Film Criticism

[mfunk9786]

If Lynch dies I will be inconsolable.

Hear, hear. Don't even want to think about it. Guy's like a grandfather to me and I've never even met him. Watching the special features on his DVDs where he just sits in front of a microphone, smokes a cigarette, and tells stories is inexplicably comforting.

[zedz]

Guy's like a grandfather to me

Oh, now you're just trying to creep us out.

[sonofkinski]

Really, really trying to creep us out.

[MichaelB]

In the event, I was very happy indeed with how the interview turned out, and on the back of it I was asked to give a talk on Wajda to coincide with its eventual publication in May

Was just looking back through the thread and thought I'd ask how your talk went - will we maybe be able to read it on your blog in the future?

Your wish is my command!

I'll add some of the original illustrations when I get a chance - originally, I accompanied each film with a slide of the original Polish poster design.

[colinr0380]

Fantastic! Thanks!

[exte]

I think They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? is pretty good as far as gauging overall critical consensus.

First time I think I saw that link... Thanks very much!

[Andre Jurieu]

I think They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? is pretty good as far as gauging overall critical consensus.

First time I think I saw that link... Thanks very much!

It pops up on the forum about once every year.

[Antoine Doinel]

David Denby is taking your questions here.

[colinr0380]

Article on "film criticism in the age of the internet".

And Filmbrain's commentary on the commentary.

[HypnoHelioStaticStasis]

I try not to be too negative on this board, considering how much I enjoy reading it, but I have to break the peace and declare Christopher Null the dumbest "professional" film critic working today.

His review of Carne's Children of Paradise, one of my most beloved films, nearly made me take out my gat and blast his smug face right off my laptop monitor.

My personal favorite quote:

Filled with the haughty arrogance of 1940s France...

Ya, all those resistance fighters were such effete snobs.

[karmajuice]

The arrogance of that article far exceeds the supposed French arrogance of the film. That's just the sort of tone I hate most in reviews, which seems to be a universal habit. I've stopped reading reviews, synopses, DVD backs, anything that describes a film. I just don't trust any of it, I prefer to enter the film as purely as possible.

This may sound silly, but I think a film should be watched with a sort of reverence, regardless of its quality. These people spent thousands of hours, days and weeks, maybe months and years, making this film. You spent an hour or two watching it, and based on the quality of most reviews, have spent less than five minutes writing about it. I'm not saying you can't criticize a film, but there's such condescension in movie reviews. It serves no purpose.

Well, that's coming from someone who will rush to the defense of a film he doesn't even like. Maybe it's not fair to hold others to such a paradigm.

I like the Cahiers notion of laudatory criticism; why write about something you don't like? I'd like to see negative reviews reduced to the bare essentials, the standard numerical score (which I also hate, but have come to terms with) and some simple highlights:

1/5
-Did not make me laugh.
-Felt too long, ended too many times.
-Not a faithful adaptation of Curious George

Something along those lines. It makes it clear that it's nothing worth talking about or seeing. Spend more time writing positive reviews, because they're full of observations and personal revelations and ideas about the film. If a negative review has something substantial to offer, I will by all means embrace it (even if it's a film I like), but they so seldom do.

[MichaelB]

This may sound silly, but I think a film should be watched with a sort of reverence, regardless of its quality. These people spent thousands of hours, days and weeks, maybe months and years, making this film. You spent an hour or two watching it, and based on the quality of most reviews, have spent less than five minutes writing about it. I'm not saying you can't criticize a film, but there's such condescension in movie reviews. It serves no purpose.

I'm always prepared to give a film the benefit of the doubt (at least for the first half-hour or so), though I'm not especially impressed by the "thousands of hours" argument - a bad film is still a bad film, regardless of how much effort went into it. Then again, I don't generally go in for snide dismissals - if something doesn't work, I do at least attempt to explain what went wrong.

I like the Cahiers notion of laudatory criticism; why write about something you don't like?

"Because it's your job" is the usual answer! I'm lucky in that my professional pieces are individually commissioned by editors who know my tastes and my specialist areas of expertise, so the chances are pretty strong that I'll either like the film or at least find something interesting to say about it if it doesn't quite work. For instance, none of the recent Polish features I reviewed for Sight & Sound was especially outstanding, but I got a lot more out of writing probably the only high-profile English-language reviews they'll get than I would have done reviewing the new Guy Ritchie.

On the other hand, if you're supposed to cover everything - or everything that opens commercially - you have far less of a choice, and I know this drives some critics up the wall. I had a conversation with one a few years back who told me he actually resigned from his national newspaper job after seeing A Night at the Roxbury, because he thought it was a total waste of his time both watching and writing about it, not least because none of his readers would have the slightest desire to see it anyway. As he put it, book and theatre reviewers don't cover everything, so why should this apply to film?

[karmajuice]

"Because it's your job" is the usual answer!

Of course, and idealistic musings often fail to consider matters of practicality; that's not to say I don't appreciate the predicament critics are in. Their occupation consistently exposes them to the ugly half of something they love. It's easy to understand the contempt they have for those films. My criticism of critics is their derision. I encourage negative reviews, especially those that have no tolerance for formulaic films, cash-ins, etc. I don't see how smug condescension and terrible puns help the matter.

I could tolerate, even enjoy, a reviewer who specialized in mocking films for the sake of entertainment. But the voice of film reviewing is so homogeneous I can't stand it. Reviews in news publication sound like reviews in a college paper, which sounds like anyone on the internet or television. It's like they all adopted Bosley Crowther as their patron saint and gave up any notion of an original voice.

This gives me a deep appreciation for those critics who I like (usually academic rather than commercial, or at least a hybrid). I love negative reviews that say something worthwhile. For example, I could talk at great length about my problems with Children of Paradise. These could be valid criticisms, underlined by a constant awareness that the film is a classic with a substantial reputation, rather than dismissing that reputation.

I've read your blog (had been reading it a while before making the connection), which has been a very useful aid to my growing, now near-obsessive interest in Eastern Europe and its cinema. Everything I've read that you've written has been worth (at least) the time spent reading it. I don't have it out for everyone. I even read other works by reviewers who apply to my blanket criticism (I read Ebert's Great Movies essays, regardless of how snide he can be about a movie he doesn't like).

a bad film is still a bad film, regardless of how much effort went into it

Yes. This is the best explanation I can give for my ideas about that:
A few years ago, a friend of mine bought a 4-disc set from Suncoast featuring badly made sci-fi movies. The three I saw were by some guys who called themselves the Polonia Brothers.
I had never seen something so amateurish. If not for their earnest, I would be convinced that something so poorly made had to be a deliberate effort to make something bad.
Yet I have a strange respect for them, which goes beyond laughing at the quality of their output. I admire the fact that they bothered to go out and make a film. I'm impressed that they've had their films distributed into stores nation-wide. The very act of having done something earns it merit, from my perspective. I realize the Polonia Brothers appeal to a sort of wounded dog sentiment, but I try to appreciate everything I encounter on some level; it's very rare that I find nothing good to say.

I don't expect anyone to share this approach, but I expect everyone to consider it. Mostly it helps me consider how I value things. It allows me to thoroughly understand films I don't even care for, rather than adhering to arbitrary opinions. It also helps me enjoy crappy movies more, a nice fringe benefit.

I'm sorry my posts tend to be so rambling. I'm always long-winded when I first post someplace, I guess to establish where I stand. My posts will become gradually shorter and less serious if I continue posting.

[swo17]

This may sound silly, but I think a film should be watched with a sort of reverence, regardless of its quality. These people spent thousands of hours, days and weeks, maybe months and years, making this film. You spent an hour or two watching it, and based on the quality of most reviews, have spent less than five minutes writing about it. I'm not saying you can't criticize a film, but there's such condescension in movie reviews. It serves no purpose.
...

If a negative review has something substantial to offer, I will by all means embrace it (even if it's a film I like), but they so seldom do.

I appreciate your "reverence," but I disagree with some of the points you make here. Negative reviews can be just as enlightening as positive ones. Often, you may not know how you really feel about a film until you find yourself defending it against its critiques. Or you might find you agree with some of the critiques, but like the film in spite of them. Or perhaps you will change sides completely. The point is, though, that it helps to have a general knowledge of what critics think on both sides to see which you agree with more.

Of course, this is assuming the negative review has "something substantial to offer," as you say, which some don't. But then, just as many positive reviews are mostly fluff, and don't really offer much substantial either. (I've even written some of them myself, and I can tell you they still took a lot longer than five minutes.) Good film criticism is not about whether you champion or belittle a film, but whether you address points that might actually sway a reader one way or the other.

[karmajuice]

Good film criticism is not about whether you champion or belittle a film, but whether you address points that might actually sway a reader one way or the other.

Absolutely. I only meant that critics are, understandably, more likely to provide good points and insights on a film they're passionate about. Upon reflection, the same can be true of reviews where the critic is passionately opposed to the film, maybe for ideological or moral reasons. I just crave writing that is involved rather than dismissive.

Also, I said that I don't read anything prior to watching a film. That is generally true. But I still read reviews: I read extensively afterward, absorbing as much information as I can. The internet is my primary resource, sometimes the only one. When I read through three reviews and they're all redundant, in some cases are even copy jobs, and spend most of their time summarizing the film, I can't give credit too generously.

[swo17]

Upon reflection, the same can be true of reviews where the critic is passionately opposed to the film, maybe for ideological or moral reasons.

I see what you're saying, but there are other perfectly valid reasons besides ideological and moral ones to be passionately opposed to a film.

Also, I said that I don't read anything prior to watching a film. That is generally true. But I still read reviews: I read extensively afterward, absorbing as much information as I can.

I do this too. I think it's the best way. The reviews most worth reading are usually the ones for films that require the sort of in-depth discussion that can only really be had after the reader has viewed the film. Before this, the main point of a review is just to find out "is it worth my time?"

[mfunk9786]

This is a nauseating bit of news

[HerrSchreck]

In reference to the above "reverence" discussion, I coincidentally saw a girl walking around the other day with a t-shirt that said "Don't make a film".

Just because a person does something doesn't mean they should receive automatic respect or reverence for it. There are people making movies that shouldn't be allowed ten miles within the vicinity of a roll of blank film, and contribute-- because of their proximity to a studio relation or large piles of cash-- to the traffic jam of films being made nowadays which have turned the arthouse circuit into a thruway of broken hearts (not to mention A list exhibition). The number of films being made has escalated to the point of glut.. contributing to the crisis state of indie/arthouse at the moment.

Listen: most everybody loves a great movie, anyone would love to direct a film or be a movie star. While the advent of digital technology and camcorders has made it possible for genuinely talented people to realize their dream, too many rich (or rich-connected) folks have caught onto the fact that they can Be Genuine Filmmakers by dint of their connection to cash or industry.

There's really no alternative to the present state, as filmmaking has always been a miserable art owing to it's need for piles of cash for fullblown exhibition/realization. Going back to studio-system lockdown or Tradition of Quality poo is clearly not the answer.

But with the unprecedentedly high rash of cinematic turds that genuinely talented filmmakers have to stand in line behind more than ever these days, and find themselves and their work being lost in the shuffle along with, I find it difficult to hold in reverence the fact of a filmmakers mere attempt.

Do you feel the same reverence for all arts' example of Failed Attempts, or is it just cinema? (I mean that seriously and without sarcasm.)

[karmajuice]

I told you it might sound silly.

Everyone is entitled to make a film, if they want to. Those with money are technically even more entitled, because they have the practical means by which to pursue that endeavor. More on this later.

In regards to "reverence", that word is way too strong and it was foolish to use it. Benefit of the doubt might be closer, though it doesn't quite hit on what I mean. Point is, a film is very hard to make, I don't care how bad it is. I'm not saying you should respect a bad film or filmmaker. This "reverence" has nothing to do with judging a film's quality whatsoever, nor do I think I ever implied that it did. I am talking specifically about how one treats a film in review, the tone one uses, and what that tone works to accomplish. You somehow managed to incorporate a tirade on the MISERABLE STATE OF WORLD CINEMA, but I wasn't commenting on that. Has condescension in reviews ever improved the state of world cinema? Of course not. You can reprimand someone for making a racist comment, but that won't improve social conditions, not even to the most infinitesimal degree.
Either way, this isn't something I'm fervent about. There are plenty of films I despise regardless of whatever effort went into them. It's something to consider, to incorporate into a far more complex understanding of the film, not a philosophy in its own right.

I don't think my problem is with the attitude itself (as I said, I would like to see a clever writer rip through bad films), it's the fact that it's so common. I'm simply sick of it through exposure. I'd consider the critical establishment (of film journalism; this is not the responsibility of academic criticism) just as stagnant and ineffective and troublesome as the industry itself, and I hold them just as liable, if not more so. I find it hard to blame people who make bad movies because they have invested their money in an attempt to make more and have often succeeded. (Sometimes they may even hope to make something good and just fail.) These "rich" filmmakers got what they wanted and they have, as far as we can determine, no concerns beyond that. I don't blame a man for treading on bugs when he walks, and I don't like comparing art films to insects but that's essentially the attitude of these people: they are unaware or they don't care.
This happens because the public will accept bad movies. Who tells the public what to see?

A film critic, someone reviewing films, has an altogether different perspective. If they are at all concerned with the MISERABLE STATE OF WORLD CINEMA (which they should be, as critics), they have a responsibility. It's an unreasonable demand, it may well be impossible, but if we are to blame anyone I feel like we should blame the people who guide audiences to their seats. I have no idea how one goes about fighting a film studio's marketing or overcoming the indifference of an equally uninformed and stagnant audience. It would take extreme measures to even make the slightest difference, and it would probably get you fired, and it may not even work at all. But I think film journalists, especially those with a wide scope of influence, should try.

I have some stuff to attend to at the moment, but I'll expand on this later and answer your question (if I failed to clarify my stance in the explanation above; I'm not sure I've made my position wholly clear about the "reverence" thing).

[GringoTex]

In reference to the above "reverence" discussion, I coincidentally saw a girl walking around the other day with a t-shirt that said "Don't make a film".

Afuckingmen.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

In reference to the above "reverence" discussion, I coincidentally saw a girl walking around the other day with a t-shirt that said "Don't make a film".

I take it that the boyfriend was trying to sell her on the idea of a career in amateur pornography?

I have to say that the idea of reverence was a good one until I realized that a film-maker with no reverence for audience intelligence certainly deserves no room for a film career. With so many shitty films, a better regard for the audience would go a long way for better reviews.

In case of negative criticism being constructive regarding something you hate, see Carl Wilson's book on Celine Dion. Seriously.

[karmajuice]

They don't necessarily deserve "reverence", no, but it doesn't hurt me or anyone else if I give it. I think it benefits me, borrowing from as many perspectives as possible.

I might also add this gives me the privilege of revoking this attitude, which is probably more insulting than never having had it in the first place.

HerrShreck, I do take such factors into consideration when looking at other art, too, or even things that don't qualify as art. I suppose this is about not taking their effort for granted, trying to understand every dimension of a piece. If something is bad the effort put into it doesn't justify its failure (how would that make sense?), but it's such an invisible presence it's easy to dismiss or forget about entirely. I don't think it should be. Maybe part of a film's failure has something to do with difficulties or insufficiencies in a film's production; this doesn't make right the problems in the film, but if I learn this it broadens my understanding of the film.

I do tend to think of this more with film than other art, because it's a process I have more familiarity with, rather than sculpting, which I don't know a great deal about. Also, film is just harder than many things (only in the sense that it involves much work by many people; I don't mean to suggest that this somehow gives a film an inherently higher value than other art).

[Tom Hagen]

Roger Ebert was involved in a critic-on-critic altercation at Toronto last week.

[mfunk9786]

Roger Ebert was involved in a critic-on-critic altercation at Toronto last week.

This is a nauseating bit of news

[swo17]

So has anyone bothered to check out the new At the Movies with Ben and Benner? It's seriously epically bad. Not once do these two sound convinced about what they're saying. They sound like they're reading off a script, and often, a script that could have been written by a studio head. 8-[ What's worse, their reasons for liking or disliking a film display a fundamental lack of understanding of the art of film, or occasionally, reality. I haven't cringed this much since the last time I heard Sarah Palin speak.

The Hamlet 2 and Towelhead reviews are particularly rediculous.