Posted yesterday at 6:00 a.m.
Marc-Andre Lussier: I want to start this discussion by asking you to dig a little into the past. Do you remember your reaction when The Presslike many other media outlets, asked us to add ratings to our reviews?
Marc Cassivi: If I remember correctly, at the time, I was in charge of the Cinema section. There was a major graphic reform, and we decided to rate the reviews with stars. I’d love to tell you otherwise, but I probably agreed with the decision. Maybe it was even my idea… Do you remember that?
WRONG : Yes. At the time, this model spread like wildfire in all print and electronic media. Personally, I was rather resistant to it, but I resigned myself, because we then entered an era where the Internet completely changed the game in the way people go to find their cultural information. A rating instantly indicates the color of a review.
CM: It sometimes feels like readers are only looking at the ratings, which is a bit distressing. In the “good old days” they had to at least read our last paragraph to get the gist of our appreciation! Do you remember the movies you gave the worst rating?
WRONG : At one time, because it was graphically possible, we could give an even worse rating than a single star, symbolized by the face of a disgruntled little guy. I haven’t used it very often, but I think the team at stone happiness still have a very bad memory. Conversely, I also awarded 4.5 to exceptional films (the last one in the running, as far as I’m concerned, is Rome, by Alfonso Cuarón), but I always try to keep the best ratings for films that I think really deserve it. Otherwise, it doesn’t mean anything.
CM: I tend to forget bad memories, but I gave zero stars to Love by Gaspar Noé. My title was “Erotic porridge”. And unless I’m mistaken, I only gave 5 stars once, for In the Mood for Love by Wong Kar-wai. Everyone is free to be more generous, but, like you, I am rather stingy with my stars. The masterpiece is measured over time and must stand the test of time, it seems to me. In the Mood for Love was an instant classic. I’m not mad that we’re moving to a scale of 10. I would have given four and a quarter stars to Dunes. It will be possible with an 8.5! We are criticized for too often giving a rating of three and a half stars. With the new scale, we will have more flexibility…
WRONG : In effect. From the moment we assumed that an average film deserved a rating of 2.5 and that we could not give more than 4.5 to a truly exceptional film, our room for maneuver was very slim. With the new system, if we start from the principle that an average film deserves a mark of 5 and that a truly exceptional film would be entitled to a 9, we will now have access, counting also the halves, to a register much wider! Do you have an obsession with odds? That of scoring too low or too high, for example?
CM: I don’t make it a disease, but it’s obvious that the note remains and that we often remember it more than the text. So we hope not to change our minds too much in the months that follow. What you need to know, and which all readers may not know, is that most of the works that one sees, among the many dozens in a year, are average. I know it’s a running gag, our many three and a half star ratings, but to deserve 4 stars, a movie really had to be very good. A rating out of 10 will make it easier to distinguish between the film at 6.5 and the one at 7.5. We are in the lower and upper middle. That is to say the majority of titles!
WRONG : Indeed, we very often see films that range from “average” to “correct”. We will be able to qualify more with the new system. Until now, my personal criteria for awarding a feature film 4 stars has been quite simple: does it have the potential to be on my top 10 list at the end of the year? If so, I happily give it 4 stars. It should also always be kept in mind that these famous odds can also be used for advertising purposes. I have no problem with that when it comes to a movie that I really support, but sometimes you end up in the ad for a movie that you don’t really recommend. And that pisses me off…
CM: I understand you. Just because I gave a movie 3 stars doesn’t mean I don’t have reservations.
WRONG : I can’t wait to see at what number a rating will become interesting in people’s minds with the new system: 7? 8?
CM: I want to tell readers not to be surprised to see a lot of 7s and 7.5s. And above all, to continue reading our texts!