I entirely object to this trend in popular film discourse where there’s this objective, correct way to tell and pace a story, or that being able to please as many people as broadly as possible is what gives any film its value. There’s always this invocation of Basic Storytelling Conventions™ as a gauge of something’s “objective” success, and while there’s truth to a lot of techniques under that umbrella, media is still wholly subjective. The fake-concession of opinions with the classic “Well you have to admit…” makes me want to die.
What’s really happening is that we can always point to something we have liked or preferred, and compare, but we also have to recognize that those preferences aren’t a universal standard. They can’t be, when we haven’t seen or experienced every piece of media in and out of our comfort zones. Because a lot of the time one film will work for completely different reasons than another. Sure, like I’ve mentioned, there is overlap across many films’ endearing qualities and effective techniques, but that pervasiveness isn’t proof of their required inclusion across all media. You’ll probably find all our Personal Rubrics are different.
The faux-academicism that then comes from pointing at Campbell’s Hero’s Journey or other Basic Storytelling Conventions™ is fascinating to me, because whether or not some realize it, it doubles down in demonstrating willful ignorance. We learn these very specifically in the earliest parts of academia - “basic” in that they’re guides meant for students dipping their toes into analysis and writing for the first time. It’s a useful framework that teaches us how to break down a story, not necessarily a concrete one that should be reused eternally. Much less used to validate judgements or justify “objectivity” in emotional responses. They’re meant to be broken once you’re comfortable enough to do so, when you’ve found a voice.
So when The Last Jedi does something you don’t quite appreciate or enjoy, that’s totally fine. I enjoy reading people like Nev’s breakdowns of why TLJ didn’t land for certain audiences, or had pieces that didn’t entirely function for them as intended. Why some ideologically disagree with TLJ’s message. Analysis and discourse works to verbalize our subjective understandings and interpretations of the work.
I just can’t abide how much film discourse, on reddit or otherwise, has manifested this culture where we don’t engage like that anymore. Instead of trying to find a personal understanding within our opinion of a film, so many people seek to prove Why It Wasn’t Good. Or Why It Was. And not that those can’t be healthy discussions - exchanging different feelings - but it never is that. People simply aren’t engaging with the work. It’s always some other bullshit scapegoat, political or public, than within the work itself. “RJ is a pretentious hack” “KK is forcing feminism” “Subvert Expectations” “Here’s What I Would Have Done”. With a dash of whichever Basic Storytelling Convention™ of the week works in the argument’s favor.
“Let’s agree to disagree” should be the default implicit assumption to the I Like vs I Don’t discussions, not the end of one. And unless it is about the production of a film, discussions should be grounded in our personal engagement with it.