Is it possible to be objective about film criticism?

Have ever been 27 happy on a rainy day in Spring?  Were you 72 pumped to buy your first, new car only to be 82 deflated by that steep monthly payment for the next 5 years?  It sounds odd to express feelings and opinions in numbers, especially when you lack a frame of reference but it is common in the world of movie reviews.  Thousands of reviews, based on critics' subjective analysis, are aggregated to form a collective judgment on a movie's overall success.  Score, ranking, letter grades, frowning faces; it's all designed to help you decide whether or not to invest time and money into Hollywood's latest commodity.  As reviews are measured in such wildly different ways, perhaps social science methodology can build common ground.

Audiences and industry-types rely on web-based review aggregators, to "objectively" evaluate movies.  The database of record, IMDB, uses a semi-secret formula based on reviews from at least 25,000 users.  Some of those user reviews, the regulars, receive a weighted value.  Their formula seems to have corrected an inherent flaw in the rating system that prioritized newer releases over time-honored films.  The other gold standard for movie metrics is Rotten Tomatoes. The site uses an averaged scoring system based on at least 5 reviews from professional critics and bloggers to determine if a movie is good (fresh) or bad (rotten).  The recent addition of an audience score lets the average Joe weigh in, which is especially helpful when the pro's contract a nasty case of groupthink; see The Last Jedi.

Such scoring systems are still a bit flawed, especially considering the clout that some professional critics and loyal bases of fan-boys can wield.  Using a more broad-based system that quantifies the review first, then aggregates those more objective scores, represents a more precise measurement.  The reviewer's focus should be on the critical elements of the film. Going through the unnatural process of assigning a number to a feeling or observation can provide valuable insight.  A set of standardized criteria compels the observer to think critically about his or her opinions while providing a more consistent way to express his hot takes to others.

There are certain fundamentals that undergird a film, such as the story, actors' performances, and cinematography, which can predict what will make bank at the box office and scoop up awards.  Social science methodology compels its adherents to hone in on the most basic variables that drive human behavior, choose a statistically significant sample, make several observations of those elements over time, then quantify the results.  Humans engaging in the art of filmmaking is such a behavior worth measuring considering it is an economic force that generates over $10 billion worth of box office sales annually.

Although selecting variables in which to measure is a somewhat subjective process, critics, academics, awards panels, and audiences gravitate towards certain themes and attributes that make a quality film.

There are essentially two broad categories that factor into film analysis: how technically competent is the filmmaking and are there sufficient human and storytelling elements to keep the audience emotionally connected and engaged throughout.  Branching off from the technical category: visual storytelling, editing, acting, and incidentals, such as sound design and visual effects are all aspects of a film that make it enjoyable to watch.  Character development, watchability, the film's message or insight into human nature, and its genre-specific qualities (is the comedy actually funny, is the horror scary, etc.) sum up the human side of the equation and these factors are endearing on both an individual and cultural level.  The stronger the connection or feeling, the more likely someone will overlook technical flaws and come back for a repeat-viewing, which is how a cult movie is born.

The six variables have corresponding sub-variables and provide the basis for a rudimentary scoring system.  The below sub-variables with 2 points should be scored as either 0 - a complete failure to deliver, 1 - the filmmakers did an adequate job in this area, or 2 - the film exhibits good to excellent characteristics.  Sub-variables with 1 point should be considered as a pass or fail score.  Add up the sub-variables to determine the variable score.  The overall score can be then determined with a maximum of 20 points.

Visual Storytelling (6) - showing instead of telling and the essential elements of the story

• Cinematography (2) - the look, feel, and style

• Story structure and concept (2) - story beats, plot and subplot consistency, originality

• Visually-driven action (2) - although a highly subjective variable, most people go to the theater to watch something happen as opposed to listening and reading about things that happen in exposition; in other words, narration and text vs. expression and movement

Acting & Character Development (4) - live wires, dead wood, and learning life's lessons

• Individual performances and actors' chemistry (2) - not only the quality of the acting but also how well do the actors interact; how believable are the relationships shown

• Character quality and arc (2) - how are the characters adapting and reacting to the challenges in the story?  Are the motivations believable and consistent?

Editing (4) - keeping it punchy and moving the story along

• Pacing and flow (2) -  The interval of the story's beats and how scenes tie it all together are like the bass in a band: seldom heard, always felt.  Several minutes of flat dialogue followed by a scene with even more flat dialogue that doesn't advance the story makes 10 minutes feel like an hour.

• Length (2) - Speaking of boring, did it really have to be 150 minutes long?  Scene length and transitions can also affect how well you process information and stay engaged with the characters.  Constant quick cuts and jumpy action can be confusing, nauseating, and almost as annoying as long, drawn-out scenes that fail to deliver a dramatic impact.

Watchability (2)

• Repeat viewing (1) - Some movies are phenomenal works of art but would the average person really watch it over and over again?  How many times can someone watch "There Will Be Blood" and "No Country for Old Men" for instance? They are masterful in their execution of the variables above but there may be a limit to how many times you want to delve into the lives and minds of psychopaths.

• Charm/x-factor (1) - This is probably the most subject sub-variable and most personal for the observer/reviewer. If it's an otherwise terrible movie, why would anyone want to watch it again?  This is that area that often gets defined as a "guilty pleasure." Ok, so the production value was obviously miniscule, and the dialogue was cheesy, but did you see that guy do a flying double kick through the windshield? Charming!

Genre Specific Quality and Message (2) - what's the point of all of this?

• Genre (1) - Is the comedy funny, is the action exciting, is the horror scary?

• Message or theme (1) - How the movie comments or portrays human values, traits, and/or universal truths

Incidentals (2) - the overall production quality, aka the devil's in the details

• Sound and FX (1) - music, sound and visual effects

• Production quality (1) - goofs, sets, costumes, props; basically does it look cheesy and cheap or slick and professional?

There is a hidden or meta variable that can heavily skew one's analysis.  The nostalgia factor can't be easily ignored and it sometimes overrides critical consensus.  The stage of life when you first saw the movie will affect your opinion for years, if not the rest of your life.  Compare your reaction to a movie that you grew up with, fast forward twenty years, then gauge the reaction of a friend who has watched it for the first time.  What? You didn't like "Goonies," I don't even know you anymore.

Along the same vein, is the movie trying to appeal to my nostalgia? This is becoming an increasingly powerful factor in modern re-boot, sequel/prequel, expanded universe cinema.  How and when you viewed the original movie will affect your experience for the new release.  It can either cloud your judgment or make you question why you liked those type of movies in the first place.

With that in mind, "The Last Jedi" was referenced earlier.  Putting it to the test and thinking about the key elements critically, one can start to see why this movie is so polarizing and where critics and the audience diverge.

Visual Storytelling (5/6)

• Cinematography (2) - it looks and feels like a good, if not great, movie. Think of the Resistance cruiser slicing through the First Order flagship at light speed.  Luke fades away in reflective solitude after his final task has been accomplished. Good stuff.

• story structure and concept (1) - The first hit. The structure feels off and it's mostly due to unnecessary sub plots muddying the film's overall story.  Rose and Fin's misadventures and last-minute Rebel coup conspiracies come to mind.

• Visually-driven action (2) - Again, no real problems here. The story generally moves through the characters' actions and emotional development with minimal exposition.

Acting & Character Development (2/4)

• Individual performances and actors' chemistry (1) - All actors involved delivered solid performances although some characters' chemistry worked better than others.  Fin & Rose's relationship and budding affection didn't translate on screen and still seems awkward after another viewing.  On the other hand, Kylo and Rey's developing bond was interesting and complex, which leaves the audience wanting more.

• Character quality (1) - Most can agree that Kylo Ren has the most interesting arc in the new trilogy. The audience is fully invested in him for Episode IX. Can we say the same about Fin or some of the other major characters? What have they really learned or experienced that has significantly changed them and how will they react differently to the new challenges that lie ahead?  Do we care?  Further down the line, did anyone get anything out of Admiral Laura Dern?  The character has become the butt of quite a few jokes among the online commentariat.

Editing (2/4)

• Pacing and flow (1) -  For many, the casino planet subplot was a huge misfire. Other subplots such as the lukewarm drama on the Cruiser's bridge between Admiral Purple Hair (Holo, Hodor, Holdo?), Po, and Leia seemed underdeveloped and failed to build much tension.

• Length (1) - This should have been an even 2 hours at least. As mentioned above, the entire casino planet escapade could have been axed and along with it, the subsequent failed sabotage attempt, which also attempted to close the loop on Captain Phasma. But again, do we really care about her at this point (see previous variable)?

Watchability (1/2)

• Repeat Viewing (1) -  The only reason to revisit the story is to find out if you had missed something the first time.  Beyond basic Star Wars fandom (those new AT-AT walkers looked pretty cool) there is little to motivate multiple viewings but there are enough story elements there to justify a re-watch or two just to tie the trilogy together.

• Charm/x-factor (0) - There isn't much here that is particularly endearing.  One could quibble over Adam Driver's performance and the conclusion of Luke's storyline. Still, much the of the movie just seemed average or expected.

Genre Specific Quality and Message (1/2)

• Genre (1) - Very few would deny that the action was flawlessly executed and the adventure elements were satisfying enough. Star Wars is kind of its own genre, so does it hold up as a successful Star Wars movie? Even those highly critical of the film would agree that it crosses that threshold, barely.

• Message or theme (0) - The force is within us all as long as we close our eyes and truly believe? Something like that? There was a last Jedi but now there is a new one but don't call her a Jedi? All you need is love, da da dadadadahhh. With all of the pointless subplots and underdeveloped relationships among key characters, the overall message gets lost and what's left are a few tired lessons fit for an after school special.

Incidentals (2/2)

• Sound and FX (1) - The CGI and effects were well executed.  John Williams delivered a passable score.  The controversial kamikaze cruiser scene pulled off a risky move in the sound design department, which played out well.

• Production quality (1) - Obviously buckets of money were thrown at this and armies of effects artists, cast, and crew went into crafting Disney's flagship product.

The final score is a mediocre 13/20; a notch above meh.  Based on this methodology and comparing it to reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, it would seem the disparity between critics and the movie-going public lies, not with the more technical and visual aspects of the film, but more with the character dynamics and interpretation of the film's watchability and message.

Critics celebrated the departures from Star Wars canon and applauded the cinematography.  They also tended to focus on the stronger relationships among the main trio of characters: Rey, Kylo, and Luke.  The lay-moviegoer agreed that the polished style, visuals, and action generally aligned with their expectations for how a "good" Star War should look.  They had problems with how it felt.  Several major characters and their arcs, such as Fin, Leia, Po, and Snoke fell a bit flat.  Fans were also split on the movie's interpretation of a more egalitarian force, which departs from both the original trilogy and the prequels.

The nostalgia meta variable likely swayed audiences but most of the discussion and fan-fueled controversy centered around the film's fundamentals.  Weighing how the movie felt vs. how it looked is the wedge separating the two camps: professional critics and fun-loving fans vs. the negative nostalgia-driven nellies and those expecting more from the second string characters.

Regardless of the scoring rubric and arguing over the finer points, the purpose of this analytical exercise is to re-focus movie-watching enthusiasts on the basics and provide a more universal frame of reference.  Social science methodology can provide valuable insight into how we as individuals and society form preferences on a wide variety of topics, ranging from economics to politics, and even to the arts and film.  Will the next movie you watch score a 9, 15, or a perfect 20? Although valuable in terms of ranking, the final grade is not as important as how you arrived at your conclusion.  Thinking critically about our likes, dislikes, as well as defining the essential elements of human expression, can spark a stimulating and defensible debate.  At the very least it provides a more interesting assessment than "The Last Jedi" totally sucked.