In his Critique of Judgment, Kant prolifically and Germanically grapples with the experience of a human consciousness encountering and evaluating aesthetics (beauty, the good, the sublime). His work is concerned with the notion that human beings form “subjective universal” judgments — opinions that seem purely subjective yet are made in the hopes that everyone will agree with them. He thought there was something sufficiently interesting about this seeming paradox that he spilled over 76,000 words on the topic.
In my own personal interplay between emotional and intellectual responses to art, I would describe myself as 60% intellectual and 40% emotional. A work has to engage my brain as well as my eye, but my brain’s opinion wins out. Hence, I “like” a fair amount of ugly, atonal, emotionally-lacking, structural stuff because I can appreciate the idea behind it. However, if a work is mostly “idea” (like a lot of avant-garde or experimental cinema, music, and painting) I don’t like it if it also lacks the emotional impact and connection.
Take, for example, Michael Snow’s 1966 avant-garde “masterpiece,” Wavelength, which mostly consists of a 45-minute long slow zoom from one side of an apartment to the other. On the intellectual level, I can appreciate how the film plays with the audience’s expectations of narrative and foregrounds the control of the camera’s fixed position, blah, blah, blah. But the emotional side of me says: “I want that forty-five minutes of my life back, you pretentious art-house wanker!”
When I sat down to determine my list of Top 25 Movies (see Jim's Top 25 Movies: Intro), I needed some criteria for evaluating which movies should be on the list and how they should be ranked. My intellectual and emotional responses needed to be quantified, but I also realized that, despite my aspirations toward anti-establishmentarianism, I really do care what other people think, so I needed to also factor in whether a particular movie was critically well-received or not. Kant would refer to this as Geschmack, or the community of taste.
I settled on the following formula to determine my list. Each film gets 1-10 points in each category, and the categories themselves are weighted from more to less important.
1. Objectively Good: In my considered and degreed opinion, is this a “good” movie — well made, well-acted, well-written, intellectually challenging and stimulating.
2. Important: In the annals of filmdom, how groundbreaking is this film? Was it critically acclaimed and inspirational? Does it define its genre?
3. Enjoyable: This is the more subjective ranking. Do I actually like watching this movie over and over again? Or is the experience more like working out: I know it’s good for me so I just need to power through it?
First, I note that my personal enjoyment is considered less important than the other two categories. Maybe this says something about how screwed up my brain is and that I really don’t “like myself.” Whatever. Second, I applied these rankings to a list of 50 or so movies, and I was surprised that a number of ones that I really liked fell off the Top 25 list. I agree with the overall results, but am disappointed that I don’t get to write about some of them. Maybe I’ll add an “honorable mentions” category of the end of all this.
So, here are films 25-21 according to my convoluted system.
25. The Man Who Would Be King (1975)
Good: 7
Important: 4
Enjoyable: 7
Sean Connery and Michael Caine deliver incredible performances, and the story (based on a Rudyard Kipling novel) is archetypal and epic. I feel the film drags in the middle, however. It’s also not usually cited as a particularly groundbreaking film — just good, solid storytelling.
24. Fitzcarraldo (1982)
Good: 8
Important: 8
Enjoyable: 3
Werner Herzog’s depiction of a mad entrepreneur’s attempt to drag a steamship over a mountain in the South American jungles is notable for the fact it actually depicts dragging a steamship over a mountain in the South American jungles. But I’d characterize the experience of watching this movie as almost as much work as being there and hoisting the damn boat up the hill. It’s a fascinating movie, but I wouldn’t rush to see it again anytime soon.
23. Road Warrior (1981)
Good: 7
Important: 7
Enjoyable: 6
A pre-bat-shit-insane Mel Gibson plays Max in a post-apocalyptic wasteland where tricked out vehicles rule the roads and gasoline is a cherished commodity that people will kill for. Hmmm, was George Miller trying to say something? Known for its sparse dialog (Gibson has, like, 20 lines in the whole movie) it’s notable for its kinetic storytelling and ruthless action. I find it exhausting to watch and a bit long.
22. My Fair Lady (1964)
Good: 8
Important: 4
Enjoyable: 8
I’m a sucker for musicals and I really love this movie, especially the contrast between the two leads, Henry Higgins and Eliza Doolittle. And, damn, that Audrey Hepburn was a hottie!
21. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Good: 6
Important: 7
Enjoyable: 8
This is one of several movies in which the ending just ruins it for me. How much cooler would it have been if the Nazis opened the Ark and it just had sand in it? And that was it. And then Indy somehow escaped from being tied to a pole, and he kicked everyone’s asses, and shot a bunch of guys, and saved Marion, and stole the Ark … and then it ended up in that big government warehouse. As it is, during the climax of the movie, the hero is tied up and a bunch of special effects save him. WTF? Why does everyone think it’s so cool that this exciting, old-school action picture ends with ghosts melting people’s faces? The first three-quarters of this movie are perfect, though.
