Friday, February 5, 1999
Movie critic’s comments just opinion, not hard facts
COLUMN: Every film has positives and negatives; quality is
subjective trait
Movies are so subjective. I base this on the fact that I have
recently watched a few movies that I have felt strongly about, but
the world at large seems to differ with me intensely. It’s really
easy for those of us who see a lot of movies to become pompous (not
that I’m pompous, but some people are) and believe that they alone
are qualified to judge the general worth of a certain movie. I
suppose for every person who really hates "The Postman," there is
someone out there who has such severe mental defects that they fail
to notice the epic film’s glaring shortcomings. I mean, no sane
person out there could possibly like this movie. Now that I think
about it, this could be a really good psychiatric tool for
determining sanity. Rather than complicated, testing procedures
like Rorschach inkblot analysis or word association, all a mental
health professional would need to do is show their patient "The
Postman." If the subject reacts with disgust, violence or nausea,
they’re absolutely sane. If they profess to enjoy the movie, they
should proceed with treatment. If they ask where they can buy
exclusive "Postman" merchandise and query if the film is available
on DVD, they should be shot on sight. Because some people just
shouldn’t be permitted to walk the streets.
But I digress. My point was, if you look back far enough in this
column, that not all movies appeal to all people. I discovered this
firsthand when someone actually responded to an article I wrote.
Now I understand that for some journalists, receiving feedback from
readers is relatively meaningless, as they probably receive upwards
of two bags of mail a day from a public eager for intelligent
discourse about their writings. But those are journalists who have
readers. I was thrilled to receive any feedback. This letter, which
was 34 pages long, I might add, had two basic opinions which it
stressed:
1. That my review of the movie "Shattered Image," which I hated
with quite a passion, was unfair and disingenuous
2. That I am a major douche-bag.
While I stand by my story and refuse to concede the first
criticism, there’s really no arguing with air-tight logic like the
second. My first reaction was to recoil at the impudence of this
writer, telling me that my opinion of a movie was incorrect. But
soon, I realized that there really was no direct reason "Shattered
Image" was bad – it just didn’t really appeal to me. That’s not to
say that movies can’t have flaws, faults or even major problems
that cause them to fail at being uplifting, meaningful or
entertaining. If that were true, I wouldn’t really have anything to
write in these pages. What is true is that my job should really be
to report what about these movies is good or bad, not to offer
people my opinion of a film as fact.
This difficulty really came into play the other night, when I
was having an intellectual conversation with my roommates about the
movie "Seven." OK, so maybe any conversation in which the phrase
"your mother" is uttered more than 20 times doesn’t count as
intellectual, but bear with me. I really didn’t like the movie
"Seven." I found it a pointless, disturbing exercise in gross-out
effects and depressing dialogue searching endlessly for some
meaning or truth. My roommates and some of their friends, however,
disagree with me enough to actually get somewhat riled up by this
conversation, insisting that "Seven" works on the same level as a
Greek tragedy. After all was said and done, neither side managed to
change the ideas of the other, probably because 1. We’re all really
stubborn and refuse to accept we’re wrong for fear of being
ridiculed and insulted for the rest of the night and 2. Both of our
opinions were partially valid and partially invalid. It’s
impossible to judge what will entertain someone else. The only
thing anyone can say after seeing a movie was whether it
entertained or enlightened them. They can write intelligently about
the film’s positive points and negative aspects, but they can’t
possibly know whether or not anyone out there will like it.
So, to the wacky person who wrote me a bizarre 34-page letter:
Thank you for your response and I hope to look at my job more
even-handedly and responsibly in the future – but, just so you
know, "Shattered Image" still sucks.
Harris is a major hypocrite, so he still wants reader
suggestions for "Worst Movie of all Time That’s Still Kind of Fun
To Watch When Inebriated." Send your ideas to
keyser@ucla.edu.Lonnie Harris
Comments, feedback, problems?
© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]