Many people don't seem to make the distinction between what they like better and what is better, which are not the same things at all. It's too easy to indulge oneself by starting at the entirely arbitrary and accidental position of one's taste and extending that into the realm of arguable fact. Consequently, many seem loathe to admit the accidental nature of their likes and dislikes by making things objective: thus Bergman, since I like him more, since he has moved me more, must be doing something better than Antonioni, must indeed be the better filmmaker. That doesn't really follow, does it?colinr0380 wrote:I don't ever want to be made to choose between Bergman or Antonioni as to who was 'better' - it is a ludicrous attempt at ranking diverse and special talents in their own right.
It's true, I do like Bergman more than Antonioni, but I refuse to argue that one is better than the other because I know the variable here is not one or the other filmmaker but myself. I much prefer to argue the merits of a film based on internal aesthetic evidence, not whether it matches up to certain favourites of mine. So I'm careful to make the distinction between what I like and what is aesthetically good because, like colinr0380 says, it's ludicrous to qualitatively rank intense luminaries on the basis that they glow from different substances, or are alight with disparate colours.
There is, however, merit in comparing films that attempt the same kind of things, illuminating the faults of one by its collocation with the strengths of the other.
Actually, I find I like negative criticisms less and less these days because they just end up underlining the various vanities and biases of the critic. The negative criticisms I really enjoy come within positive appraisals because they are less likely to spring from any vanity or falseness and because they render the actual praise more careful and considered.
