme in its message boards: Subjectivity.

One of my favorite discussions I've read went something like this -

"I don't think that's what the screenwriter and director meant it to be. By the way the director was talking about the themes within the movie it sounds like it was going in another direction that what was intended."

(The movie's theme wasn't really clear, so there was talk about its  - unintentional - vagueness and character ambiguity.)

"That's just your opinion. There isn't necessarily one correct interpretation."

If the screenwriter & director (two separate people here) weren't on the same page on what the story was exactly about, then the burden of confusion is on their shoulders. Still, whatever they intended the movie to be about and the audience members come up with a different interpretation, then yes, there exists a "wrong" interpretation even though the creative dissonance between the writer and director led the audience to different interpretations.

Sometimes a blue chair is just a blue chair and there isn't any deeper hidden motif behind the color, or the placement of the chair, or the shading of the light in which the chair baths in. If I say to an author "The blue chair in chapter seven, that meant [blah blah blah]." And the author then responds "Well, no. It's just a chair and the reason it's blue is because I had a similar blue chair in my childhood which I sat on countless times," then I'm wrong.

It is probably why so many people who otherwise could not survive in a non-creative industry flock to the arts. It's where subjectivity acts as a barrier to any criticism or any standard besides "My standard." And feelings. A lot of feelings and "complexity" and "nuances" about "life."