Question of the Day: How Do You Define Quality?
Yesterdays post got me thinking about Quality. Yes, "capital q" Quality. For those of you that don't know me, I enjoy my philosophy from time to time, and one of the best books I've been re-introduced to over the last year is Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. There is a section in that book (and really the whole book is a mediation on the Quality) that got me thinking about yesterdays question about assigning star ratings/grades to films. Troy mentioned in the comments yesterday that he liked the letter grade system, but the hardest part for him was deciding on a system where the grade or ranking meant something to him. More thoughts after the jump...
This is interesting because it gets me thinking about how each of us define quality, or as Pirsig refers to it: Quality. Allow me to take detour into the field of education for a moment: As a teacher (getting my masters in teaching right now, but I'm technically already a teacher) I seek to rid the classroom of rankings -- of invented letter grades and hierarchical structures that do nothing but make the students think that if they get an A, they must be "getting" the material. An "A" doesn't always prove that they are turning in quality work -- their work may not have any Quality at all -- it may just mean that they are fulfilling the requirements to get an A grade. Of course, a lot of this falls on the teacher and how they can get their students to think outside of grades and more in line with what they are learning instead of what they need to do in order to get the A.
Quality, and what it does or does not entail, is an interesting thing. In the passage I'm about to share with you Pirsig is talking about a teacher named Phaedrus who taught in the ancient hills that Pirsig and his son have just passed through on their motorcycle journey. He speaks of Phaedrus’ two distinctions of quality: the first being a more organic, creative phase that could not be defined. This was, to no surprise, the most fun and enjoyable idea of Quality because there was no rigid attempt at defining the term. The second idea of Quality is more due to rigid critical thinking, and because of this Phaedrus created a hierarchical listing of Quality. But I want to return to what Pirsig pontificates in the chapter prior to this…his musings on the topic of Quality are precisely the type of thinking that seems relevant to what some critics try to pin down as "quality films" with star ratings or letter grades. Pirsig writes:Quality…you know what it is, yet you don’t know what it is. But that’s self-contradictory. But some things are better than others, that is, they have more quality. But when you try to say what the quality is, apart from the things that have it, it all goes poof! There’s nothing to talk about. But if you can’t say what Quality is, how do you know what it is, or how do you know that it even exists? If no one knows what it is, then for all practical purposes it really does exist. What else are the grades based on? Why else would people pay fortunes for some things and throw others in the trash pile? Obviously some things are better than others…but what’s the “betterness”?...So round and round you go, spinning mental wheels and nowhere finding anyplace to get traction. What the hell is Quality? What is it?
Well...what the hell is Quality? What elements help you identify what a Quality film is? When we watch a film how is that we know what we're watching is Quality?
No matter what it is - a book, a painting, a film, a song - I know when I'm in the presence of quality by the intellectual/emotional jolt it gives me. Do I stop in my tracks and look, really look, because I've been roused to do so? Do I find I don't know where something is going and yet don't hurry to figure it out, just let it go with me in close pursuit? Am I engaged? Do I care?
ReplyDeleteI think we can judge quality subjectively all day based on our own reactions. That's why I might love a Bunuel film that someone else finds tedious, and they might love the latest Will Smith, which doesn't engage me.
Are there objective views of quality? It's hard to say. Perhaps we all think Shakespeare is great because we've been taught he is and have learned about his plays and poetry. Yet, some people find him on their own and come to the same conclusion. Quality, therefore, has a universal dimension, something that engages the best in us by creating from the best that is human.
Most quality movies lead me to forget that I'm watching a movie. Another key element--a tendency to have the plot go in directions that I didn't foresee. Perhaps the most important thing--a quality movie never ever involves Adam Sandler.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I don't self-identify as such, I tend to be more formalist than a lot of people. I pay a lot more attention to what exists inside the frame, color, lighting, composition, ect. And how they arouse emotion or some sense of the sublime. A quality picture will for me show some kind of mastery of the form, and I'm far less likely to dismiss any movie as "style over substance" if the style is compelling and moving.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, another element that I like in my movies is a clear and interesting point of view, whether I personally agree with it or not. For example, I'm personally religious, but Bunuel's work reveals an absolutely thought-provoking and powerful vision of the world which I would not trade for anything.
I suppose my perfect idea of a "quality" film is one with both a point of view and master of form, indeed one in which both elements compliment and contribute to one another. Directors like Bunuel, Ford, Welles, Godard and many more exemplify this kind of filmmaking.
Marilyn:
ReplyDeleteI think your response hits it out of the park. I have nothing more to really add except for that your comment has given me an "intellectual/emotional jolt" as you put it. I've been stopped in my tracks by the insightful nature of your comment. All of the queries you raise are what I think I would consider elements of how I view Quality in film, art, literature, etc. The I is emphasized because like you mention, this whole idea of Quality is 99% subjective -- I leave the remaining 1% because I have a hard time believing in absolutes.
A year ago on this blog I wrote an amateurish essay about how film makes you feel, and I essentially broached the same topics as you do here in your wonderful comment about how you can enjoy a Bunuel film while the person who thinks that films stinks talks about how brilliant the new Will Smith movie is. I like that example you give.
An objective view of Quality is a lot harder (I would say impossible) to pin down. I like your thoughts on Shakespeare -- but if we go by your definition of Quality at the beginning of your comment I would think we would be hard-pressed to find that everyone agrees that Shakespeare is Quality. He has elements in his work that are to be admired, no doubt, but I don't think everyone would agree that his work stops them in their tracks.
Anyway...Thanks for stopping by and for your wonderfully insightful comment.
FilmDr:
ReplyDeleteI like what you say about the film taking you places you didn't see coming. That is a good indicator of quality in film.
And your Adam Sandler comment makes me laugh (did you not even like him in Punch-Drunk Love?)
Thanks for the great comment.
Krauthammer:
ReplyDeleteOnce again, thanks for stopping by. I love your comments here:
Although I don't self-identify as such, I tend to be more formalist than a lot of people. I pay a lot more attention to what exists inside the frame, color, lighting, composition, ect. And how they arouse emotion or some sense of the sublime. A quality picture will for me show some kind of mastery of the form, and I'm far less likely to dismiss any movie as "style over substance" if the style is compelling and moving.
I like what you say about style over substance. I think too many critics use that as a crutch. I think that if the style is compelling, as you so eloquently state here, that the film is successful at moving me and making me think beyond the frame.
I also love the elements you talk about with the idea the a film has to have multiple elements working for it. I agree with you the film has to have a point of view -- I look at this as the narrative needing to involve me, somehow piquing my interest. My criteria for a truly brilliant film is that it must be both aesthetically pleasing and have a narrative that moves me.
I like the list of filmmakers you give at the end. And thanks again for stopping by and supplying such a great contribution to this discussion.
Although I don't self-identify as such, I tend to be more formalist than a lot of people. I pay a lot more attention to what exists inside the frame, color, lighting, composition, ect. And how they arouse emotion or some sense of the sublime...
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, another element that I like in my movies is a clear and interesting point of view, whether I personally agree with it or not.
This is beautifully said, Kevin, and perfectly sums up how I feel about quality in films. It seems obvious to say, but so many people ignore form that it probably needs to be repeated: in the best films, form and content are intertwined, working together to express ideas and explore emotions. And of course, that's a purely subjective judgment, since what I see as a sublime form/content union others might dismiss as trash. I'm not sure that there's much, if any, objective standardization when it comes to judging art -- there are too many different factors to consider, and how people arrive at their judgments of a film depend on what they choose to emphasize. Even if we could come up with some objective standards for judging, say, acting or image composition (and even this, I think, is doubtful) that wouldn't mean we'd all be looking at the same criteria with the same weights when reaching our overall judgments.
Also, FilmDr said: Most quality movies lead me to forget that I'm watching a movie.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that should be a criterion for quality at all. In fact, following Kevin, I'm almost tempted to suggest the opposite. I don't want to forget I'm watching a movie: I want to engage with what I'm watching as a movie. This speaks to my own ideas about narrative in film and other arts. I appreciate a good story, of course, but I'm not necessarily looking for immersion in the plot when I'm watching a movie. There are movies I love where the plot makes no sense, or where there's very little plot, and very little in general of the kinds of things that tend to make one "forget" you're watching a movie.
Ed:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind words, but credit must be given to commenter Krauthammer for those comments. I simply piggy-backed off of his great thoughts and made a similar statement in that I believe every great film (or Quality film) needs to be both aesthetically pleasing and contain an interesting narrative where I actually care about what's going on.
I agree with you that there doesn't seem to be much "objective standardization", as you put it, when it comes to judging the arts. Too many people, and in no way is this their fault, bring their own personal histories to a piece of art -- even if those interpretations don't necessarily work.
It seems obvious to say, but so many people ignore form that it probably needs to be repeated: in the best films, form and content are intertwined, working together to express ideas and explore emotions.
I agree. This is why I think film should be taught as an English course in high school. There's no denying the power of film, and the high school kids spend a lot of their free time at the multiplex, so why not teach them a Form and Meaning in Film type of class and at least get them thinking about how intentional it is that what they're seeing on screen is organized and filmed a certain way for a reason.
One of the things I've been interested in lately is getting more and more screen caps for my blog posts. This way instead of just sharing my opinions on the film and talking about its meaning, I am forcing my self to look at some scenes shot-by-shot, and really look at what is happening on the screen and how what is happening is contributing to the overall effect of the film.
And I agree with you in regards to FilmDr's comment. I don't necessarily need to feel like I am immersed in a film. I love films like 8 1/2 and Pan's Labyrinth because I am being made aware of the narrative jumping back and forth from reality to dream -- it makes for a different kind of experience that way. I don't know that I would want to be so fully entrenched in Pan's Labyrinth that I took the film as nothing more than a fantasy/parable (which I know some people who initially saw it that way).
I think a lot of what you say sums up how I feel about this question, too. Thanks for stopping by, Ed.
Heavens, Kevin. Such lavish praise! Thank you kindly.
ReplyDeleteAs the great architect Louis Sullivan said and did, "Form follows function." Whatever form a film takes, it must comply with the implied or explicit function the filmmaker assigns it. A film I had trouble with was In the Mood for Love because it seemed content to bask in the beauty of its two stars without giving them what I thought were believable human qualities (others will disagree, this is my own personal opinion). Yet, I believe that Wong form followed his function - he wanted to, I believe, create some of that pre-Raphaelite glory in the the romantic ideals. His was an idealization, an exercise in beauty for its own sake. While I found I couldn't respond to it because its content lacked for me, I think it perfectly defines what Ed nad you, Kevin, have said.
Marilyn:
ReplyDeleteI felt the same way about the Wong film. After awhile it became a film I only admired because of its aesthetic beauty. The narrative began to wear on me after while and I just found myself not fully invested...but I soaked in the visual look of the film, which was still enough for the film to remain a memorable one from that year.
A lot of people feel that way about a director I love, Michael Mann. So, again, we come to the whole subjective view thing, because I know plenty of people who think the only think Mann does well is as you say: "an exercise in beauty for its own sake." Great way of stating it.
And I like that quote from the Sullivan. Good stuff.
Well, I don't know about Mann. Manhunter is anything but beauty for its own sake, for example. He's a very purposeful director, IMO.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you. I would claim that he's an obsessively purposeful director. It's kind of what we were talking about over at Ed's blog in regards Black Book...Verhoeven and Mann make deep films in genres where people aren't used to anything except for surface without depth. So I think Mann (and Verhoeven) get wrongly labeled "heavily-stylized" directors, or directors who are "all style and no substance", just because they work within a genre where people aren't used to seeing such deep explications.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't that seem contradictory? How can a deep director be considered nonsubstantive? I think it's a resistance on viewers' part to learn anything from genres that aren't supposed to engage their brains - it's like blaming the victim. I think, in particular, the huge prejudice against woman's films/melodrama hurt Black Book. I think Sirk is revered in that genre because he makes fun of it.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny you bring up Mann -- I'm deep in the middle of my next conversation with Jason Bellamy, all about Mann's oeuvre, and we address a lot of these issues about the function of style in Mann's films. I won't get into it too much here, but while I sometimes agree with those Mann detractors who see his films as a triumph of style over substance, in his best work every gesture, every image, counts in a big way. He says a lot through style.
ReplyDeleteSo does Verhoeven, as well as other supposed "style over substance" directors like Wes Anderson, Kieslowski, Preminger, etc. I do think it's true that some are reluctant to see very stylish, flashy movies as also having deeper meanings and resonances. This overlooks the possibility that style is more than just pretty images to look at: it's the editing, the framing, what the images have to say about the film's characters and themes. More often than not, at least in good films, style creates substance; style expresses substance.
I think it's a resistance on viewers' part to learn anything from genres that aren't supposed to engage their brains - it's like blaming the victim.
ReplyDeleteYup. Great point, there. I think this also gets to the heart of one of my least favorite sayings from the casual moviegoer (a lot of my friends fall into this category -- so I'm not attacking here, just scratching my head) which is: "I just want to be entertained."
Well...since when did using your brian become synonymous with a film not being entertaining. My favorite film is 8 1/2 a highly intellectual film, for sure, but it's also extremely entertaining. I don't see why there must be a dichotomy here...but you're right, Marilyn, there seems to be a general feeling out there that audiences thing that action films or comedies or whatever genre can't be "deep" and be "entertaining" at once.
I think, in particular, the huge prejudice against woman's films/melodrama hurt Black Book. I think Sirk is revered in that genre because he makes fun of it.
I couldn't agree more...melodrama is one of the most misunderstood subgenres there is. I think more than anything melodrama makes people uncomfortable because they are either used to it being over-the-top (I guess it is by nature) or parodied to the extent were audiences can't take melodrama seriously anymore. Everything has turned, it seems, into a snarky exercise or outright parody in regards to genre films...
I don't know...does that make sense? I felt I like I rushed my thoughts there as I'm getting ready to head out the door -- but I wanted to respond quickly to your great comment here. I know there's more I want to say...
Although his ouevre isn't full of unqualified successes, I believe that Brian De Palma falls into this category as well.
ReplyDeleteEd:
ReplyDeleteI have to run...but I will jump in with some thoughts in a couple of hours.
I understand what you're saying. Have fun wherever you're going, Kev.
ReplyDeleteEd:
ReplyDeleteI really look forward to that installment of The Conversations...all of which have been nothing short of brilliant. Mann has always been one of my favorite filmmakers, and I sometimes feel like I'm just shouting at the sky when I talk with friends about how brilliant and misunderstood I think he is...but I certainly understand those who dislike his work...he's a very polarizing artist.
I won't get into it too much here, but while I sometimes agree with those Mann detractors who see his films as a triumph of style over substance, in his best work every gesture, every image, counts in a big way. He says a lot through style.
Yes yes yes. Especially the end of The Last of the Mohicans, or pretty much any scene from Manhunter. Every movement seems relevant, and the surroundings of the characters speak deeply to what their conflict (either exterior or inner) is. I can't wait to see what you and Jason say about Mann.
I think your brilliant statement here sums it all up: More often than not, at least in good films, style creates substance; style expresses substance.
What a wonderful way of saying it. Especially apt since ever since the beginning of the month I've been thinking about Mann's Public Enemies and how its style works for it...it's not the distraction that I think so me of the films detractors claim it to be.
I think you can add David Gordon Green to that list, too.
Marilyn:
ReplyDeleteGood -- sometimes I feel like my jumbled thoughts make sense only to me, hehe. I did indeed have as much fun as someone can have standing in line at the state courthouse. However, the reason I was there was to get the 'ol marriage license with my fiance...so even though waiting in long lines at state buildings is no way I want to spend my afternoons, it was most definitely worth it.
Thanks again for such great contributions here (you and Ed have made this an even more enriched conversation, and have me thinking that I should do these questions of the day more often, hehe). Your statement about Brian DePalma, a filmmaker I've always struggled with, has me thinking about shaping today's question around him. I hope to see ya around for that one.
Congrats on the coming nuptials!
ReplyDeleteDe Palma is a favorite of mine, but mainly because I love his exuberance. He's a very bright and talented guy with ADD. When he wants to try something in a film, he just does it. The parts don't always add up, but you can always tell he's having a hell of a lot of fun - and that's infectious.
Thanks for the congrats Marilyn!
ReplyDeleteYes, DePalma has his moments -- but I often struggle with whether or not he relies too heavily on his "the camera lies 24 frames a second" crutch...artful homage or just a lazy aper? This is often the battle I have in my brain when I watch a DePalma film. His artistic sensibilities usually win out, but I don't think he's on the Mt. Rushmore of American auteurs like some do.