Mike's Musings: Preconceptions
The goal of a film critic is to be honest and open minded. I've said before that in order to be fair to a movie, you have to give it the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes, however, that's not possible. How is it possible to have an open mind when someone has already told you that to movie sucks? Or it stars Katherine Heigl?
Such is the case with "The Royal Tenenbaums" and "Ghost World." I saw them both years ago when I was younger. One could argue that I was both too young to get the movies, and was blindsided by their impact. I'd give weight to both, although I don't think they would have changed my opinion very much with either film.
But the question is that is it fair to review a movie you have preconceived notions about? I mean, your reader probably hasn't heard much, if anything, about the movie.
It's an interesting question. The answer is probably not, although in some cases, a person needs a place to express their vitriol. If they had that reaction to it, there are going to be others who do too. Especially if they have been misled by critics or people who are misrepresenting the film (this includes trailers). Take "Ghost World" for example. The trailers make it out to be an openly funny comedy, if one of a dark variety. The reality, however, is far different.
An even better example is "The Royal Tenenbaums." I remember hearing critics rave about the movie when it first came out, and not just from quote whores who are all but paid for blurbs movie studios can plaster on the ads. Roger Ebert was one of many who gave it an excellent review (3.5/4 to be exact, the same rating that my local critic gave). And the cast was amazing: Gene Hackman, Anjelica Huston, Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Luke Wilson (although he's an exception, since he's the sole bad apple of the bunch), Gwyneth Paltrow, Bill Murray, Danny Glover, and with Alec Baldwin providing the narration. I was dying to see this film. You rarely see a movie with a cast like that, and it's a rare thing indeed to find "reputable critics" raving about a comedy with big names (Ebert gave "Tommy Boy" a 1/4, and apparently few other critics liked it either).
When I actually saw the movie, I was horrified. I felt so depressed and angry, I generated an immediate and toxic hatred of Wes Anderson (who, by the way, I still hate, although for less vicious reasons). I felt violated. For someone who at the time was a social misfit, seeing a film that made fun of characters like that in such a dark and uncompromising way was deeply wounding. I don't blame Anderson entirely, although I did consider him a sadist until I re-watched the film; it was his film to make. I don't blame the critics either, since they were just doing their jobs by voicing their opinion of the film.
So how could I, with such a festering hatred, approach these two films with an open mind? I couldn't. I freely admit that in the reviews. But is this an act of dishonesty, even though I admitted it? I'm not sure. In the case of "The Royal Tenenbaums," probably not, since "Moonrise Kingdom" reaffirmed my view that Wes Anderson is in love with his quirkiness to the point where his films are trophies to his ego. With "Ghost World," however, things are a little bit more gray. I could see some wit in the film, and I kind of felt for Enid a little. Still, she's a rotten character and I despised her like no other (perhaps because I knew people just like Enid who were gleefully miserable and proudly misanthropic). I don't know how much the rating would change, if at all.
So what is this Mike's Musings really about? Is it a confession? A rationalization? Honestly, I have no idea. I have burning thoughts on my conscience and, like with every movie review or Mike's Musings, it's simply a way for me to get them out on paper. I don't know what you're supposed to get from reading this. I don't know what I'm supposed to get from writing it. I just hope that, after this confession, that you, dear readers, will still find me a trustworthy critic.
An even better example is "The Royal Tenenbaums." I remember hearing critics rave about the movie when it first came out, and not just from quote whores who are all but paid for blurbs movie studios can plaster on the ads. Roger Ebert was one of many who gave it an excellent review (3.5/4 to be exact, the same rating that my local critic gave). And the cast was amazing: Gene Hackman, Anjelica Huston, Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Luke Wilson (although he's an exception, since he's the sole bad apple of the bunch), Gwyneth Paltrow, Bill Murray, Danny Glover, and with Alec Baldwin providing the narration. I was dying to see this film. You rarely see a movie with a cast like that, and it's a rare thing indeed to find "reputable critics" raving about a comedy with big names (Ebert gave "Tommy Boy" a 1/4, and apparently few other critics liked it either).
When I actually saw the movie, I was horrified. I felt so depressed and angry, I generated an immediate and toxic hatred of Wes Anderson (who, by the way, I still hate, although for less vicious reasons). I felt violated. For someone who at the time was a social misfit, seeing a film that made fun of characters like that in such a dark and uncompromising way was deeply wounding. I don't blame Anderson entirely, although I did consider him a sadist until I re-watched the film; it was his film to make. I don't blame the critics either, since they were just doing their jobs by voicing their opinion of the film.
So how could I, with such a festering hatred, approach these two films with an open mind? I couldn't. I freely admit that in the reviews. But is this an act of dishonesty, even though I admitted it? I'm not sure. In the case of "The Royal Tenenbaums," probably not, since "Moonrise Kingdom" reaffirmed my view that Wes Anderson is in love with his quirkiness to the point where his films are trophies to his ego. With "Ghost World," however, things are a little bit more gray. I could see some wit in the film, and I kind of felt for Enid a little. Still, she's a rotten character and I despised her like no other (perhaps because I knew people just like Enid who were gleefully miserable and proudly misanthropic). I don't know how much the rating would change, if at all.
So what is this Mike's Musings really about? Is it a confession? A rationalization? Honestly, I have no idea. I have burning thoughts on my conscience and, like with every movie review or Mike's Musings, it's simply a way for me to get them out on paper. I don't know what you're supposed to get from reading this. I don't know what I'm supposed to get from writing it. I just hope that, after this confession, that you, dear readers, will still find me a trustworthy critic.
Comments
Post a Comment