In debates, we often see that the same characteristics are the subject of qualifications but also of opposing arguments: where some denounce, for example, the repeated “clichés” of a film, for example, Slumdog Millionaire by Danny Boyle, 2009, others see on the contrary a “game”, a “second degree”, a more or less ironic distance compared to these same stereotypes. Anyone can argue, cite examples, and analyze certain specific elements of the film in question, without it being as often as possible to decide between them “rationally”. A visit to https://couchtuner.space/ will open the best options for you.
The Final Solution
Finally, the reference to this or that criterion or rating scale necessarily remains arbitrary even if a large number of people, a social group or even an entire society can share it and therefore leads to differences of opinion. Thus, some have been able to denounce the film King Kong by Merian G. Cooper, 1933 as a production steeped in “imperialism, colonialism, racism, military power, big business and good feelings, but those who admire this film, without necessarily denying this ideological dimension, are generally sensitive to the aesthetic aspect of this fantastic film, deeply original in its time from this point of view. In this case, it is difficult if not impossible to decide which criterion should take precedence over the other or to demonstrate that one scale of assessment should be preferred to another.
- While these considerations may seem abstract, they are nevertheless confirmed by the practical experience of the debates where it is easy to see that no arguments can modify certain assessments and that opinions generally change relatively little after their conclusion. Sociological and psychological reasons undoubtedly explain this fact, because the appreciations of the spectators certainly result from reasons which are largely unconscious and on which no speech can really act: thus, when someone says to appreciate or on the contrary hating such an actor or actress, and therefore the film in which he or she appears, it is practically impossible for another individual to change such an opinion whose reasons are and will remain completely buried.
In addition, the pleasure or displeasure that one experiences at the vision of a film undoubtedly results not from a single aspect, for example, its “realism”, its “originality” or its “humanity” but of a set of elements which influence the spectator in a syncretic way, and which are difficult to analyze in a discursive way (this is the case for example of music which one appreciates in a global and intuitive way but which will be very difficult to analyze by people non-musicians.
The subject of the debate
If it is practically impossible to avoid value judgments, as well as the debates that they will inevitably provoke, we see that they also risk leading the discussion quickly into dead ends, each withdrawing to their subjective certainties. Some avenues, already mentioned, should nevertheless allow the facilitator to avoid certain blockages and to progress in collective reflection.
The first consists in asking the participants not to be satisfied with general judgments and to try to specify on which precise elements of the film relate their assessments. Are they the characters, the actors, the story staged, the cinematic aesthetics, the atmosphere or the clear atmosphere, for example, optimistic or on the contrary dark or negative, the ideology possibly conveyed by the author, the genre of the film or even the way of representing reality authentic, false, biased, partial.