The “Diminished Expectations” Phenomenon
(or: If You’ve Already This When I Posted This Rant On Facebook, I Apologise (But The Likelihood That Anyone Read That Is Ridiculously Low, So Whatever))
***
In a depressing turn of events, it appears that for most of my life I have watched all the movies I’ve ever watched (and if you know me well enough, you’ll know that I’ve watched a lot of movies) through the filter of a phenomenon known as ”diminished expectations”.
This means that I - as a member of “the audience” - have become so used to so many movies turning out to be utter rubbish, that whenever a particular film has at least one element of it that is in some way positive, I take it as a sign that the film is better than it actually is, and trick myself into liking it, when in reality it’s really a load of balls.
Incidentally, this (metaphorical) red pill realisation is all Mark Kermode’s fault. In his book The Good, The Bad and the Multiplex (which I got for Christmas), he gave a more elaborate, detailed and horribly prevalent argument about “diminished expectations,” which made jaw-droppingly terrible sense and has now made me feel the need (not for speed) to re-assess all my past filmic experiences and determine whether or not I actually liked them because they were properly brilliant, or because my expectations were so low that the film lived only slightly above them.
(NOTE: this phenomenon does not apply to Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, almost every Christopher Nolan film, The Truman Show, The Conversation, Serenity, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Children of Men, All The President’s Men, and a whole host of other films that are actually perfect. Just so we’re clear…)