To be honest with you, it sounds to me like you guys are constructing elaborate systems of rules to justify declaring your opinions as objective truth. I've just been discussing this with Dave, and basically what it comes down to is that I deny your major premise: while I do think it's possible to outline (at least mostly-)objective standards of film quality, I do *not* think for even a second that it's possible to declare objective standards of film *enjoyability.*

The entire history of film criticism - indeed, of art criticism - depends on the existence of some standard of quality independent of the observer. Whether any such thing actually exists is a subject that has been brought into question many times, but not by me here today. I think there are definitely elements of a film that can be evaluated objectively, and these elements will give you a guide to how much care a film was made with, but not a total definition of its worth. Yet, that is what critics ultimately are charged with doing - a critic's rating of a film is *not* an objective standard, or all critics would agree about all films. Clearly, since critics disagree - sometimes by very large amounts - there is quite a lot of subjective judgment going on in criticism once it gets to the level where critics are telling you not how well-made a film is but how worthy of your time it is.

> Stephen nailed it in his own reply. Rocky Horror is self-aware. It is trying to be bad. It succeeds. Big deal.

See, this is way too broad to be sensible. I can think of several films that are bad, are *aware* of their badness, and are entertaining nonetheless. Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness are probably the classic examples in this field - while you may feel free to deny that you liked them, and I am certainly not about to disagree, I'm fairly sure I could locate a sizable number of people who found them very entertaining. Are you saying we were wrong to be entertained by them? I don't, frankly, think you have the authourity to make that judgment.

> Kids are funny in the same way. Circus clowns are not funny.

I thank you for providing this example, because it fits what I'm trying to demonstrate *perfectly.* You know what? I don't find kids funny. No, I'm not just saying that to be contrary; honestly, I am not amused by children. You clearly are. Clowns, meanwhile, have been known to amuse me on several occasions. Are you telling me I am objectively wrong here, too, or is it just possible that we're amused by different things?

> Buster Keaton is funny. Rob Schneider is not funny.

What if we replace Rob Schneider with Jerry Lewis? Lewis in his stage persona is obviously aware of his own nerdy strangeness in exactly the way that Keaton is not.

Now, to tie back into the original subject. I'm not the only person who finds Rocky Horror entertaining. I'm not even *close.* The film shows - in theatres - quite frequently all over the country, even now, some thirty years after its release. So we're all wrong to be entertained by it? If this is what you maintain, I think you need a better argument - specifically, you need to demonstrate that you have some authourity to judge what is and is not entertaining.

Alternatively, perhaps you should cultivate the conclusion that it didn't appeal to you personally, much as The Edge - another film we notoriously disagree about - didn't appeal to me. I found the dialogue pretentious where you found it "sheer art." I found Baldwin's performance terrible, where you found it not "quite [Anthony Hopkins'] match." I was annoyed by technical inaccuracies in the film that seem not to have bothered you. I was repelled by its numerous cliches, whereas you found them justified. My suggestion is that perhaps the same process is at work here - we both saw the same film, but came to different conclusions about it.

So, please, which is it? Is the enjoyability of a film (I shy away from the word "quality" intentionally here) a subjective feature, or am I simply inferior?

> Those wacky morning radio DJ's that honk horns and buzzers and stuff after every sentence...definitely not funny.

Morning radio DJs and Grease 2 are the only things in the universe that can be objectively proven not to be at all entertaining. I think you can prove that with Reimann sums or something.