Roger Ebert once said, “Movies are a machine that generates empathy. The movies... let you understand a little bit more about different hopes, aspirations, dreams, and fears. It helps us to identify with the people who are sharing this journey with us." He understood that great films connect to you on a deep level.
Roger’s understanding of the power film has on our emotions is not really reflected in his rating system. A thumbs up or thumbs down from Roger told us whether a movie did what you expected it to do … and not much more.
Roger’s approach always started with superficial analysis to give the general audience an idea of whether the film is something special. He does this by asking what the film intended to achieve and whether it achieved the desired result. I believe the two-thumbs-up rating system is adequate if you’re simply saying this movie does what it intended to do.
But Roger loved how movies could move and inspire you. He often talked about the power film has over our emotions later in his reviews. A good movie for Roger is one that elicits interesting conversations. Roger loved the moves that enriched our lives instead of just helping us get through them.
Our rating system needs to represent how Roger truly felt about movies. The system needs to express how successfully a movie can elicit strong emotions and connections.
I believe our rating system needs to reflect Roger’s belief in a movie’s power to connect with you. In fact, the overarching question in our review system should be: Did this movie elicit a strong emotional response? If so, what was that response? Was it a response the director intended to provoke?
The foundation of our rating system will ask how the movie made you feel. Now we just need to figure out how to quantify these feelings.
When I'm thinking of rating movies, I take Roger's "does it achieve what it set out to do frame" but with limits. A film can do what it set out to do and still not be good enough for a perfect rating. Not sure if this is paywalled but Odie Henderson of the Boston Globe does a good job of outlining his https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/01/12/arts/fault-his-stars-globes-film-critic-explains-his-rating-system/. Heard about it from Maraya Gates (https://oldfilmsflicker.substack.com/).
Do you think a movie can be good even if it doesn't elicit a strong emotional response? What about a good dumb comedy like Anchorman or the cult classic Brain Donors?