The question of the evaluation of films through the prism of awarding stars is an old habit of the media… and of the tourist industry (French invention of June 1937), which has multiplied its applications to come in ranges, toques and other symbols of recognition. But if the Michelin guide, to name just one, can exert a calculable influence on the frequentation of pinned establishments, can the model be applied to films and to the judgments attributed by journalists and critics?
In 1928, the same year the star system for rating films was invented, poet Ezra Pound claimed that the rise in the number of awards given in the arts reflected an inability to be critical.
Pound felt that the prestige of the award overshadowed any other merits the artwork might have. According to him, the whole system of awarding prizes “belongs to an uncritical era; it is the act of people who, having learned the alphabet, refuse to learn the spelling” (quoted by James Cowley, The Observer, October 22, 2006). In the XXIe century, prizes and stars abound. The thousands of stars awarded to films today are awarded by countless media that transform the world of art into a version of the world of sports. Predictors and critics choose favorites and underdogs, and go crescendo with the maximum number of stars.
Is this convergence of art and commerce a sign of cultural decadence? Does the abundance of star awards devalue the film itself? The hype around “stellarization” can raise expectations too high for a film. But how seriously can we take the awarding of stars? The glory of being stamped or graded can quickly fade.
The judgment of the value of a cinematographic work implies a reflection which agrees with the sensitivity of the one who expresses it. It is therefore a matter of taste, of which the philosopher Kant said that it is “the ability to judge an object or a mode of representation, without any associated interest, and this, on the basis of the satisfaction or displeasure experienced. The object of such satisfaction is called beautiful.Criticism of the judgment). We come back to the marks of this satisfaction — whether gustatory or aesthetic — translated into notes, symbols or thumbs up. There is no rule or law governing this labeling, and as far as I know, there are no cinematic taste buds that allow you to savor the quality of a film in such a way that its universal value is transmitted.
The fact remains that the general trend would have us believe that these hierarchical markers are necessary for the assessment of the judgment and that it reflects determining criteria. However, quoting the man from Königsberg again, the search for “the universal criterion of beauty is a sterile undertaking, because what one is looking for is impossible and in itself contradictory”. What can I say except that they are inaccessible stars.