Scriptorium

I

here are good movies, and there are bad movies. This is generally agreed. Film, like all art, is a subjective medium. This is also agreed. But this leaves us with an obvious contradiction. What makes a movie good or bad?

When we say, “That was a bad movie,” we are really saying, “I didn't like that movie.” This seems like a reasonable translation to make. However, why is it that we behave as though we are speaking to a universal set of axioms and precise, exact criteria?

When we leave the movie theatre, we immediately need to pass a judgment; was that good, or bad? We might try to come up with some reasons why, but they likely won't be easy to articulate. We want to know if our time and money was well spent.

One could argue, that a movie's value can be derived from its ability to engage you, interest you in the imagery being shown, and keep your attention. If this were the true, then most pornographic films would have equal, or more value than the average Hollywood production. I think not- we intuitively understand that there is more dimension to a film's value than this.

Another possible explanation is that a film's value lies in the value of the information being communicated to the audience, in other words; what is the takeaway? What is the moral of the story? How does will this information inform my behaviour? This approach quickly collapses into the political, and I don't think we want to enter that realm either.

There is no one true use-value to any given movie. There is a utility to the idea of a rating system of averages which attributes value based on the average opinion of moviegoers/reviewers, but anyone can attest that this is at best an unreliable metric to seriously make your own purchasing decisions on.

Instead, we ought to accept that 'good' or 'bad' is a nonsensical judgement and that what you determine to be good or bad is not based on any universal set of axioms. A person is just as likely to enjoy a movie as you are to dislike it, the only real factor being previous lived experiences.

It is a perfectly comprehensible statement to say, “This is my favourite movie.” You are not making a value judgement on anything, but expressing that you favour this one thing, for reasons implied to be specific to you. However, it is blatantly inane to say seriously that any one movie is the greatest to ever exist or the worst of all time.

II

his is all to say, of course, that Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny does not need to be evaluated under this metric. It does not even need to be evaluated as an artistic work, but rather evaluating it only as a communication will suffice.

Before I continue, here is a basic version of communication theory. It will become important in a moment;

                                  (Noise)
Source -> Encoder -> Transmitter -> Channel -> Receiver -> Decoder -> Destination
                                   (Noise)

Somewhere, a source contains the information that will be sent. The information is encoded into a specific format (a language, for instance,) and is sent by the transmitter into the channel. A receiver then takes the information, which is then decoded for the destination, and a message is received.

A communication is successful when the information delivered to the destination is functionally similar to the information which originated at the source. However, the process is often risk-averse. The channel can be filled with noise that might distort the encoded information or the information might be encoded or decoded incorrectly. When this happens, the destination could contain a functionally different, or incoherent set of information from the source. This is a communication failure.

Does this object succeed as a communication? This is a mode of evaluation which exists outside of artistic interpretation or personal preference and thus, we can come to a confident conclusion on this question.

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is definitely a motion picture, and that at least can be said. There is continuity in the sense that it can be understood that this is a story where characters move from place to place, (sometimes) obey laws like gravity, and are meant to depict human beings like you or I. However, when the credits roll, you are left turning to your fellow and scratching your head. “Huh? What? That's the end?” In the context of communication, this is generally considered to be a bad sign.

The movie has characters with accompanying character traits, and this much is successfully decoded. The Whos and Whats of this scenario are clear. The Whys and Hows, however, are essentially incoherent.

The villain's plan is less than stupid, it's nonsensical. From beginning to end, there is no clear reason for any of the events that unfold. Our brand new sidekick / female lead has character development, but what that development is seems entirely unclear. The story itself is so unclear that it leaves you feeling stood up, balls blue, and confused in the rain. Traditionally, Indiana Jones movies have been morality tales, yet this movie has managed to turn even that fundamental part of the series into gray, secular and uninteresting slop. It is simply lacking in nutritional value.

We are reaching the point that we are not asking if a movie is worth seeing again, but if it is coherent at all.

It would seem almost meaningless to point out my distaste for this newest sequel, the third send-off for a series so close to my heart. If it were only a bad movie, I could let it be. After all, movie reviews are little more than a rambling, shallow sort of rhetoric that speaks only to personal preference, a wildly variable sort of thing. On the matter of this movie, my rage is so hot that I would rather provide a more concrete verdict: That it is a failure in its most fundamental ideal, not as a quality film, but as a communicated expression of thought. It fails to justify itself in any way, or communicate anything of substance, and it leaves the viewer not only upset but with a million questions. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny is a communication failure, and I am objectively, logically correct in not liking it.

~ Your friend,