Determining which are the exact elements that arouse their adhesion or on the contrary their rejection, the participants will be able to take the first distance compared to their spontaneous judgments, in particular, if other participants evaluate or interpret these elements differently. While the first assessment is most often stated in an absolute manner, the confrontation of opinions by becoming more precise generally leads the interlocutors to qualify their remarks by taking into account the necessarily subjective aspect of their opinion. Visiting https://couchtuner.space/ makes things perfect here.
This will be the case in particular of the characteristics of the film on which the judgments are largely intuitive such as the acting, the atmosphere, the photography or even the music which it is difficult to describe in a fine and detailed way: in this case, it is difficult to argue, and one must almost necessarily recognize the subjectivity of one’s assessments.
A second approach consists in highlighting
The different points of view on the film and therefore in emphasizing its different dimensions as well as the multiple elements which constitute it: a film cannot be reduced in general nor to the story told, neither to one or the other episode, nor to the portrait of a character or to the performance of an actor, nor even to the “style” of the realization or to a subject summarized in a few words. Here too, the comparison of opinions should allow the participants to take into consideration aspects that could be neglected at first.
The memories of the projection generally focus on each spectator on a few striking elements, and the discussion then makes it possible to revive other sequences or other neglected or forgotten details. The facilitator can then ask each participant to explain why this or that element seems significant to him so that the others become better aware of the possible difference in points of view: if, for example, the miserable or hopeless atmosphere of a film displeases some, others may be sensitive to the energy of the main character or to the life lesson that emerges at the end of his journey. It will not be a matter of opposing points of view but of making everyone aware of the different ways of seeing a film by emphasizing this or that dimension.
A third way of doing things is to suggest new or different interpretations of the film:
The facilitator can either rely on the reactions of certain spectators or work out such interpretations himself by first seeing the film and reading it. Possibly published reviews as we have seen, there can be no question of imposing contrary to what critics generally do one or the other interpretation which will necessarily involve a part of hypothesis, but it is legitimate to suggest a different interpretation by emphasizing its more or less fragile character and by asking the participants to react to it positively or negatively.
As there is no method of analyzing films, nor a legitimate point of view in their approach, it is obviously not possible to predict the ways in which a film will possibly be understood nor to determine with certainty the most relevant interpretation for example within the review. Proposing one or the other analysis, even a summary but which is not “obvious”, has the advantage of getting the participants to reflect more deeply on their own vision and to go beyond the level of value judgments which will remain irreducibly subjective.