It’s all ultimately a subjective qualitative assessment of art. However, that is not to say there isn’t an objectivity at hand in assessing those elements and cinematography and editing are less nebulous than performance or narrative.MrCarmady wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 6:11 pmIsn't a level of craft also quite subjective, though? I like Baby Driver, as I've said, but I used to think of performances as a technical element of a film, and yet in this thread, there's a plethora of assessments of Hamm, Foxx, Elgort, James, and Spacey in the film which range from good to awful, so clearly that's subjective. And if that's subjective, then why can't an editor's or a cinematographer's work be?
For instance, there’s a Len Kabasinski film (I think Curse of the Wolf) that has an occasional, nonsensical flash of black across the screen. This is objectively known as a ripple and means the editor didn’t know about ripple deletion. This is textbook poor editing. Now one could read intent into it and argue it, such is the nature of subjective discourse, but it would either come off as Armond White levels of contrarian or ignorant of the craft and art behind editing.
They’re all “opinions” but the issue isn’t one of rightness or wrongness at that point but rather informed and uninformed, knowledgeable or ignorant, supported or unsupported.
Due to the aforementioned level of objectivity to assessing craft, it’s often a stronger indicator of quality filmmaking than assessing other elements of film. It’s much easier to “prove” that a film is poorly shot than to “prove” that a film is boring.