The "Schmood" Post

A little silly thing about perceived goodness and actual goodness, referring to aesthetic judgments

“Schmood” “bood” “gad” “Tad”

Two good, bad good, good bad, two bad.

Two years ago I presented a new dichotomy for aesthetic judgement, which I applied to films. This was a very scientific presentation in which I talked about social judgements regarding the quality of films and some of my individual judgements regarding the quality of films.

So to make this more clear, there are two judgements happening regarding quality. For example if you were to refer to the average judgement of a film, you would find that there are plenty of films which are seen as high quality. Every “classic” movie is perceived to be good even without the person making that judgement having seen the film. Similarly, there are films you might have watched which you judge to be good but the general social consensus is either that they suck or seem bad in some way without those individuals passing this judgement having seen the film you wish to discuss.

So this is where my four categories comes in, “Schmood” films are films which have the social perception of being good, and also are what the individual judges to be good.

“Bood” are films which are perceived to be good socially, but the individual judges to be bad. Christopher Nolan films would fit here for me. Or really most emmy bait type crap.

“Gad” films then are films either perceived to be bad, or simply unknown to most. These are good or entertaining films for the indivdual that simply get overlooked.

“Tad” films then are films that are socially perceived to be bad, and are bad. Catwoman is a good example.

Anyway, the point of this post is not just to talk about these film examples but instead to expand this out to more than just films. Imagine talking about the political compass this way

My little chart from 2022

A chart split into four parts, top left “Gad,” top right “Schmood,”bottom left “Tad,” bottom right “Bood”

Gad in the context I used here was not referring to films that are truly good, but instead more so just entertaining and therefore aesthetically valuable for their ability to entertain an audience even if the intended value is lost.

There’s a little joke here for the “schmood” films, they all feature Kirk Douglas. At the time of making the original presentation, I’d watched ‘Ace in the Hole’ and ‘Paths of Glory’ and really enjoyed them so made put three films featuring Kirk Douglas into this corner.

Tad is the bottom left corner, which really is just films I think are complete shit. I like some disney films, but this was really a bit of an inside joke picking on a friend. I genuinely do dislike Sharknado though, and the perception is that it is “bad” so it fits imo.

Bood being the bottom right corner contains stuff which is perceived to be good, and I feel like oscar bait in general sort of fits in this box perfectly. I really can’t stand these kinds of films, but the social perception is “good” due to having won awards.

Where to go next

Like I said, I think this is something that can be applied to all sorts of things, not just films. Architecture, perfumes, etc. Might make some charts later.