If I walk away and think "I enjoyed that" then by all measures that was a great film. A great film will please most of not all of its target audience. When a film is shown in Cannes the target audience is cinema enthusiasts who seek deeper meaning and interesting new ways to use the medium. When a new James Bond is shown, the target audience is anyone who enjoyed the trailer or the spy film genre enough to decide they want to see the movie.
Film critics like to be snobs about what is and isn't "real cinema", but that's not about superior taste. They may have a different taste, but that taste is no better or worse than anyone else's.
If 99% of people don't like what you like and therefore have horrible taste, maybe the problem isn't everyone else.
'I enjoyed that' -> mapping to the enjoyment one gets from eating junk food. It's true, but it's a lack of complexity and engagement with what you're doing or eating. I'd actually include things like beautiful views in this too. It's often characterised by being okay with blatant flaws in plot logic or coherence or plausibility.
'I enjoyed that and it made me think/engage/reflect' -> mapping to the enjoyment one gets in complexity or well-constructed crafts which is often more gradual. In this case, liking something requires active engagement and thought.
The problem is that it's easy to substitute the latter with the former (which is easier). There are only so many beautiful views one can see before the brain yearns to learn what's behind them (curiousity and our brain's requirement for novelty?). I find it similar with films. I don't think this means everything has to be 'le film artistique'. But I also don't think it's healthy to only have the first experience.
The moment we give up on pushing people to challenge themselves is the moment our society declines.
Moreover democracies require an educated populace in order to survive.
At the end of the day art is for entertainment. Whether or not you need the intellectually stimulating element in your art is subjective and unimportant.
Everything is everywhere in everything.
Remember the plot fully. The dad was dying of an inoperable cancer, his son enlists a junkie to help him score heroin to ease his suffering. With the time they have left the family tries to cope with everything the dad was and wasn't.
Two incredible scenes stick out. The first time he does heroin the junkie tells him "pay attention. This will be the best experience you will ever have. You will spend the rest of your life chasing this." - I get gut checked everytime I start a new experience with a reminder to take it all in this first time.
The second is the ending of the move which I will not spoil without request.
I've been to introductory art courses where many students were able to arrive at similar understandings of various artwork as more studied art aficionados. If you were to do the same in a STEM intro course, you'd likely get special attention and it would be noteworthy.
Art is certainly for entertainment but it's the intellectual stimulation that makes certain fiction great.
I think a lot about how the movies I work give breaks to people across all workforces. Those that are trying to solve humanities diseases who need a disconnect from the workload and those that do shift work away from their families both deserve to take some time off their life and be entertained by a ferry passenger trying to escape a sinking ship or a junior exec getting hit in the nuts by a goat.
When I did a sequel of a popular movie I went deep into the hashtags on instagram and found dozens of "we watched this on our first date and now we're married, can't wait to see the next." type stories. Not a bad value for a campy zombie flick.
There is a difference between a great film and a terrible film — though both can be entertaining. The great film will change you, change the way you think, spur you to action, or change the way films are made. It's not just about taste.
This is often repeated like it's some universal truth. Enjoying a film (or anything) doesn't mean it's great - this is a very hard to explain idea though, as it's something that is experienced in the core of your being. It's like trying to explain why small talk is important to someone from a low-context culture - there's probably a fundamental disconnect where it will never make sense. Although I can explain it with words, it really only makes sense on an emotional level. It's the difference between criticism by The Needle Drops and Lester Bangs. One is focused only on "objectivity" - "slashing guitars and crunchy snares"; the other is weaving a story.
But I guarantee you that anyone with the ability to convincingly articulate why The Office is better than Rebels of the Neon God isn't arguing in good faith. And there's a reason for that.
But the vast majority of people have ONLY been eating plain sugar - they don't even realize there is a whole world of different ingredients and foods out there. Most people exposed to other foods don't go back to only eating sugar - and that's because real food is better. It's not something you can deduct with logic, and it will never be done in an academic/research setting because it's taboo in academia to make value judgements about culture.
That's still not to say film criticism or analysis is objective--there's nothing specifically quantifiable here, but it's more constructive than just saying something is good and something is bad because it's to or not to one's taste. Taste is an appropriate metaphor--a meal at your local deli tastes delicious, but probably lacks the same craft and presentation as the meal from the 5 star restaurant across the street. You can disagree with someone's taste, but you not liking mustard doesn't mean anyone who likes mustard is an idiot, or, you liking high art doesn't mean everyone who liked 'Furious 7' has bad taste.
Which means that it’s ultimately just about how much they enjoyed the film. This is fine: they are professionals at describing how the movie affected them and why it works (or doesn’t) for them. They are also movie geeks, which means that if you’re a movie geek too, you’re likely to have similar reactions. Their opinions are especially useful, at least if they’re good at their jobs.
Like most things (think wine or cheese or cars), people who are “into” them value different elements than do casual consumers. I think this is what people are really saying when they call something a “higher taste”: it’s got those qualities you appreciate when you know a lot about the medium. And obviously there’s a significant emotional reward here: that’s why people get into things on the first place. We call this “sophistication”, which is one sense of the word accurate but in another an unwarranted value judgment. It’s the degree to which we conflate refined palettes with “good” ones that everyone is ultimately arguing about in discussions like this.
When referring to taste, if we replaced “higher” and “better” with “advanced”, I think we’d both satisfy the view that ultimately what you get out of something is its value to you, while at the same time still express the view that there’s something special about this or that movie that requires some careful thinking and experience to appreciate.
I'm pretty sure that Rebels of the Neon God isn't "better" at parodying office work, and I'm pretty sure there are less laughs to be had in that film too.
So yes, I'm pretty sure The Office is "better" at a lot of things, and while I have not seen Rebels of the Neon God (yet) I'm pretty sure it's also "better" than The Office, but at different things.
If lots of people enjoy seeing not great films they apparently prefer enjoying themselves over seeing great films.
If so, one could argue there’s nothing wrong with suggesting people what they want.
On the other hand, if you replace ‘film’ by ‘nicotine’ or ‘opium’, many in society think it’s wrong to give people what they want, and that, instead, society should discourage their use, and aim to have its citizens use less of those.
Similarly, some people (e.g. some variants of socialist movements) will argue that society should strive to make its citizens enjoy those better films, food, music, etc.
Doesn't your analogy actually run counter to the point you are making? ie the importance of small talk (like taste) is not universal?
Yes it does. What is your definition of great, and why is it better than mine?
Sounds like by only one measure it was a great film.
The problem starts when restaurant recommendations websits starts to be filled with them based only on the number of people eating there per day. This is whats happening with youtube recommendations
Giving people what they want as a primary objective is the fast-track to mediocrity. "Good is the enemy of great," as they say.
Most recommendation system mismatches are much more subtle.
If most people enjoy a film, then it's a good film. If you think 99% have horrible taste, you just have different taste than most people.
Even being charitable with interpretation of your comment, if you dive deep enough, there is no rational argument that makes deep philosophical ponderings better than laughs. At least given our current understanding of the Universe.
Google from its inception had inspired exceptionally strong loyalty through solving technical problems (web search) well. I'd adopted and was proselytizing as of 1999.
Over the years that situation ... changed.
With Google no longer serving technical needs well (across multiple dimensions), and disabling voice (killing YouTube downvotes being only one of many examples), the remaining option is exit. And so I've exited virtually all Google products and services.
(The vibe of "my mind is going, Dave, I can feel it" as I deleted my GMail contacts one at a time was ... morbidly fascinating. I've retained that account, as a last-ditch contact. I check it every few months, perhaps.)
Google can't seem to distinguish between "short term retention" vs. "long-term reputational harm". Though they're hardly the only one --- see Reddit and Facebook as other examples.
I opted not to participate. The actions speak for themselves.
I really enjoyed reading your comment :)
But my point was that the systems are working as intended, and that there is no real failure here - people are seeing a reflection of their peers. It was hard for me to understand it until I saw how my Zoomer cousin watched Youtube like it was a TV station. Youtubers aren't "gaming" any sort of system, just like SEO isn't really "gaming" Google (for the most part) - they're both gaming people. SEO tricks work because it gets clicks. Clickbait titles have worked for 10+ years now because it STILL gets clicks.
> My point wasn't to denigrate people for having poor taste
These are directly contradictory. "horrible taste" is a denigrating term.
The reality is that a context is created, either intentionally or not, and then people behave in the context.
I commented on this phenomena 4 months ago in a different thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30184653) and 7 months ago somewhere else (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28972157)
Quoting one of them
> So you treat users like idiots and then they start acting like idiots. It really does work that way.
> Let me give an intuitive analogy for those unconvinced. We're going to use a gym, library, and bar. The same person would be exercising, studying, and drinking at those institutions, in specifically that order.
> We shape the buildings (create the context); thereafter they shape us.
> It's the difference between say assuming your customers are alcoholics and then building a bar and saying "it is of public benefit, profitable to our company, whatever, if our users studied so let us make a library and they will rise to the occasion".
so "Recommendation systems just mirror what the users watch" is not a complete statement. It's "Recommendation systems just mirror what the users watch in the <built context of the site>"
The same users on youtube, kahn academy, twitch, and xtube will follow dramatically different paths because the products are just slightly removed from pure thought-stuff. They are castles in the air, from air, creating by exertion of the imagination as Fred Brooks said, true. But they do amount to a concrete form and context and it does meaningfully influence behavior.
The system encourages the bad behavior. The context is what makes it "natural" - it doesn't have to be that way.
From his four great Reith lectures https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03969vt
I don't think that's true in general. People do want good content, but good content is hard to find, and people just don't want to put in the effort of finding it.
They watch what the algorithms suggest because it's easy, not because they really want to watch that stuff.
I mean, look at me, scrolling HN and Reddit for hours. Do I think this is quality content? No. But it would take a lot of effort to find something to better spend my time, so I just don't bother.
If you can't convince others of your position, then there is no reason for everyone to take it seriously. Its basically the verbal equivalent of a position paper.
It's scaled poorly as the Web has broadened.
Given enough eyeballs, all content is shallow.