I have always been critical of criticism. How can one not be? The very title implies a thorough, and usually unfavorable, evaluation of a piece of work. As someone who desperately loves film, I tend to take a critic’s review very personally. It almost feels like someone publicly claiming I have good or, more often than not, poor taste in film. How can anyone be expected to like work that feels like a persona attack? Through reading what the critics themselves have to say in defense of their occupation in “Film Criticism in America Today: A Critical Symposium” from Cineaste Magazine as well as viewing Dr. Gerald Peary’s film on the same topic has likely been one of the most eye-opening experiences since I began studying film because, I realize, maybe people aren’t supposed to necessarily like a critic’s work. In fact, not liking it may serve more purpose.
“We’re cheerleaders or spoilsports,” David Ansen of Newsweek states in his brief article in Cineaste. This is what critics have now been reduced to and I have to admit that this is how I, too, previously viewed them. I realize this line of thought almost counteracts working towards a degree that incorporates film. I study film to understand and acknowledge the technical, historical, and cultural influences of film to be able to one day create a film that generates thought. And this seems to be exactly what critics hope for as well. Reducing what they look for is like reducing what I hope to accomplish. How can I want to generate thought without realizing the potential for negative thought? Does a film really generate thought if everyone agrees with its premise?
If a good film is one that is an interactive experience for the audience in which they are required to mull over the information that was presented to them, then a good critic is someone who knowledgably facilitates this experience. At one point during Dr. Peary’s film, Molly Haskell states that she feels that a disadvantage to internet blogging is that no one takes credit for what they say, which I find to be an unerring point. While I feel the internet is an excellent place to foster creative tendencies, it has also become a platform for cruelty for the mere sake of being cruel. I find the rivalry between Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael to be quite interesting in reference to the anonymity of the internet where plenty of people find themselves arguing against someone’s opinion, but there is something noble about signing a name to your opinion, especially if it’s negative. Although Sarris and Kael had a highly publicized rivalry, they went about it with dignity.
A reoccurring theme throughout the film and Dr. Peary’s discussion following was that of adventure and life experience. Film isn’t as simple as who makes what look the best on the biggest screen; it’s also about the substance of story and quality of character. I truly believe people are unable to recognized and appreciate these elements without personal experience. While I do believe we can learn about life through film, it is difficult to become the person we want through it as well. As a critic, personality is often detectable through a person’s writing. Moreover, life experience is important in sifting through films that one finds enjoyable and others not so enjoyable. I remember the first movie I ever truly disliked was a 2003 film entitled How to Deal starring Mandy Moore. At the time, I could never place why I disliked it, but as my life continued I realized it had a lot to do with the fact that the film dealt with issues (death, infidelity, abortion) at an attempt to be purposefully shocking. The film didn’t feel like the coming-of-age story about a young woman stumbling through the pangs of adolescents it was meant to be, but more of a story gorging itself on trite teenage stereotypes as the film throws every plot device feasible on the plate of pop-star-turned-actress Mandy Moore. It was startling to come out of the theatre not thoroughly enjoying a film for the first time, but I’ll never forget the experience.
Dr. Peary also encouraged the idea of being adventurous, which transitioned into a lengthy and interesting discussion on foreign film. People stated that foreign film is not readily accessible to young audiences, a point I concur with, but I also believe part of the issue is that foreign film does require partial audience participation and doesn’t always provide closure at the end, leaving audiences weary of the experience. Who wants to see a movie about real life? This is always a question I hear people ask and, unfortunately, I have no answer other than because it’s real life and it can offer new perspective or a chance to laugh at ourselves. I won’t sit here and write as if I have exposed myself to the plethora of foreign film in the world because I haven’t. It hasn’t been a type of film I’ve intentionally avoided; it just never crossed my mind. I do, however, look forward to exposing myself further to international film.
I try very hard not to categorize films simply as “good” or “bad” because I don’t think it’s that simple. Everyone has differing tastes and, at the end of the day, they will see what they want. I’m not so sure a critic, no matter how strong their voice, can influence that decision. I have a new found respect for critics and hope that there will remain critics who disagree with my opinion and the opinion of the majority to allow people to learn more about themselves, film, and culture.
I agree with you on the notion of not categorizing films into good or bad. Sometimes a film is poorly executed but the ideas are interesting so you can’t help enjoying it. I for instance love the film The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but it’s terrible. Terry Gilliam’s film which have taken decades to finally become good, but the ideas in his older films are the reasons I think they are worth watching.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your choice of quote that critics are simply for or against a film. As I still see most of them in that way. I doubt even this course will make me change my mind. Most critics that I normally come across reviewing films stick to the simplification of good or bad. For that reason, I only bother to read reviews when I’m unsure if a film will have any redeeming qualities or if it’s so ridiculously awful I might enjoy it.
Strangely I disagree with the idea that films are required to be interactive, where we should spend time thinking it over. Personally, I consider it the mark of a film I have absolutely no desire to see. If I want something to dwell on, I’ll read a book. It takes much longer to get through and presents a million more potential thoughts than an hour long movie can. I always think a good film should aspire in terms of visuals to go beyond the realms of reality, as it is a visual medium for storytelling, visuals should be emphasized. Foreign films focus on visuals more so than American films, so if you do get the time to peruse them I would highly recommend Amelie. But if you prefer films that make you think, which I assume you do, try He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not. Amelie is a French film starring Audrey Tautou same as He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not; however Amelie is a sweet film about a girl having an epiphany and deciding to help people. The other film is a psychological thriller about an art student having an affair, but it’s nowhere near how an American film would go with the plot. That’s all I’ll say about it because I don’t want to give away the whole plot.
I too found Dr. Peary’s discussion about the accessibility of foreign films rather interesting. In your blog entry, you state that “foreign film is not readily accessible to young audiences,” and that particular phrasing got the gears in my head to turn. I think that the root of the matter here is the American culture as a whole; just as we grew up with popcorn flicks like Star Wars or Rambo, people in other countries did so with Jules and Jim and Run Lola Run. I’m not saying that foreigners never watched and enjoyed Star Wars – they did – it’s just that their cultures also exposed them to native movies that are distinctly un-American in style. Of course, American cinema has certainly taken influences from international cinema and vice versa. In short, the movie audience is a product of what it is exposed to. However, the exposure is not rigid, as anyone can pick up a copy of the New York Times or click onto a movies website and become intrigued by a foreign film. Thus, if a person goes to their local theater every week and just watches whatever is screening, chances are that they are only being exposed to an incomplete piece of the larger cinematic whole. If the person interacts with other movie fans and reads through film reviews or magazines, then their exposure to cinema-at-large is more complete.
ReplyDeleteWhat I’m trying to say is that where the concept of cultural influence is concerned, the American audience is largely unexposed to foreign films, yet we can’t simply dismiss said audience as lazy or unwilling to think. Since we live in a nation where Hollywood reigns supreme, it is natural that most Americans are either ignorant of foreign cinema’s existence or are unwilling to open their minds to foreign film. I’m open to other ways of thinking about the foreign film conundrum, but this particular idea struck me as most fascinating.
Amanda, I definitely agree with the quote by David Ansen that you use in the second paragraph of your article. While there are some critics who do go very in depth with their ideas, I feel that a lot of critics just state what they like and what they don’t like about the film, and this results in not being able to hear their actual, deeper thoughts. They tend to just scratch the surface. Some critics go the extra mile to put as much detail into their explanations as possible and tackle the aspects of the film or films from all sides, whereas other critics tend to be more superficial and point out details that aren’t quite as important for the overall criticism.
ReplyDeleteIn the third paragraph concerning online film criticism, I agree with your statement about internet criticism reveling in cruelty. Aside from reading reviews in newspapers and magazines, I like to read internet reviews as well. Upon reading these online reviews, the people who post in the comments section below the review do tend to become hostile if the reviewer doesn’t agree with the opinion of the masses. Because these individuals are hidden behind their online aliases, they feel it is alright to attack and bash people for having an opinion that might go against the general consensus. Reading the comments sometimes takes the fun out of reading these reviews because instead of having intelligent conversations online, people just throw insults at each other.
In your paragraph concerning the time you went to see How to Deal and walked out with that having been the first movie you truly disliked, it made me think about writing reviews for bad movies and how some find it easier to write about them rather than good movies. For me, I find it harder to write reviews for bad movies because I can never quite place immediately what I didn’t like about it. For good movies, I know what I liked and what I didn’t like right after the film is over. I think it’s because when I read reviews for a film, if the criticisms are generally bad, then I’ll stay away from it. But if the reviews are split or mostly positive, then I’ll give it a chance. This reminds me of when I went to see the comedy 30 Minutes or Less last Summer. The reviews were a pretty even mix between positive and negative, so I decided to give it a chance. I ended up not liking it, but it took me a while to figure out why because most of the time, I just go see movies that I have a strong feeling I’m going to like, with a few occasions where the chances of liking it are up in the air. So most of the reviews I write end up being positive because I see films that are generally well-received and I know I’m going to like them. I have more experience with writing positive reviews than negative ones.