I'm finding myself completely baffled by the ratings of different shows
and movies of the guy I argued with about “Twin Peaks.”
First, he has 4000 of them, on individual episodes mostly, and saves his
highest praise for “Lost,” “Boardwalk Empire,” and “Twin Peaks” as well
as individual episodes of “Avatar: The Last Airbender,” “The Venture
Bros.,” “It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” and “King of The Hill.”
He hated “Titanic,” “Billy Madison,” “Pulp Fiction,” “Rugrats,” 2 of the
best anime in “Death Note” and ”Attack on Titan,” and finds John Oliver
smug, unfunny, and ignorant.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND!
I find myself increasingly disillusioned by the concept of an
"opinion." They seem to be the sorts of things I felt I used to have
very strong ideas about, and then as my experience with the world grew,
they weren't so much needed or worthwhile.
Of course, you may read me complaining about the litany of things I
can't stand and I'll post a status praising artistic works I find
compelling. How do we resolve this? Why would I write a ten page essay
for fun on how terrible I think “Twin Peaks” is, and why do I find it so
beyond confusing that someone couldn't see the merit in “Titanic?”
I think it boils down to "why." Why are you talking about a show? Do you
have a terrible conception of "acting" and you just need to express how
much you don't like someone's in particular? Does the show not jive
with your terrible expectations going in? Have you invested yourself
emotionally into coupling your identity with the words you might have
for it? Why does it matter a show "makes sense" or "does better" or
becomes a "timeless classic?"
The world is up for grabs. Maybe if you praise the wrong things for the
wrong reasons, you change in destructive ways. Maybe if you fail to see
the merit in the most confusing or difficult works, you'll never broaden
like you need broadening. What is it that you're supposed to recognize
and take away? Why do I trust Roger Ebert saying he loved a movie this
guy also loved, but the second I read that the random guy loved it, I
absolutely thought it would be shit? I don't trust they're seeing the
same things. I don’t trust the tools for evaluating are properly
calibrated.
I think the nature of this fine tuning can be most easily seen in what
happens to movies that are “so bad they’re good.” Maybe it’s “Zombie
Strippers” or “The Room.” These 2 differ though too, as one was made
with a level of “sincerity” and perspective that author was oblivious as
to how it would read, and the other was a zombie stripper movie. You
can have an experienced filmmaker with a grasp of story-telling and how
to intimately depict character relationships, who still gets off on the
absurdity of the markedly low-rent. Can the person incapable of making
anything but low-budget bullshit truly appreciate what makes The Greats
great?
I used to have a very limited scope of what kind of movies I would
consider watching. It might include a comedian my parents thought was
funny. I could do action movies. Obviously, I wanted to watch what all
of my friends were watching or if there was a specific prohibition or
taboo associated with it (“American Pie,” “Deliverance”). Back when you
walked the video store hallways, if it had a weird box cover, I wasn’t
interested. Subtitles were out of the question. Black and white was
horrible by default.
I thought I had “standards.” I thought I only watched “good things.” I
had no concept of different devices and styles being used to speak to
different things. A long pause on a sunset wasn’t a metaphor or
balancing out or resolving a different part of the the movie, it was
just a boring sunset where “nothing was happening.” Of course, much of
this was the consequences of being younger and never being exposed to
even the idea that there was “more” than what I could see.
As such, today, I try to find the good in everything. Try. It doesn’t
mean I can, but it does mean there is no comparing “Zombie Strippers” to
“Titanic.” It means that even if something has had an intense impact on
my life, like “Waking Life,” there is a considerably harder task ahead
to try and claim it as objectively “the best movie of all time.” Saying
something like that would be a reflection of/on me, not the movie. It’s a
reflection that would change over time.
When someone offers that they like something about a show, I look for
considerably more in their explanation than, “the acting was good.” I
think it’s also pretty lazy to belabor the identification of tropes. I
might offer something lazy like that about a show I’m not terribly
invested in, and it probably doesn’t matter how good the acting is or
which cliche device was employed, the show isn’t shooting that high.
Camerawork and filters can flavor the mood and help with immersion when
done well. The music can be so perfect you hardly even recognize it’s
there.
But I only want my opinion to go so far. I have an incredibly hard time
telling someone they should or shouldn’t watch something, as I actively
pursue things that I thought I’d have absolutely no interest in. What
business does a late 20’s guy have in marathoning “Gilmore Girls?” How
did I turn anything coming from The CW into something remotely
tolerable? You and the medium are both evolving, and I suppose if you
can’t identify what it is someone else has transformed into, it feels
wrong. My most earnest advocacy rests in things I’d watch more than
once, which, even for things I’ve called my favorite, doesn’t happen
that often.
I’m still missing something about the level of sophistication. It
doesn’t feel right to equate “Pulp Fiction” with “The Room” because they
might both offer you “a level of satisfaction” in watching them. As
well, I frequently see a push for people defending, literally admitted
arbitrary bullshit, as “complex” and “deep” or “beyond what you care to
understand.” It is possible to waste yours and the audience’s time. It
is possible to have taken myriad bad lessons and insights and slopped
them together into a mess that offends the concepts related to
communication. There isn’t an arts school in the world teaching you to
“just be yourself!” and everything will fall into place career wise.
While this guy has nearly 4000 ratings on 95 days worth of material he’s
watched, I have 550 ratings on 860 days. I feel I’m attempting to
portray a level of discernment and experience that comes from most
things striking you as, “it is what it is” or it’s “passable.” That
seems more the reality of life, no? Most things are “good enough” or
“fit the pattern.” Rarely is something a masterpiece or the worst thing
you’ve ever seen. So when you’re eager to sling your ratings and your
words, you seem cheap, you seem wrong, and incoherent. Your ability to
recognize what’s good about something good is corrupt. And your
propensity to defend something shit exposes your underlying insecurity
that knows it.
