How Else To Rate?

Introducing Mehmet Cihan Yalcin

As some of you might already know, I'm the guest commentator Anil has mentioned a few posts back, and finally here I am, hopefully for a long time. In the past he did refer -sneakily- to our discussions in the blog, and I enjoyed the fact. When he asked me to join, I gladly accepted. I think, however, my presence here needs justification.

Why have me in the blog? I'd say 'for a different flavor'. Although Anil and I understand what the other seeks in a film, and would concede that the other's point of view is valid in the light of his expectations, we vehemently disagree both on the principles, and contemporary examples, of filmmaking. I think we can start outlining the difference with the basics.

I'll use a 1 to 10 scale like Anil to rate films here. Yet my evaluation criteria are different, so I'll give definitions of my ranking sets the way Anil had. He has rambled about the dilemmas of rating process, worry of fairness enough already and I don't feel like beating a dead dog. The way I see it if you explain your criteria at the beginning and adhere to them as you go, the process is as fair as it gets.

So, without further ado, I begin my countdown. To demonstrate the said discrepancy, I have chosen my examples for each rating set -randomly- from Anıl's top 50 list. Luckily I could find even a 1 in there.


10/10 - Pinnacle - A local maximum in filmmaking, in the sense that I cannot consider anything its superior. A true piece of art that not only offers greatness in many aspects but also has realized its full potential.

-Shawshank Redemption

9/10 - Magnificent - One of the finest items the art of cinema has to offer. The only shortfall may be the fact that there is one film that uses the elements that make it special better by a hair-thin margin, or even that the film had a potential to be greater than what it is, and should in future be outdone.

-The Godfather

8/10 - Groundbreaking - Has unique and extraordinary innovations that sets itself apart and potentially affects the future of the art. The said elements are used in conjunction with total competence in all aspects of filmmaking.

-Memento

7/10 - Excellent - A successful and solid movie - it's definitely made with a mature consciousness. A high amount of competence is in display in all aspects of the film, as well as some original ideas or practices that elevates its value far above the norm.

-Dogville

6/10 - Interesting - A good movie, watchable and satisfying. It also has some aspects that sets it apart from everything else.

-Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

5/10 - Decent – What would be expected, and nothing more. Has a tight plot, good acting, smooth music and visuals etc., however lacks the “something extraordinary” to engage interest and challenge the viewer's intellect.

-C'era Una Volta il West

4/10 - Disappointing – A film that could have been much more than what it is. The film has some (possibly very) strong points, however there are numerous gimmicks that make it an unsatisfactory product.

-The Shining

3/10 - Boring – Whatever the film has to offer is lost amid heaps of worthless elements. Bland plots, poor acting, weak technique and/or a myriad of other small things can drag a film down to this category even if it excels in some other aspects.

-The Matrix

2/10 - Bad – A waste of my time. The time I spent watching it could have been better spent meditating in a silent abyss.

-Kill Bill – The Whole Bloody Affair

1/10 - Nothing – I don't like it, I don't hate it. I nothing it.

-Jurassic Park

My understanding of cinema as an art form, and even my understanding of art differs fundamentally from that of his, but this is a discussion for another time. Oh, we will need to do it sometime, for it is crucial to elaborate the almighty 'elements' that make or break a film, but the issue is too deep and complex, too hard to tackle in short order. For now, let it suffice to say that several points he considers critical are irrelevant for myself and vice-versa. (A very simple and concrete example would be his criterion that a 9 “can be viewed numerous times without getting tired of it”, where for yours truly a movie that I don't think demands a second viewing may well be a 10 and even a 5 can be enjoyed time and again.)

Another point that may be worth mention could be that I devote much less time to cinema than him, so my focus is narrower, either on certain styles or on films of high critical acclaim. The scale is set to accommodate a classification of such films. Consequently, my median rating for random sample sets would definitely be lower. I would recommend a film with rating 5 without any qualms, and probably consider a 6 a must-see.


Moreover, my classification is, ultimately, dependent on my personal experience rather than any “objective” consideration, I am my own voice rather than of a collective understanding or taste, so my ratings may differ wildly from those of establishments or the public. This is not saying that I am arbitrary or inconsistent, it only means that neither critical acclaim nor popularity will sway my evaluation. I will justify each rating and all criticism is welcome, if not for anything else, for giving me the opportunity to delve further into the reasons why I like what I like.

We would like to hear our readers' opinions about our metrics and evaluations of course. I would especially be pleased to face the outrage about, say, my rating of Kill Bill.

- Mehmet Cihan Yalcin