Art isn't subjective anymore

Art is subjective and something that we can all agree upon. Over the course of last few weeks, I have been exposing myself to various movies trying to understand the psychology of the filmmaker and how he/she creates the universe. I seem to have a clarity of thought to write down this post.

A filmmaker has a perspective. From their own understanding of this universe, dreamy or practical, they sketch a portrait of how they see a dimension that evades a common man. Then they make you believe in this thought. What has been happening lately is people trying to judge a far-off world, from their understanding of how they see the modern day lives. The whole critique process, I believe, is highly objective and most of the critics today have a limited horizon within that objective space. The whole procedure has boiled down to just a few aspects of filmmaking, mainly screenplay issues or logic in Indian cinema. The basic idea of storytelling is to indulge its listeners/viewers vividly into themselves to find those attributes, even if they seem preposterous in the mainstream surroundings. You can always comment on the process and what deterred you from buying into the universe but commenting on something that does not seem to please your intellect is a thought that I cannot fathom.
Take an example of Yash Chopra, his movies in the mundane sense was highly over the top yet powerful enough to make people believe in the concept of love. I agree that most of the audience took away most of the superficial concepts but I, for once, was fascinated by how he defined love in such a personal way. His work on the celluloid was like a poetry. How do you judge his body of work without understanding his definition of love, then? Calling it unrealistic is a pretty convenient option.

Another example that comes to my mind and might offend a few in this group is that of Wes Anderson. His body of work embodies a vast number of abstract theories and human emotions. The multi interpretative narrative exposes you to your inner demons in the most casual way. How, then, can you talk about a flaw in his script or more importantly his cinematography because he is probably, light years ahead than most of us in the school of movie-making.

And then one of my all-time favourites, 'A Ghost Story'. There is a scene where a woman is eating a pie. It runs for like 2 minutes or more. What is fascinating is not the scene but the build-up to it. David Lowery had me so much engaged that that scene did not need dialogues for me to understand the entropy within her head. I could feel what she was feeling. I was in that world eating that pie, mourning over the death of my lover and finding solace within that eating process to take me out of the mess that I was in. Stress eating is a convenient way to define it. Understanding the mindset is necessary.

How, then when you see a piece of work, that is beyond your understanding of the world around you, from the limited boundaries of an objective process involving the mere technicalities can you comment on the overall impact of a film? In that sense, if I were to look at sci-fi thrillers, I would say all of them are unrealistic given the leeway time provided by them to the scientific universe to attain the particular level of scientific development shown.