The intrepid beauty of four-stars

Ratings are often just an arbitrary indicator. Here I will use them to briefly show the overall impact a particular film has had on my perception and acute sense of understanding. A rough estimate on whether it comes close to the specific essence of cinematographic art. If a disclosure may be allowed I should bespoke thusly: arbitrary does not necessarily mean subjective. When we talk about beauty we certainly expect it to be shareable among minds. By commanding the former Cahiers du Cinema’s rating system’s four-star-only categorization I am forcing a dichotomized approach to critic: you either stand on the lower half of the appreciation curve or in the upper half. Which grants you a no-middle-ground-allowed. It also serves the purpose of drawing comparisons among different reviews, even though some movies should not be compared to others as they do not work nor operate on the same scrutinium levels. So by luring myself into my preaching I erase the safer road of the undecided mind, and so the reader can quickly get a glimpse of the position a particular film occupies in the authors bewilderment.

The semantics of the stars are as follows: no stars are awarded to the disgusting disposable films, those for which I bear no measurable compliments, those pictures that in no way contribute neither to my enjoyment nor knowledge. I probably won’t write about such a film unless I am forced by circumstances; one star movies are those which have those tiny and mousy sparks on it to deserve some attention. It might be that they work for their intended purpose regardless of the particular scope of that purpose; two stars, while not a movie to be remembered, shows more craftsmanship in its elaboration with occasional moments of wonderment. Three stars goes to real good works, those that are truly art pieces on their own by having such a broad aesthetic capacity to entail its audience. Four stars are reserved to masterpieces: as in works that are so impeccable you just have to stare in awe at their brilliance. May I have to recall that I draw no line at entertainment against art; truly authentic art is entertaining in the highest possible sense.

There should be no clarification needed but the rating for any particular movie might be subject to sporadic change — just because my regard of it happened to fluctuate in time or because I need to separate it from another review which happens to have the very same rating while it should not. It is always fit to state that all this is just a representation of the inherent beauty of a piece, and a pretty bad one at that.