In his book Filterworld, Kyle Chayka critiques algorithmic curation, using Netflix as a notable example of both a pioneer and major player in this area. Chayka argues that automated curation is not merely an ideological construct but has design implications that affect platform usability. For example, Netflix’s deliberately limited search function is designed to reduce user agency, although most users don't seem to notice or mind necessarily.
Consider this passage from Chapter 2:
The search function within Netflix’s app is slow and inexact; it’s difficult to search by genres and impossible to filter by information like actors or directors. (This lack has given rise to an entire genre of search-engine-optimized articles published online that list what is and isn’t on Netflix, like a telephone book for streaming.) The search results are also influenced by the previous actions of other users—it’s not just an index of information but another recommendation feed, more likely to surface what other people already like. Users’ intentions are all but discouraged by Netflix. The home page becomes the main method of discovery, influencing what viewers watch and when. More than 80 percent of streaming time from users was driven by Netflix’s recommendation engine, according to a 2015 study by Carlos A. Gomez-Uribe and Neil Hunt. In a publicity video published by the company under Netflix Research in 2018, a machine-learning manager named Aish Fenton states: “Pretty much everything we do is a recommendation algorithm.” (Kyle Chayka)
Fortunately, Netflix is not the only option for film lovers. In fact, it is far from being an ideal option for film lovers.
Chayka praises human-curated platforms that distribute high-quality movies, such as The Criterion Channel and MUBI.
He particularly appreciates The Criterion Channel, as highlighted in the following passage where he quotes Penelope Bartlett, the channel’s director of programming until 2022:
Bartlett described her role as an attempt to “hold people’s hands.” “Sometimes people are a little bit intimidated by these filmmakers who have made thirty movies. You don’t really know where to start; you end up not watching any of them because you’re not sure what the entry point is,” she said. An algorithmic recommendation based on which movie was watched the most times might not be the best choice.” The purpose of Criterion goes beyond superficial recommendation: “It’s not just what should I watch, but why should I watch it, what else could I watch with it.” Criterion acts as a kind of content seal of approval, not dictated by audience numbers or sales but by sheer artistic quality, as determined by its staff curators. Criterion helped me discover my own film sensibility.” (Kyle Chayka)
Indisputably, both Criterion and MUBI are excellent platforms for arthouse, independent, and international cinema.
However, what is often forgotten in these conversations is that human curation and a functional user interface should not be mutually exclusive.
In fact, The Criterion Channel has an extraordinary catalog of curated content and an excellent user interface that is effective, intuitive, and easy to navigate. In other words, there’s a perfect alignment between The Criterion Channel as an idological construct and The Criterion Channel as a design object.
Conversely, MUBI has struggled for months - if not years - with a series of perplexing design choices that make the platform counter-intuitive and difficult to use. Unlike Netflix - whose technical limitations appear intentional according to Chayka - MUBI’s issues seem to stem from inefficient design.
I’ll mention just a couple of examples, for the sake of brevity.
MUBI implicitly justified its massive removal of community-based features that I have previously discussed and which resulted in my shadow ban (though this could also be a technical issue - with MUBI, you never know), with a major platform redesign. I say ‘implicitly’ because the rationale behind these changes was never officially announced or addressed, similar to the changes in programming (note 1).
Regardless of the rationale, the cosmetic changes followed the aforementioned dismantling of the community.
Ironically, these changes introduced new problems that, to this day, remain unresolved.
The first is the CONTINUE WATCHING row, displayed after the main future on both the website and apps. The very position of such a row should be indicative of its importance and functionality. Most streaming platforms feature something similar: you start watching a movie, suspend the viewing activity for any reason, and close the app. When you reopen the app, you find what you left unfinished, and a “normal” streaming platform gives you the option to continue watching or remove that content. Pretty basic, no?
MUBI, however, is not a normal platform. You cannot remove any content from the CONTINUE WATCHING row in any way. MUBI does not contemplate the possibility that you wouldn’t want to finish what you started and will continue to remind you of your failure to complete the task in perpetuity every time you open the app. The only way for that movie to leave the list is for MUBI to lose the rights to screen it. Otherwise, it will remain there.
I have come to the conclusion that this must be a tactic of private shaming (as the CONTINUE WATCHING row is visible only to the paying subscriber) masquerading as a design flaw: “Our human curators have chosen the very best in international cinema and you dare not to finish watching our selection? What is wrong with you?!”
In this case, I had no interest in finishing Tan Chui Mui’s I AM THE BEAUTY OF YOUR BEAUTY, I AM THE FEAR OF YOUR FEAR (2024) once I realized that it is an advertisement camouflaged as arthouse cinema. It is part of the “MIU MIU WOMEN’S TALE” series, a marketing campaign sponsored by ditto fashion brand - MUBI’s half catalog now seems replete with similar “content.”
The worst offender in this category is Luca Guadagnino’s abysmal The Staggering Girl (2019), starring - I kid you not - a Valentino suitcase. The short was funded - surprise! - by the eponymous Italian fashion company.
The latest example is Yann Mounir Demange’s equally shallow DAMMI (2023).
In marketing programs in business schools, they call this kind of stuff “BRANDED CONTENT.”
MUBI calls it “art house cinema.”
Go figure (note 2).
A second significant usability issue is the SUGGESTED FOR YOU row, situated beneath the CURATOR’S SPOTLIGHT section (note 3).
One does not need to read Chayka’s Filterworld to know that this feature is completely automated on platforms like Netflix, Spotify or Steam, and that the drawbacks are significant. The subtitle of the book, “How algorithms flattened culture”, perfectly encapsulates a thesis developed over several chapters.
However, replacing a ruthlessly efficient algorithmic recommendation system with an inept human-curated alternative is not justifiable just because the company is incapable of developing a functional system.
So what is wrong with MUBI’s SUGGESTED FOR YOU feature? I’ll mention just three issues not to bore you to death:
- Redundant recommendations: It recommends films you have already seen, either in part or fully. Again, the fact that one did not CONTINUE WATCHING should be a good reason not to recommend such a film in a different section of the site (note 4). But MUBI thinks it ALWAYS KNOWS BEST and insists you finish the movie you didn’t like watching in the first place. WE SUGGEST YOU FINISH THIS MOVIE. EAT YOUR BROCCOLI, OR ELSE!
- Non-negotiable recommendations: Like most things on MUBI, the recommendation is non-negotiable. It’s an offer you cannot refuse. There’s no action button to remove the recommended film. EAT YOUR BROCCOLI AND SHUT UP. And no, there’s not even a remote option to IMPROVE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS because MUBI ALWAYS KNOWS BEST.
- Irrelevant or inconsistent suggestions: Recommendations are all over the place and completely unrelated to your watching patterns or previous evaluations. Let’s say you “discover” a specific filmmaker and start watching all of their films. You might expect that the SUGGESTED FOR YOU row would start suggesting either films by the same director(s) available in the MUBI catalog or films by other directors that are thematically adjacent or compatible with your current interests that are available in the MUBI catalog (otherwise you would close the app and open TUBI or whatever). Oh, you like early American mumblecore? Here are more examples, including mumblecore-adjacent films from other countries! No chance! MUBI’s SUGGESTED FOR YOU row does none of this. In fact, it does nothing at all. I’ve concluded that the four pitiful suggestions FOR YOU are purely random and are showcased on the homepage just for show, to tick a box in a “YES OF COURSE WE DO PROVIDE TAILORED SUGGESTIONS LIKE A REAL STREAMING PLATFORM” feature-list.
MUBI's incompetent recommendations are extended to the random suggestions that is sends at inscrutable intervals via email. In my case, all the recommendations I receive ("YOU SHOULD TRY THIS") relate to movies that I have already seen and rated (!) and even listed (!!). Priceless.
In conclusion, MUBI’s attempts at imitating the big players in streaming while preserving an air of highbrow curation with a hipster spin have resulted in a confusing and frustrating user experience. The platform’s inability to balance human curation with user-friendly design undercuts its mission to be the haven for cinema enthusiasts, pardon, a “community for film lovers.” It’s as if MUBI is saying: “We’ve handpicked the finest in international cinema just for you. Now, struggle through our interface and questionable recommendations to find it. You’re welcome.”
Apparently, frustration is a feature, not a bug. The struggle is real. Who needs user-friendly design when you can have the authentic experience of battling with a clunky interface? After all, art requires sacrifice, and what better way to prove your dedication than by enduring MUBI’s labyrinthine design choices?
If MUBI wants to retain its devoted cinephile audience, it might consider making its user interface as sophisticated as its film selection. But who knows, maybe the next step in their master plan is to make the app crash randomly to remind you of the ephemeral nature of cinema.
Notes
1) In the summer of 2023, MUBI abandoned its one day-one movie strategy, likely due to the difficulty of maintaining such a demanding schedule. However, the new schedule lacks clear logic, with some films remaining prominent for days while others disappear after just 24 hours. For some reason, at time of writing the NOW SHOWING movie of the day(s) is Duncan Jones’s 2011 Source Code. Go figure.
2) Since ad blockers are widely used today, ads have infiltrated the content itself. Consequently, you MUST continue watching ads, one way or another. As a paying subscriber, you are essentially paying to watch ads, pardon, “art house cinema.”
3) The curator is ostensibly human, though their identity is never clarified or communicated, which is typical for MUBI. This ambiguity likely stems from the legal principle in America that corporations are considered individuals. Thus, MUBI, recognized as a singular entity thanks to just one of the many farcical Supreme Court rulings, serves as The Invisible Curator.
4) Re: the redundancy of recommended content on other platforms, e.g., the APPLE TV app, click here.
