You're Reading...
Film Essays

The Myth of Objectivity or: Why I Hate Fight Club

Many critics view objectivity as the highest value in film criticism, and until recently, I was among them. For most film theorists, enthusiasts, and critics, objectivity represented a standard of how to evaluate and assess film, meticulously trying to find a universal truth hidden within the celluloid that reveals whether the film is one of two adjectives: good or bad. Yay or nay, thumbs up or thumbs down. Though we have deviated from this dichotomous view of the world of cinema towards a more spectral theory, these two poles still remain: good or bad. And we feel as film lovers that our objective approach towards criticism will instill the film with importance, merit, and fortune.

Then why do I hate Fight Club? I am a lover of film. I try to approach each film objectively, independent of every other film to assess its merit. I even maintain an affinity for dark and psychedelic thrillers. Among the general public and critics alike, Fight Club is nearly universally touted as one of the greatest films of the 1990’s.Taking all of these things into account, it would be a reasonable assumption that I would at least like Fight Club. Then why do I not? Why have I regarded Fight Club as one of the most overrated and deplorable films in cinematic history, if the consensus of not only the general public but also that of film critics is that Fight Club is an exemplary and exceptional masterpiece? The answer is subjectivity.

I can tell you why I hate Fight Club. My mother is schizophrenic. I grew up living the life that is purported to exist within Fight Club. Because of this, I feel that the film is not an accurate portrayal of someone with schizophrenia or any legitimate mental illness. I thought it reinforced the negative and flawed public opinion of what schizophrenia is, and therefore I hated it. I love my mother, and my mother is quite loving in return, not at all the violent schizophrenic of Tyler Durden. Some would say that I misinterpreted the film and that I should view it again without this bias. I have tried. But the emotions connected to the first viewing are still present on each subsequent viewing. The same is true for films like A Beautiful Mind. The inverse is true for me as well– I particularly loved The House of Sand and Fog because it presented an accurate portrayal of Unipolar Depression. My knowledge of psychology has both destroyed and enhanced my viewing of films. This is my subjective reality, and I cannot change it.

Film critics grasp at the myth of objectivity, where it may not exist in the world at all. Taking subjectivity into account is important, perhaps vital. The general public knows this, but the feminist philosopher Lorraine Code particularly espoused this endeavor in her article “Taking Subjectivity into Account”. In it, she asserts that we cannot have justified true beliefs about anything, particularly a person, until we examine the subjective and objective reality. For film, the objective reality is simple: it is a moving picture. Beyond that, there may be very little that can be considered universal. We can approach universality with films like Fight Club or The House of Sand and Fog, but ultimately we each bring a unique perspective to each viewing of each film we see. And that is a good thing.

Prepare yourself for more than your fair share of discussions of subjectivity, because within the next few weeks, I will be posting a number of articles about my subjective experience of film.

Guy Stridsigne  3/1/12


29 thoughts on “The Myth of Objectivity or: Why I Hate Fight Club

  1. Very good point. Criticism is always subjective, as spirituality is always personal. We may strive to be objective as critics, but we’ll never attain that goal. Much like your mother, I have a physical problem that affects my viewing of films. The film for me that I hate that most other people/critics like is “There’s Something About Mary”- for the life of me I can’t get past the comtempt that the Farrelly’s show towards the handicapped (I’m older- I’m allowed to use that word instead of physically challenged.) Again, a really good point made. Thanks for the confirmation of my own viewpoint.

    Posted by Karl Kaefer | March 1, 2012, 11:31 am
  2. Thanks to Courtney Bluebird of Bluebird Blvd for this great link:


    Posted by VideoWordMadeFlesh | March 1, 2012, 12:00 pm
  3. Critics practiced in broadsheet journalism might tend to cloak their opinions in a veneer of objectivity in terms of writing, but never in my career have I been held to some imaginary standard of “objectivity” when reviewing a film or any other work of art, which is, of course, an inherently subjective endeavour (Note that we’re not speaking of the so-called “objectivity of film” as a medium, which is something else entirely). Is the “myth of objectivity” in film criticism a real debate outside of academia? No.

    I share your loathing of “Fight Club,” and for some of the same reasons. I’m continually distressed by the monstrous and inccurate portrayals of mental illness in film, which are generally the product of taboo-based fears and misunderstandings, and ALWAYS the product of shitty writing. But mostly I think “Fight Club” is a ridiculously overrated POS, heh.

    Posted by Phillip Lozano | March 1, 2012, 12:02 pm
    • I disagree. Maybe because I was taught more in the philosophical tradition of criticism versus the art history tradition of criticism, I was taught that objectivity is a benchmark to which all critics should strive. And I agree, it is not a debate outside of academia. Most outside the world of academia would not know what subjectivity and objectivity is.


      Posted by VideoWordMadeFlesh | March 1, 2012, 12:18 pm
      • The concept of objectivity in film criticism was intoduced by the same folks who created “film theory” out of whole cloth in the 1960s, many of whom who came out of other fields, such as sociology and political science. It has everything to do with the imposition of values intrinsically foriegn to the art form, and nothing to do with the actual practice of film criticism and journalism – not in the working world, anyway.

        Your opening graph could have been stronger without implying that the idea of the “myth” is a genuine conundrum rather than a simple reality. Your main point – the outrageously inaccurate depiction of mental illness in film – is the real meat, and I’m eager to see you explore in more depth.

        Posted by Phillip Lozano | March 1, 2012, 12:47 pm
      • This was a very personal essay for me. My first paragraph was actually my viewpoint before around January. I knew that subjectivity was important in considering film, but until recently, I thought it was an uninteresting value. the article was to show my evolution.


        Posted by VideoWordMadeFlesh | March 1, 2012, 3:08 pm
  4. I abandoned objectivity in criticism long ago in favor of trying to write evocatively about the work. We all bring our own preferences to everything we take in, and to try and dismiss then is kind of foolish. You don’t have to like “Fight Club.” I personally hate the film “Amelie” and have taken loads of shit for it over the years, but I don’t feel i was wrong in my assessment of it.

    Posted by Cory Strand | March 1, 2012, 12:40 pm
  5. Let’s look at two of the most famous film critics of the last 30-40 years. Roger Ebert began his career writing scripts for the king of exploitation, Russ Meyers. Do you think it a coincidence that Ebert’s reviews were more kind to genre films than his two esteemed partners, Gene Siskel and Richard Roeper? He crowned “Dark City” as the best film of 1998,

    And Pauline Kael? The last thing you can say about her is that she was objective. Her continually championed such filmmakers as Robert Altman and Peter Bogdanovich even when they made sub-par films.

    As people who look at film critically, we all should use both objective and subjective criteria. That mixture of the two makes both us and our viewpoints unique.

    Posted by Karl Kaefer | March 1, 2012, 3:57 pm
    • I completely agree Karl. Thank you so much for your comments!


      Posted by VideoWordMadeFlesh | March 1, 2012, 5:23 pm
    • What “objective” criteria should be used?

      Posted by Phillip Lozano | March 1, 2012, 10:47 pm
      • Objective criteria would include critical textbook examples of cinematography, screenwriting technique, shot selction, musical scoring, acting, et cetera. However, if you, like me, have specific favorite directors or films, thye connect with you personally, for one or another reasons.

        Therefore I can say with certainly that I do not care for Spielberg’s films- take for example “Saving Private Ryan”- I have reasons for that which I will not go into here- however I can say with certainty that the actions scenes were staged magnificently, and that the cinematography wwas excellent. In those two statements I’m being objective. BUT I still don’t like the film, and even the action scenes seem manufactured to get a specific reaction from you, the viewer. In that statement I’m being subjective.

        Does this make sense to you? Any further clarification needed?

        Posted by Karl Kaefer | March 2, 2012, 5:01 pm
    • “Objective criteria would include critical textbook examples of cinematography, screenwriting technique, shot selction, musical scoring, acting, et cetera.”

      Okay, one can agree a certain level of technical skill can be held more or less to an objective standard, but that’s a measure of mere competence. A film can be technically dazzling – ala “Avatar” – and still be a hollow and empty experience for many.

      Where is the demarcation line in cinematography between, say, a film that is “adquately” lit and framed, and a film whose imagery conveys a sublimity beyond words? Please show me an truly objective scale of measurement concerning quality writing, acting or directing in American cinema, if you have one – it would make my job a hell of a lot easier.

      Posted by Phillip Lozano | March 5, 2012, 3:08 pm
      • OK, let’s look at Hugo and Tree of Life, both nominated for the Academy Award in cinematography. Hugo won the award, and the 3D work is incredible, the camera movement fluid, and the shot selection excellent. This was more than a measure of competency, Robert Richardson deserved the award, didn’t he?

        If I were to give an objective description of my own “Subjective” viewpoint, it would be this. I want to see something I haven’t seen before. I want the pictures in a film to wash over me, to make me emotionally involved in the film. If I use the above statement as by “objective” viewpoint, then The Tree of Life’s cinematogrphaer Emmanuel Luzbeki did moer than just “competency” or even “excellent”. Luzbeki’s images transported me to the sublime, and touched my soul in such a way that it has never been touched before.

        For all of Richardson’s excellent camera work on “Hugo”, I saw only the technique. It was the story itself and Sir Ben Kngsley’s portrayal of Melies that touched my soul. (And also my love of silent fantastical film, but that’s another story). I’m not dismissing Robertson’s work here, but it was not integral to my emotional response to the film.

        However, Luzbecki’s cincematography was integral to my emotional response, and that would be the objective reasoning behind preferring Luzbecki’s work to Richardson’s.

        Our emotional response to film is what makes us human. For whatever reason, whether we view it as right or wrong, the emotions make us unique. Think about it…if we were to review films just with objectivity, we would have no emotions at all. And pschological studies call those people sociopaths. Do we REALLY want to become that when we review film. I certainly don’t! 🙂

        Posted by Karl Kaefer | March 7, 2012, 12:31 pm
      • BTW….I must give credit to my writing partner Kerra8 for the last few sentences about psychology & sociopaths. We were talking about this thread and she came up with those comments and liberally borrowed them (OK…stole them! :)) Sorry Kerra!

        Posted by Karl Kaefer | March 7, 2012, 2:33 pm
  6. You say:
    “I can tell you why I hate Fight Club. My mother is schizophrenic. I grew up living the life that is purported to exist within Fight Club. Because of this, I feel that the film is not an accurate portrayal of someone with schizophrenia or any legitimate mental illness. I thought it reinforced the negative and flawed public opinion of what schizophrenia is, and therefore I hated it.”

    But this is an entirely unfair and inaccurate angle to take for your criticism (however “subjective”). The film wasn’t TRYING to “accurately portray schizophrenia”, nor was it trying to show what “life was like living with mental illness” — it wasn’t a biography or documentary. It was a work of FICTION (Chuck Palahniuk), and a good one at that –and given it’s edgy, aggressive nature, I’d say something even bordering more on Pulp fiction or thriller or sci-fi or fantasy, even. It is HARDLY any kind of traditional bio-piece (like, say, a Beautiful Mind).

    In fact I’d say the main character’s mental state is hardly even important!! — it’s little more than an almost-irrelevant plot device, at least when compared to the larger over-arching themes and messages which dominate the movie: the individual vs. society
    authenticity vs. conformity
    freedom vs. matrialism
    independence vs. dependence
    liberty vs. submission
    anarchy (freedom) vs. (obedience to) the state
    raw, natural male prowess vs. effeminate pretense.

    Perhaps it’s that LAST one that strikes a nerve with you — the whole “male empowerment” aspect? (indicated in this quote):

    “Man, I see in Fight Club the strongest and smartest men who’ve ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see it squandered. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables – slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don’t need. We’re the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our great war is a spiritual war. Our great depression is our lives. We’ve all been raised on television to believe that one day we’d all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars, but we won’t. We’re slowly learning that fact. And we’re very, very pissed off.

    Besides all this, the character of Tyler Durden would clearly be diagnosed with what is known as “Dissociative Identity Disorder” (by criteria in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)…this was formerly known by the term “multiple personality disorder”.

    Except for some overlap of symptoms/criterion, it really has little connection to TRUE schizophrenia. The notion that schizophrenia means “multiple personalities” is just an overly-simplistic stereotype and falsehood that’s widely repeated and perpetuated by misinformed individuals and the mainstream media. Those who truly live and/or work with individuals with schizophrenia KNOW that it doesn’t mean “Sybil”, it doesn’t equate to separate and distinct personalities manifesting themselves. You attest to this fact yourself by saying the movie is such an inaccurate representation — well OF COURSE IT IS! It’s not TRYING to impart any lesson or experience aabout mental illness, unless you talk of the kind of mental illness one must suffer to uttlerly blind, obedient and compliant in a sick society. As Krishnamurti said: “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” and i think that was part of the point of the movie, too.

    Anyway, you can justify not liking “Fight Club” by claiming your entitlement to subjectivity — that’s fine. But to criticize the movie for how it depicts mental illness is just ludicrous, because it totally misses the intent and message and actual CONTENT of the movie. Of course, this is all me being subjective. But subjective or not, “good movies” always share certain quantifiable characteristics (not neccesarily the same as “objective”, but certainly EVIDENT to many viewers, even with varying degrees of astuteness).

    Posted by Jack | March 1, 2012, 4:06 pm
    • You see, and the fact that it is somewhat DID is another problem that I have with the film. It wasn’t trying to portray schizophrenia accurately, and because it didn’t portray schizophrenia or DID accurately, or any other legitimate mental illness, it simultaneously portrayed someone obviously living with a mental illness. And because of that, I could not bring myself to like it in the least.

      You also bring up another problem that I had with the film. It’s sexist and homophobic. I don’t believe that this film should be praised for espousing “raw natural male prowess vs effeminate pretense.” As a gay male, the film was telling me that the only appropriate manner for a male to act is in this carnal manner. And I would say the film was trying diligently to make a case that masculinity is better than femininity, and you are praising the film for such.


      Posted by VideoWordMadeFlesh | March 1, 2012, 5:22 pm
    • “It was a work of FICTION”

      As we are all aware. But good fiction has a backbone of versimilitude and does not insult the intelligence of the reader/viewer. The excuse “It’s fiction” is the shallowest argument for bad writing that ever existed.

      “to criticize the movie for how it depicts mental illness is just ludicrous, because it totally misses the intent and message and actual CONTENT of the movie.”

      No, it isn’t, and no it doesn’t.

      Posted by Phillip Lozano | March 1, 2012, 10:53 pm
  7. Yes, fiction, I agree with Jack.

    First and foremost a film, like any good story must be true to itself. Fiction serves many purposes and never ever tries to be true to life, for how can it be? Characters are only symbols of certain aspects of personality by which the author uses to tell a particular story. Every scene is manipulated to evoke a particular emotions from the audience. Color or lack thereof, music, tone, quality, popular or classic, it all blends to reveal the story intent of the author. It is arrogance on audience member’s part to assume the film, any fiction film, is trying to depict any certain thing about our real lives as “real.” That is not the function of fiction.

    Fiction is the vehicle of an idea or set of ideas in which a very focused and minimal story is told. Fiction’s function is to bring the microscopic eye to an idea so that the audience may ponder, in its own subjective way, what has been presented.To think otherwise is to distort the art of story-telling.

    Personaly I have never viewed Fight Club as a story about schizophrenia, but that is just me, not you Guy, and A Beautiful Mind was more a story about a particular person and not about the mental “illness.” When these films touch our lives in a particularly personal way it is because the author of the story has hit upon some sort of universal emotion in which you, as that particular audience member, can identify with, and perhaps gain insight. Nowhere is it written that an author must depict anything, a mental illness, a wedding, the birth of a baby, the daily sunrise, as it really happens in our every day lives. Boring. Nothing can be learned and we waste our time.

    Some of you need to spend a little time reading some good literature and then you may understand what story is truly all about. M. Knight Shyamalan said it best in his wonderful film Lady in the Water, but hey, most critics and the average audience member missed the point there too.

    Posted by Kerra8 | March 2, 2012, 12:17 am
    • First: I loved Lady in the Water and thought it was a magnificent story. Subjective reality there.

      Second: I do read literature. So do my colleagues. I am going to leave it at that.

      Third: One can learn something from an accurate portrayal. Documentaries teach us such things. So can fiction. The fact that there exist so few accurate portrayals of mental illness in film IS a problem. Just like there is a problem that there so few roles for people of African descent exist is a problem, or an inaccurate portrayal of a person can be a problem.

      Fourth: “But that is me, not you Guy” – That is the point of my post.

      Fifth: The problem with portraying a mental illness in film is that film-makers often either demonize or romanticize mental illness.

      Finally, thank you so much for this discussion.


      Posted by VideoWordMadeFlesh | March 2, 2012, 12:39 am
      • Oh I so agree with you Guy… subjective and fiction, they are in a relationship. And you are welcome… I also love to discuss, this issue is near and dear to my life.

        However, I say you should take a cue from the great Daniella Steele, famous and filthy rich author of romantic fiction (no, I do not read her work) once said: “I can’t abide what I read. Its just not what I want, so I went out and wrote what I wanted.”

        My point: no author is bound by anything at all to make their story accurate for you. If that is what you want then you go create it. This is my biggest problem with those that criticize artist. Artist create what the see within the mind’s eye to give us an insight into something they see (operative phrase here is, what THEY see). No one’s vision is the same as anyone else’s and if you want accuratcy in the disciplin of mental health then please ask the psychologists to come to some sort of agreement on mental illness. Heck, they’ve been postulating for quite a while now.

        Seriously, how can you criticize a film like Fight Club on its accuracy of the prtrayal of schizophrenia? I lived with a person with this diagnosis and never once tried to equate this film with the experience of this person’s hallucinations or experience in the real world.

        By the way, I teach literature and writing. I am no expert but in my ten years of teaching and 25 years of study the one thing I do know and stand by, an artist cannot be held to any ‘one’ person’s idea of the thing called life. Their work would be inauthentic. The artist must produce what is in their heart, soul, and mind. It is for the audience to find value or no value, take it to heart or dismiss it, but never to recreate it.

        Posted by Kerra8 | March 2, 2012, 7:50 am
      • “The artist must produce what is in their heart, soul, and mind. It is for the audience to find value or no value, take it to heart or dismiss it, but never to recreate it.”

        I agree with you.

        My post was not intended to be incendiary, it was a very personal essay about how the film effected me. The first time I viewed it, I regarded it as an interpretation of a mental illness, namely schizophrenia mixed with dissociative identity disorder. Because of the experience of living with someone with the diagnosis, it upset me. There were other things that upset me about the film as well, but this completely ruined the first viewing for me. I have tried watching it with a different perspective, but that proved impossible, because this IS my perspective. I am not criticizing the film as much as I am criticizing myself, if that makes sense. I recently learned that I cannot be as objective as I want to be. I bring my experiences, my knowledge, and myself to every viewing. And this effects the viewing each time. I try to leave it at the door, but my subjective reality creeps into every viewing. My essay was about how I had viewed film criticism, and I used Fight Club as an example.


        Posted by VideoWordMadeFlesh | March 2, 2012, 10:03 am
      • Again, I do understand that your emotions on the subject keep you from being objective, and of course, it is not the intent of an author of such a film for the audience to remain objective. How could anyone? The material is meant to upset.

        Personally I have a hard time with many Cronenberg films that depict violence against women. I understand where the filmmaker is coming from and his point of view, but I cannot watch Dead Ringers without an incredibly harsh emotional reaction. Same with rape scenes. Since I have experienced first hand with the violence of this act it is hard for me to watch it in my entertainment. I wonder about the filmmaker’s decisions and point of view.

        Fight Club in my humble opinion is a very well made film that tells a singular story. I do not view it often, nor as a source of entertainment, but I do probably watch once every 15 months give or take a month here and there. Why? As a writer, as a creative person, I enjoy the literary devices used and minupulated to tell the story. Sometimes I need a cathartic release and I find this film fills that need. I do not recommend it to everyone, and I can see how this film would negatively impact a person such as yourself with the background and experiences of your life.

        I thought as I read this thread the criticism was leveled at the author and filmmaker for creating this film. My apologies if I misinterpreted what I read.

        Posted by Kerra8 | March 2, 2012, 1:36 pm
  8. Guy,
    I don’t think the film was telling us “this is the only appropriate way for males to act…”, nor do I think it was making a case that “masculinity is better than femininity.”

    However, I DO think it was telling us that many of the most basic, traditional male qualities which have historically (and perhaps “naturally”) been valued and empowering to men: boldness, strength, aggression, leadership, spontanaiety, physicality, competition, creativity, non-comformity, independence, etc. have been stifled and LOST in modern society, tamped down and suppressed and replaced by blind materialism and consumerism, superficiality, the pretense of “order”, appearance and “civility” , and yes, even by some traditionally feminine virtues. This is not to say that feminine virtues/charcateristics are “bad”, but (the film would argue), the loss of certain essential masculine characteristics certainly is/has been.

    In this sense, the movie is more about our modern society’s inauthenticity, the damage that has been done to us (yes, men especially) by allowing such a suppression of our potential, something otherwise achieved via our innate masculine nature. It suggests our modern society imposes a set of priorities that just don’t jive with our inner reality, or with our (men’s) best attributes.

    Obviously, this message will resonate more with some than with others. No, it’s not a sensitive, inclusive, “PC”, “we are the world” sort of message, but that’s kind of the whole point (and frankly, a big part of the appeal). In a society pervaded by messages and mandates of cooperation, conformity, tolerance, safety, appearance and style over substance, the “common good”, and so on, it is easy for many viewers to identify with the fiercely irreverent and rebellious themes. They can easily connect with the idea of the rebel, the loner, the misfit, the stifled outsider fed up with the trappings, pretense, and screwy priorities of a sick, sanitized, superficial society.

    I can easily see a “feminine” version of this movie (Eat, Pray, Love? Thelma & Louise? Girl, Interrupted? or whatever) that explores the same themes and frustrations, but from the female perspective…would you suggest THAT movie is saying, “this is the only way women should behave”…or that it was “sexist” (anti-male) or heterophobic movie?

    Again–all this through the lens of my OWN subjectivity, as I know your thoughts are through yours. We are all bound by the limitations of our persepctive, so no one denies (or can rightly deny) anyone else’s right to opine on a work of art — “I liked it”, “I didn’t like it”, whatever — because art/literature/drama may move us all differently (if at all).

    But I do think it’s fair to take some issue with the reasons given for that opinion when they are just inaccurate or unfair…for example, not liking the film because it “doesn’t accurately depict mental illness” or because it says “this is the only way men can behave” is just an inappropriate measure. It’d be like a fine wine connoisseur saying a Guiness is the worst wine he’s ever tasted, or a restaurant critic condemning a a steak joint for having lousy seafood.
    Finally, a little context always helps…as a huge fan of Chuck Palahniuk and having read most of his books, I can tell you, while his style and story-telling is unmistakably his (with notes of Vonnegut, Bret Easton Ellis, and Amy Hempel), his ability to write from varied persepctives (chubby 13 year old girls in hell and disfigured fashion models, to name a couple) is pretty extensive and impressive.

    Consider the fact that he– being a GAY MAN — even has people offended by the “homophobia” and “sexism” in his works. 😉

    Posted by Jack | March 2, 2012, 1:42 pm
  9. To all who have replied to Guy’s post: All of these opinions have merit, however, let’s not forget the original intent of Guy’s post, which was simply this: Films cannot be viewed and critical opinion cannot exist without being somewhat subjective.

    By living with his mother, who has schizophrenia, this has impacted his critical view on this particular film “Fight Club”. I have CP, and this has impacted my view of life in general and specific films. Kerra8 has difficulty with depictions of rape in film, as well she should. Are any of us God-like enough to be able to judge anything objectively without seeing it through of prism of our own lifes? I humbly offer the opinion that the answer is an emphatic NO.

    This post isn’t about Fight Club, whether or not the film has artistic merit, or social implications. It’s about us…you and me and everyone who makes a critical opinion, a judgement….whether it be about film, the person next to us, or how much our job sucks. Any judgement we make, no matter how hard we try to be objective, will always have the subjective interspersed with it. And that’s because we’re all human.

    Posted by Karl Kaefer | March 2, 2012, 3:38 pm
  10. I would go even further in stating that everything we do is tinged by our subjective thoughts and the way in which we use subjective judgements as we experience every event in our lives. Viewing a film is no different. Objectivity is something very hard to keep in mind, or place, because we are emotional beings. The reason there blind studies and placebos and control groups is because science must be done with objectivity and science understands how hard it is for individuals to be objective.

    How many of us check our emotions at the theater door when we go see a film? More to the point, why would you? Is it not your subjective life that gives deeper meaning to film?

    I say objectivity in film criticism is hogwash. Just another way to keep the academic strand of film criticism alive and well in the academic world. Film should be judged by the same literary standards as Literature or judged not at all.

    By the way, I do not believe I have ever read a review of Fight Club that claimed to be an objective criticism. Perhaps someone could stear my reading mind to one or two. 🙂

    Posted by Kerra8 | March 2, 2012, 5:37 pm
  11. Thank you all for your discussion! I am very grateful for the debate.


    Posted by VideoWordMadeFlesh | March 3, 2012, 12:32 am


  1. Pingback: Our Sunday Best : Do I Dare Disturb the Universe? (Yes. Yes, I Do.) « Bluebird Blvd. - March 4, 2012

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: