I love arguments about aesthetics, as it is so prone to dressed up ad hominem arguments. Just to summarize how it plays out in this Metcalf piece:

Because the author's wife laughed at the Roy Batty's death monologue, her opinion beats the American Film Institute. We (the readers) should understand that her wife is showing the refreshing honesty as a "normal" person. The inference is that the American Film Insitute and anyone else who find Blade Runner to be a great film (either by aesthetics or by its cultural importance) is either a "fanboy" or a "stuffed shirt" or both.

Why are ad hominem arguments so weak? Rather than explain, I will demonstrate:

Metcalf, your wife's oafing gaffaw at the Roy Batty's death monologue is a perfect example of the expression "pearls before swine." One would not expect a beautiful film like Blade Runner to be appreciated by your ugly ignorant wife. Also, you dress funny and your breath smells. Nah-Nah Nana Nah.

-cranky

Word. I know the critical default setting at Slate is "kneejerk contrarianism," but this is a bit much even for this site, and Metcalf's chief argument -- one of the most referenced scenes in modern cinema history is unintentionally hilarious because my wife (who is married to a film critic yet had somehow never before seen this incredibly popular movie!) thought it was funny! -- says more about his wife than it does the film, I'm afraid. I'll be taking future reviews from Mr. Metcalf (and his wife) with a whole big bunch of salt, I think.

lol. Crank it up cranky. Mentioning his wife was very cheap and lame. We could also start to guess what films she does like. Did she cry during High School Musical? did she coo at the Shrek 3 babies? Did Robert Redford convinice her that War is bad, mmmkay?

I agree wholeheartedly, Cranky. The film is beautiful and I find the scene mentioned to be haunting and thought-provoking.

When I saw David Lynch's "Inland Empire" in the theater recently, it was nearly ruined by a couple of young women who obviously didn't get the movie and started giggling hysterically at scenes that were not funny. Granted, it's a challenging movie, but one should at least try to appreciate the art and the experience of viewing it.

Blade Runner is an amazing film to experience in total from the incredible visuals to the cool soundtrack to the thought-provoking story.

A couple of more, just for fun:

• Did she cry when Josh Hartnett died in Pearl Harbor?
• Does she laugh uncontrollably when watching According to Jim, or Two and a Half Men?
• Can she name the winners for each season of Survivor and American Idol?
• Did she weep when Natalie Portman died in Star Wars Episode III?
  

Like it or not, Metcalf's argument is not an ad hominem attack. He was not attacking those who champion Blade Runner by calling their character into question. There was no analog to Cranky1000's insults of Metcalf's wife. He never said that people who like Blade Runner are fanboys or stuffed shirts. Rather, his argument that the movie is overrated rests on a review of parts of the movie that are arguably pretentious. To say that his argument is ad hominem because it infers an attack on the character of those who like Blade Runner would reduce most argument to ad hominem (E.g., "You got that math problem wrong. See, you forgot to carry the one there." "What? Are you saying that I'm stupid? How dare you attack my character?!").

Does Metcalf's wife laugh uncontrollably at the end of Hamlet, too? Maybe she's just nuts.

My ad hominem attack is direct ("pearls before swine"), while Metcalf's is inferred or indirect ("How will fans defend it now?"), but Metcalf's argument does ultimately boil down to one which is just as much as a poor and insulting argument.

Although I do understand the point you are making, Mr. Rules, your premise is that film analysis can be objective; as objective as a math problem. For the record, there are objective problems with Blade Runner which I think really aren't up for debate. For example, in the final scene where Deckard and Roy play cat and mouse, there is the silloute of the camera or the light crane or something in one of the shots. Additionally, Deckard's dream about the unicorn is apparently extra footage from the Tom Cruise movie "Legend" which has to be some form of cheating. But I digress.

Metcalf is making an ad hominem attack. He's point is that Blade Runner is objectively poor is many respects that gets ignorned because critics have placed a halo around it. Substantively this is the same thing as saying that some sort of flaw within the film critics character has lead to this willfully wrong judgment.

Note also the contrast between "normal people" like 1980s audiences and Metcalf's wife, who laugh and people who are looking for "Platonic ideals."

Anyway, Mr. Rules there are two conclusions:

1. Your premise about the objective qualities is invalid and thus your argument falls apart.

2. There is no way to evaluate the ontological quality of your premise and therefore we merely must agree to disagree on first principals.

Which conclusion is right? One way to test for an ad hominem attack is to see if you can apply the "rubber and glue" retort. Let's try it by pretending we are the American Film Institute:

Dear Mr. Metcalf,

In response to your assertion that, when it comes to Blade Runner, it is impossible for us to render nuance critical judgment, we say, "We are rubber and you are glue, anything which you say bounces off of us and sticks to you!"

Sincerely,

The American Film Institute

Well, looks like I win.
-cranky

Um, I think you mean "implied," not "inferred..."

1) Let's leave his wife out of it. Even though he mentions her, she is not even a fair example, and it leads to non-constructive arguement.

2) I saw Blade Runner in the Theater, and every person who I currently have any respect for, at least liked, and in most cases loved, this film (at least in one of the versions, original or not). As do I. The reviewer mearly places himself in the "suspected of being a contrarian nerd" pile, rather than the "total gibbering idiot" pile. He has a right to his opinion...and that is all it is.

Blade Runner is a great film....it can take a few slings and arrows from the discontented....(to badly maul the Bard).

W.R.