Critics And Commoners

On By WinstonIn MoviesLeave a comment

I enjoy Michael Bay movies. There, I’ve said it. According to the vast majority of film critics this makes me no-taste, mouth-breathing Troglodyte. This must be true because everyone knows that critics know more about movies than I do.

This great deception is based on the idea that the masses wouldn’t know or appreciate art if they tripped over it. Critics are all about meaning and depth and (my least favorite) importance. Without these, they tell us, a movie is cheap, trashy, worthless etc. I think they are missing the point.

Art serves two purposes. The first is the expression of the artist’s vision. No one can judge the success of this except the artist. The second is to generate a response in the audience. As the audience I think I can figure out my reaction for myself. Once art is commercialized in the form of movies, music or any other medium where a third party has an interest then profit must also be added to the purposes.

Because movies require a significantly larger third party investment, that need for profitability increases proportionately. This leads to the divide between high cost, profit-driven studio pictures and lower cost, vision-driven independent films. Given a choice, critics will almost always snub the “populist” studio movie in favour of the more elitist independent film. Personally, I enjoy both types. Which is why it irks me to see alleged experts insisting on this artificial divide. They tear down the popular to build up that which is less so. In doing do so they cut away two of the tripods three legs. They ignore the audience, and in doing so deny the ugly truth of that art costs money.

Of course they also maintain the myth that for art to be art, it must be inaccessible to the “average” person. If I or anyone else can say that something is good where does that leave the professional critics?

The only valid critics are those whose subject requires specialty knowledge. An example of which would be an automotive journalist. They have knowledge which I do not and so it makes sense for me to pay attention to what they say. Movie critics can claim no such specialization. Film school notwithstanding, they are still not qualified to tell me what I do, or do not enjoy. It is fine to say that they did not enjoy a movie for whatever reason. When they say no one else should either, they cross the line from simple opinion to self-important delusions of grandeur.

The other leg of the the tripod is of course profit. While everyone treats it like a dirty word, nothing could be further from the truth. Profit is a convenient measure of success in the public space which movies inhabit. If a movie is created to have broad appeal and generate large profits it is still art. For such a movie success is measured by it’s popularity and thus profitability.

By this measure, contrary to what critics and their parrots will tell you, Michael Bay is a good film-maker. (See, I typed that and the Art Gods didn’t smite me.). Let me clarify. Any 100m Olympic sprinter can tell you, you don’t take the gold by sucking at running. Michael Bay is the artist putting his vision out there, the audience is overwhelmingly positive in their response leading to high profits and happy studios. Mr. Bay gets hired to make movies that fill theaters and make money. That’s what he does, and he does it extremely well. He has filled a niche in a highly competitive market, and his success is proof of one important fact: no matter how they try, critics can’t actually tell a person what they will like.

We Are Still Animals

On By WinstonIn SocietyLeave a comment

Something that always annoys me is to hear some atrocity described as “inhuman”. Unless it was in fact committed by a non-human, then the use of this word is always unjustified. This is the basest form of self-indulgence. We want to reassure ourselves that we could never do whatever it is. The easiest way to do this is by separating them from us by making them “inhuman”.

The simple fact of the matter is that humans are in fact multi-faceted creatures. Some do terrible things, some do great things, some will only ever do average things, but all of these things will be of human origin.

Realistically, given the prevalence of atrocity and horror in the world, it would seem more appropriate label as “inhuman” those who do great good. It would give less false comfort, but be far more accurate.

The whole issue is based on our ongoing efforts to distance ourselves from our less evolved selves. We prefer to see ourselves as one step removed from other animals. We want desperately to believe that the laws of nature don’t apply to us. We are of course deluding ourselves.

The simple fact is: we are animals. The same instincts drive us as drive every other animal. To deny this is to deny ourselves the opportunity to understand our actions. Only through understanding can we seek ways to channel those energies more constructively. Instead of pretending to be something other than we are, we should accept our animal self as a part of us.

The key is not to suppress the instinctive side of ourselves, but to chose how we will use them. One of the keys to this is realizing that everything we do is done purely for ourselves. This is not to be confused with selfishness. You could give away your every possession and devote your life to caring for lepers, there will always be your own benefit at the root of it. Selfishness and selflessness are not so much roots of actions as external measures of our self-centric behaviors.

To be self-centric is not by default to be selfish. One can amass great wealth and power at the expense of those around them and this can have obvious benefits to oneself. Conversely, one can chose to live a simple life devoted service and the well-being of others. The high regards of others and their own pleasing self image provide rewards of a very different but equally valid sort. Each path is equally valid, as are all others. The key is to accept our inner animal and then choose what type of action we will take as humans to bring it the greatest benefit.

To do anything else would truly be “inhuman”.

Judging is Easier Than Uderstanding

On By WinstonIn SocietyLeave a comment

I find it increasingly common for people to judge beliefs rather than people.  Most of the major faiths tend not to encourage their members to commit horrible, unspeakable acts.  Yet every time a member of any belief system does anything unpleasant, either they or others will attribute the action to the faith.

What got me thinking about this is the certainty that these people have undoubtedly done some socially dubious things of their own over the years. Does this mean that they believe they are as vile as the worst things they have done? Or would they prefer to be viewed as a totality of their experience and actions.

To my understanding, a belief system is usually a set of values and guidelines often spiritual in nature, which it’s followers are tasked with implementing in their lives. If a follower of a given belief misinterprets, either accidentally or deliberately, those values or guidelines, it is not the fault of the belief, but of the follower.

This remains true whether the individual is twisting the belief to justify hiding a pedophile to protect an institution, or to strap on a suicide vest. In either case, responsibility rests with the individual and not the belief they have hijacked for their own purposes. Yet many people on all sides persist in judging the belief itself.

I believe this to be an example of something which will no doubt show up in future posts as well. I tend to think of it as the depersonalizing of responsibility. The person encouraging people to blow up themselves and others isn’t doing this to create a more beneficial power structure for themselves, they are doing it for God. Likewise the person choosing to hide a pedophile in order to protect the organization they are part of isn’t doing it to maintain their own position of power and privilege, they do it to protect God’s spokespersons on earth.

The other side of this problem is just as ugly. When many people think of suicide bombers, they don’t think of a relatively small subset of a particular belief who have co-opted the entire group as a justification for an otherwise unthinkable act. Instead, these few are seen as being representative of the larger group about whose beliefs the average person likely knows next to nothing.
In the same sense, the pedophile and those who chose to hide them rather than address the issue are not seen as deviant and corrupt respectively, but as representative of the faith they use to hide their crimes. The faith again is judged by actions of these relative few rather than on it’s own merits.

Faiths in whatever are seldom judged on their own merits, but on the actions of individual persons claiming it for their own. It matters not at all if the person is acting according to the belief they want to take the blame, if they claim it, the rest if the world will usually go along with the joke.

I guess my ultimate message about beliefs and the people who abuse, distort and hide behind them would be this: Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.