)
The purpose of film and/or television is to simply tell a story .
Thus, there is a nexus of language in cinema where different camera angles, lighting, shot composition, editing techniques, etc.; and different storytelling techniques and dramatic devices all have their own specific effect in a film's story. Directors, cinematographer's and editor 's (at least the good ones ) know exactly what information and effect they are conveying and enacting when they use this, that, or some other technique. The consensus paradigm favors films that use the above techniques to tell s clear, concise story (hopefully with a point, one that furthers our understanding sonehow).
But just like hockey, you're "allowed" to argue the ordering and/or relationships of the facets within the paradigm (why Toews is so cintroversial: everyone agrees he exhibits qualities that help win games, but the discussion is to what degree).
"Enjoyment" is really only the end goal, the final act of consuming the product, but is also deeply personal, whether or not you understand what is going on fully or not.
But really, my overall point is I have no idea why you think there is no consensus on what makes a film "good". There's actually a massive amount of writing abd discussion on that very topic, mostly focused into what I said above.
(I'll be busy over the next few weeks, so I won't be able to do a detailed back and forth or answer quickly)
I have said over and over again that I do think there is a consensus in what people consider "good". I don't deny that. But I disagree that it makes sense for that to be a consensus, because it's based on something (technical/academic well-madeness) that isn't necessarily synonymous with the purpose/value of movies for everyone. I don't agree that there is a specific universal consensus in the purpose of a movie-- if there is, it certainly isn't the goal of succeeding in meeting the academic standard-- people get all sorts of things out of movies and people use it as a tool to communicate all kinds of experiences that are not interested in following that standard (whereas EVERY hockey player is interested in winning above all else). If "story" is a broad term you're using for anything that can progressively happen in a movie, then again, I would say that the purpose of story can be to convey anything that can be appreciated or valued or enjoyed. That's just the end result and there must be rules for arriving at it, I agree, but those rules only make sense if they achieve those results. Conversely, if the results are there, the rules need to be able to account for it-- otherwise, they're inaccurate rules.
If the argument is that academic/artistic standards are capable of encouraging greater value/reward than guilty pleasures can, and are therefore more able to correlate with "goodness", speaking for myself individually, I agree/relate with that experience. However, the only reason I adopt parts of that standard is because it's consistent with my actual experiences. That standard only makes sense to me if I don't think that any guilty pleasure movies are capable of providing as much reward as a thing that successfully meets that standard, which happens to be the case for me. Even so, if I enjoy a guilty pleasure, I still have to admit that it has some reward that contributes positively to its "goodness", however minimally, and I need to consider it a minimal part of my standards for me to be consistent.
On the flip side, if someone likes guilty pleasures MORE than things that succeed in meeting that standard, I don't see how one can dispassionately go along with and adopt that academic standard as being synonymous with what is considered good while still being honest with themselves. It means that they think equal or greater reward can be obtained from movies while following a completely different standard. If that's the case, from that person's perspective, it only makes sense for the guilty pleasure to be considered good, and for them to admit that they actually have a different standard entirely.
There are decisions and reasons, intentional or not, that successfully caused that result, and that their standards need to be able to explain. The person themselves may not be able to convey the reasons, and the reasons may be trivial, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or are non-factors. If a person adopts a standard that is actually accurate/honest with what they think, there should be no conflict between preference and their idea of goodness.
I mean, we've all had experiences where something blows us away and shatters all of our preconceived notions about movies/music. It doesn't make sense to argue backwards from "I guess that experience was just an outlier." NO!! You change and improve your standards to account for that new experience and understanding! Even if you can't pinpoint how it pulled it off, it can't be denied that your standards must actually be different from what you originally thought.
I suspect that some people only call them guilty pleasures because, while we feel a compulsion to watch them, we KNOW that we're not ACTUALLY getting that much satisfaction from them. But if that's the case, I think it's stupid for us to claim that we like them. Wanting the hit of watching something compulsive that you don't think is rewarding is not evidence that you like it, just like having a heroin addiction isn't evidence that you're having a good time.
