Reading certain reviews it would be hard to believe that a bad film is not an attack on someone's God-given right to honest-to-goodness entertainment. They are paid to watch films and, when presented with a poor film, act like a spoilt child whose lollipop turned out to be bitter, not sweet.
Every release provides an opportunity for these critics to bend their basest instincts into vitriol. At the merest encouragement a review of a film can turn into a writer's showcase, the more creative and insulting the description of the failure, the more heroic the reviewer. It's a see-saw : the film goes down, the critic goes up. A few may even feel rigged, exaggerated, in bad faith.
There's nothing wrong with saying a film is bad. You cannot prove somebody wrong in their opinion. What we want is sober, erudite and constructive appreciation. So much of what we have (in the mainstream, linked to on sites like rottentomatoes) even sometimes from the more lauded, is an eloquently embroidered "it sucks!". Even the best, most level-headed, critics can indulge in snarky puns on the film's title. The problem is in approach and attitude.
And it is spreading...
"Marshall deserves credit for putting the "show" back into the Pirates business. But, let's face it, he's polishing a giant turd"
"[Sucker Punch] proves that while masturbating over your cast may not make you blind, it can impair directorial vision."
"...a film that unspools as a limp, cynical attempt to replicate the nuance-rich tapestry of her 2003 gem Lost in Translation..."
"Yes, Sofia has unfairly had to live with the embarrassment of being blamed for the failure of The Godfather Part 3, but it wasn’t just her fault. The entire movie and casting were terrible. As payback for that crippling humiliation, Francis Coppola has given his daughter a career as a writer-director."
"I simply hated The Last Airbender and I know I'm not alone in this. This is one of those times where hate may not be a sharp enough word for such wasted potential. In the right hands, this could have been something special. Instead, it was in Shyamalan's hands, and if this film is any indication, he didn't wash them after using the restroom."
What bothers me in film criticism is how critics tend to state their opinions as facts. They pretend it is possible to evaluate a movie objectively, and that their responses to films aren't personal.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I must admit to liking the mean-spirited criticism that you're calling out in this post. And you're right, it is more about calling attention to the writer than evaluating the film, but I find it damned entertaining to read.
Marvin,
ReplyDelete"What bothers me in film criticism is how critics tend to state their opinions as facts."
An opinion is your own personal fact but there are times when critics feel it applies to everyone and that anyone who likes a film they hate is a fool.
"...but I find it damned entertaining to read."
Haha, fair enough! Thanks for the comment, Marvin.
Like anything in life, objectivity is a rare thing - I find as I get older, that it's a bit depressing that other make judgements in fact, when they really do not know the whole story behind, a book, film or simply another person -
ReplyDeleteGuess that's why none of us are perfect, although seem to think they are ; (
I too read some reviews, but take a look at certain films due to their lack of viewership - foreign films in general are some of the best, as are (John Sayles in point) who never make a lot of films, but when he does, you can always count on a well made and stimulating experience).......Amigos, made in the Philippines will be in Chicago next month and hope to catch it - if not, it will be a wait for dvd - his films aren't in high circulation ; (
Yikes, sorry for the drone! = Cheers!
Coffee Messiah,
ReplyDeleteAs I said to Marvin above, this piece is really about over-the-top attacks that are unnecessarily insulting and self-serving.
I have nothing against opinions. It's almost all we have when it comes to judging art. I wouldn't want to impose mine on others as if it were the 'best', though. You are right about not being knowledgeable enough in terms of background and context to make an educated judgement.
I'm still yet to watch my first John Sayles film.
Thanks.
Correction : "I have nothing against opinions. It's almost all we have when it comes to judging art."
ReplyDeleteThey are all we have.
Stephen, A very important topic, well exemplified.
ReplyDeleteOne thing is the haughty trashing of bad movies beyond recognition. Another thing is the panning of truly challenging work where some critics rail against the specific films with whatever arbitrary truths and impromptu standards they create. This solipsistic sting reveals the anti-intellectual bent that mainstream criticism always espouses. I think it has been around there since a long time.
Cheers!
P.S: But it is also too much fun to read, but ascriticism, meh.
Thanks JAFB
ReplyDelete"This solipsistic sting reveals the anti-intellectual bent that mainstream criticism always espouses."
Yes, I think there's something to that.
"But it is also too much fun to read..."
Haha! Then you are part of the problem!
I have written about this several times, and I agree perhaps to a degree exceeding even your own. I don't even like criticism from someone who sort of likes a film. I want to read viewpoints which will lead me not to sort of like a film but to soak up all of its richness, all of those hidden viewpoints which can open up new ways of seeing. Even someone who loves a film may not be able to express this, it takes a certain amount of thought. To begin this thought process at the point where the writer has little or nothing interesting or beneficial to give to someone else is to me just a rhetorical exercise. It can be entertaining, but it is always simply substantiating a void, which is to say becoming one. The same holds true of people, of course. Sit in a room with a spiteful, hateful individual and they can convince you that the loves of your life are worthless, miserable human beings. As if you love someone for anything other than everything that makes them great.
ReplyDeleteJean,
ReplyDelete"I want to read viewpoints which will lead me not to sort of like a film but to soak up all of its richness, all of those hidden viewpoints which can open up new ways of seeing."
Yes. I'm much the same.
"...but it is always simply substantiating a void, which is to say becoming one."
I almost exclusively write (or want to write) about films that I got a lot from, or films that have depths that I can delve into and, perhaps, help illuminate. I write about the ones I enjoy. Or, if I wasn't particularly energised emotionally or intellectually (not that they are always separate), I would write about a work which raises questions I can use to make broader points.
When it comes to art you want to hear from someone who has engaged with it, and who is therefore closer to it in some way. It doesn't mean he/she "gets" it more than any other viewer but it does mean that he has felt or found something of interest, something that has resonated and moved him, something that can give you a new way in.
"Sit in a room with a spiteful, hateful individual and they can convince you that the loves of your life are worthless, miserable human beings. As if you love someone for anything other than everything that makes them great."
Quite right. Well said.
We live in a world of excesses and cinema in general increases that very same sense of gratuitousness that is so bluntly exposed in contemporary mainstream pieces. Unfortunately, film critics use this freedom to, more than speaking their mind, shock and try to make an impression.
ReplyDeleteBut then again, there are no more 'film critics' (except a very rare bunch). There are people who 'write stuff' about their opinions on a viewed movie. Those essay-like-texts are turned into a few lines that often criticize a movie without really talking about it. It's rare to read a text that explores more than the love and hate for a movie, meaning critical construction. We don't read about the impact on society or how fiction imitates reality (and vice versa) and it's extremely rare to read about a cinematographer, an editor, a composer or even the accurate description of a certain directorial work. It's all about saying what you like or don't without really explaining it.
And that's a shame....
Filipe,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you say about excess in criticism mirroring excess, or gratuitousness, in art. I also agree re the lack of "critical construction" in film reviews. There is no reason why a film review have essayistic elements and a proper exploration of ideas.
I try myself to write a lot more besides like/dislike (essays without judgement of quality) or, if the point of a piece is to say whether I enjoyed it or not (a review), to try to explain why.
It is indeed a shame that film critics, especially the mainstream, too often lower rather than raise the bar.
Thank you for the comment Filipe.
'It is indeed a shame that film critics, especially the mainstream, too often lower rather than raise the bar.'
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's a shame, I think it's an intuitive necessity of populism. That which excludes the least and provides the most immediate stimulation will become popular, mainstream - and this excludes in depth criticism, which is to say interesting criticism, in all but the most peculiar and unusual situations. It's not a bad thing, really, except that it makes the interesting stuff less well known. But even that is alright, because 'popular opinion' averages out to be an average person's favorite pieces which they dedicated an average amount of time and thought in. As we already agreed - this person is not the one whose interests are worth exploring. Exceptional individuals trump the mainstream every time, and are doomed to never join the mainstream because of it. Fact of life.
Inevitable it may be (I'm not sold on that) but that doesn't mean it can't be a shame.
ReplyDeleteThis "Immediate stimulation", to an extent, is learnt. I was turned off by different styles of film until I watched a couple and then found that I could be 'immediately stimulated' with less action and fewer emotional peaks and troughs.
If it can happen to one person, it can happen to everyone. I am still aware of the big-money offerings and am a customer of them. You don't need great publicity or much of a change in critical attitude to make people aware of a bigger world out there.
It would be best to start with looking at the most famous and available films in more depth, to treat them as works that have had thought put into them.
The mainstream watchers and critics don't put that much artistic curiosity/investment into their watching. The film business is the art in which people get least involved with the product. Cinema is part of a night out, work readily reduced to stars on the poster and star ratings for the review.
"Exceptional individuals trump the mainstream every time, and are doomed to never join the mainstream because of it. Fact of life."
There are exceptions.
'It would be best to start with looking at the most famous and available films in more depth, to treat them as works that have had thought put into them.'
ReplyDeleteYes, but you have to remember - this is true of everything in life, from advertisements to tv shows to conversations with others to sporting events... to devote the optimal amount of thought and attention to all of them simply amounts to more time than the average person has, which is why the average will always be sub-optimal (and to a large degree). It only worsens when people have financial, familial, and personal responsibilities which eat away at time and energy. To this point Bertrand Russell's 'In Praise of Idleness' is, as always, so pertinent. To the greater point: not everyone can have an exceptional experience with every single thing they encounter. You make the argument that you can adapt yourself to have a more fruitful immediate experience with 'new forms' - I'll agree with that, to some extent, but I will never agree that this increased immediate pleasure will ever equate with a more involved and time-and-thought intensive experience. But, anyway, getting back to criticism - more in-depth pieces of criticism take more time, time that is finite and which people by necessity can't devote to everything they experience without greatly reducing the breadth of their experiences, so people specialize in that which interests them most. Given that I have a greater-than-average interest in film I don't want to be subjected to the effects of the aggregation toward the average interest level, even if that level is higher than it is at present. For this you can already see the effects of people with a higher-than-average interest in film: the various canons. I find the result to be less varied, more homogeneous than taking a random film from any of the individuals sampled. Think about this - the aggregate may be (and typically is) less interesting than each and every individual sampled (which makes sense, given that it is stripped of all personality and passion). Aggregation removes exceptions, be it exceptional individuals or each individual's exceptions, and I don't have any interest in the average. You say that there are exceptions to this process - but who wants to select from exceptional oversights in an exception-eradicating mathematical process when you can cut straight to the unfiltered source? Not me! So, yes, if any or all individuals devoted more time and effort to each and everything they encountered this would result in an increase in the quality of the 'mainstream'... but since this is a physical impossibility to say nothing of a second-rate solution I'll simply treat the mainstream as the mathematical phenomena that it is and stick with the phenomenal humans. Seems to me to be a better solution in theory and in practice.
Yes, you are quite right about time constraints and inclination (this should be less of an issue with critics) and the way things naturally move towards an average. It's all about making the most of the time and the platform you have. Here, in this piece, I was talking about those who abuse that platform and spend time being offensive and self-serving rather than looking at the art. I am reminded of the part in F For Fake where Welles talks of Chartres Cathedral being "without signature".
ReplyDelete"For this you can already see the effects of people with a higher-than-average interest in film: the various canons. I find the result to be less varied, more homogeneous than taking a random film from any of the individuals sampled."
Yes. I did, from time to time, use canons. I do this because of experience - the films recommended will more often than not turn out to interest me. Nowadays I do zero in on those films which others do not include.
What I tend to do is try to stay abreast of the films of people I have previously enjoyed as well as build a picture of a style of films. For example, reading a piece on Lisandro Alonso will doubtless uncover directors of a broadly similar bent. If you work from there, then the net will quickly become very wide. When it comes to straight reviews critics are useful not so much in actual insight but, after a while, you see that your views on good and bad can be in synch with particular writers.
Obviously this takes time and requires an active curiosity.
Canons basically feed themselves and lead to stagnation. People feel compelled to include films others have because of their fame (built up by being in canons) and influence (ditto). This is a pseudo-historical approach as well as a lack of confidence in one's opinion. It's like a nod to 'objectivity' and being so-called knowledgeable about film. 'Oh, I forgot Citizen Kane, or Vertigo or La Regle du Jeu'. I will always put more energy in new films coming out (and yes, more popular films interest me more because these are the ones that are at the forefront of our culture, a shared experience - which is what a cinema is of course).
In the end, though, you can't just pick (or rather imagine) a random film and follow a path into the unknown on your own. Your choices of what to watch will almost always depend on others making you aware of something, stocking titles etc.