Every parliament has some form of debating chamber, where the country’s leaders get together and fight out the issues and the bills that may pass into law. There is always a vote on some matter and the majority wins.
This very public sphere, where the issues get debated and won and lost, is where writers, reviewers and others have some sort of affinity with.
In fact, after years of reviewing in some way with an eye on common ground between the film and my ideology, reviewing is actually about what I would accept or not accept in the public sphere, much like taking a side on an issue in a debating chamber. It’s not finding common ground or fitting in with a film’s point of view if the cap doesn’t really fit.
But why bring this on film?
Because I am a reviewer and film is not only an art form, but films are out in the public sphere, and deal with ideas, themes, morals, philosophies, persuasions, and not every idea I would support if I was in the debating chamber.
So, reviewing should reflect what I would or wouldn’t support in the public sphere, like I was taking a side in a debate. I think I will take this on board. It doesn’t mean I go to the country’s parliament to ban something, but to put my point of view in the review on something I would or wouldn’t support in public.
One is human and may or may not enjoy art, but one is not made of human jelly, with a mind compromised of the soft stuff.