Mike's Musings: Film Criticism
Film critics view movies in different ways than general audiences. By nature, they analyze film whereas most people who watch movies simply decide whether or not they like a movie or actor. They write about the movie and why they feel something does or doesn't work.
The trouble with this is that sometimes they use their critics' mind in movies where one is not needed. Take "National Treasure" for instance. Critics were, at best, dismissive of it. James Berardinelli wrote that Nicolas Cage's character "acts like an autistic Sherlock Holmes, alternating between genius-like leaps of intuition and moments of astounding stupidity." True, the film isn't exactly a life-altering experience and no one's mind will grow by watching it, but "National Treasure" isn't meant to be that kind of a movie. You don't watch a movie like "National Treasure" with the same mindset that you watch "Michael Clayton." If you really think about it, it's just as silly as "Raiders of the Lost Ark," which is number 8 on Berardinell's Top 100 list (an honor that I strongly disagree with, by the way).
I believe that you should give the film the benefit of the doubt. Watch it on it's own level. If it's supposed to be light entertainment, view it as such. Don't think too hard about a film, unless the movie demands it. Chances are audiences aren't going to be looking for flaws, so don't tie your brain into a pretzel when a movie is simple entertainment.
Some critics, like Roger Ebert, take notes during a movie they're reviewing. I don't. In fact, I think it's a ridiculous idea. Every time you jot something down you are taken out of the movie and you might miss something. Plus there are very few movies where it might possibly be worth it. I remember watching "Into the Wild" and realizing some things while I was watching it. Although I forgot them by the time the credits started rolling, I realized that it really wasn't that big of a deal. If it was that important or profound, I would have remembered it.
One thing that some critics do is view a film as a member of its intended audience. As I said before, this may have been in good intentions but it's always wrong and fundamentally dishonest. Take my review of "Judy Moody and the Not So Bummer Summer" that was released last year. I realize that that movie was made for grade school girls. I am not, and have never been, a grade school girl. When reviewing it, I said how much I enjoyed it (very little). But never did I think about it from a perspective that wasn't my own.
In short, film criticism is really just explaining what you thought of a movie and why you think that way. There's really nothing more to it, and to pick apart a movie while you're watching it is unfair to the film. Always watch a film as a member of the audience, not a critic. If a film's lack of intelligence is obvious to you then, that's when you should mention it. A film can't plug in every moment of a story...that would make a 90 minute film become a week-long endeavor. Stuff has to be cut out and fudged over. To criticize a movie for that is absurd.
The trouble with this is that sometimes they use their critics' mind in movies where one is not needed. Take "National Treasure" for instance. Critics were, at best, dismissive of it. James Berardinelli wrote that Nicolas Cage's character "acts like an autistic Sherlock Holmes, alternating between genius-like leaps of intuition and moments of astounding stupidity." True, the film isn't exactly a life-altering experience and no one's mind will grow by watching it, but "National Treasure" isn't meant to be that kind of a movie. You don't watch a movie like "National Treasure" with the same mindset that you watch "Michael Clayton." If you really think about it, it's just as silly as "Raiders of the Lost Ark," which is number 8 on Berardinell's Top 100 list (an honor that I strongly disagree with, by the way).
I believe that you should give the film the benefit of the doubt. Watch it on it's own level. If it's supposed to be light entertainment, view it as such. Don't think too hard about a film, unless the movie demands it. Chances are audiences aren't going to be looking for flaws, so don't tie your brain into a pretzel when a movie is simple entertainment.
Some critics, like Roger Ebert, take notes during a movie they're reviewing. I don't. In fact, I think it's a ridiculous idea. Every time you jot something down you are taken out of the movie and you might miss something. Plus there are very few movies where it might possibly be worth it. I remember watching "Into the Wild" and realizing some things while I was watching it. Although I forgot them by the time the credits started rolling, I realized that it really wasn't that big of a deal. If it was that important or profound, I would have remembered it.
One thing that some critics do is view a film as a member of its intended audience. As I said before, this may have been in good intentions but it's always wrong and fundamentally dishonest. Take my review of "Judy Moody and the Not So Bummer Summer" that was released last year. I realize that that movie was made for grade school girls. I am not, and have never been, a grade school girl. When reviewing it, I said how much I enjoyed it (very little). But never did I think about it from a perspective that wasn't my own.
In short, film criticism is really just explaining what you thought of a movie and why you think that way. There's really nothing more to it, and to pick apart a movie while you're watching it is unfair to the film. Always watch a film as a member of the audience, not a critic. If a film's lack of intelligence is obvious to you then, that's when you should mention it. A film can't plug in every moment of a story...that would make a 90 minute film become a week-long endeavor. Stuff has to be cut out and fudged over. To criticize a movie for that is absurd.
I can't say how I much I disagree with this. First, you have a very narrow view of film criticism, and while I think the role of a film critic should include explaining why they like/dislike and are recommending/condemning a particular film, the role of a critic should and has to be, much broader than explaining why a film is good or bad. Other roles that critics frequently fill include analyzing thematic content and symbolism, examining the technical choices of the filmmakers, and where the film fits in with the history of cinema and/or the films genre, etc.
ReplyDeleteThese roles exist well apart from a critic simply explaining why they like/dislike a film. I can analyze the politics of The Dark Knight Rises without making a single statement as to whether or not I liked it. Ditto for analyzing the cinematography of Citizen Kane, the thematic content of Watchmen, or discussing how The Maltese Falcon influenced film noir.
Granted there are films like National Treasure that don't lend themselves very well to any kind of deep analysis, and that's when the role of a film critic becomes one of yes, explaining why the liked or disliked a film. Going back and reading JB's reviews of the National Treasure films he does exactly that, nothing more.
-Jeremy
I agree with you completely. Some movies, such as The Dark Knight (I can't speak for Citizen Kane, since I haven't seen it yet), The War Zone, and others do bear analysis. A critic's job is, as you and I have said, to say whether a film is good or bad, and why.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that sometimes critics miss the point of movies. They pick apart movies that do not, and should not, picked apart. I always watch a movie as a casual viewer and then gather my thoughts. I sit back and enjoy the movie. If it provokes deeper thoughts, like The Dark Knight or The War Zone, I discuss them. But some movies are not meant for that.
If a movie is groundbreaking or influential, it is entirely okay to discuss that. But some movies have no desire to be anything other than entertaining. You shouldn't go looking for "Memento" when watching a movie like "National Treasure." Or "True Lies" for that matter.
That was my point. Critics should review the movie in terms of what it is trying to be.