Matt Shea
RubySoho
Morgan Bell
Cibbuano
David O'Connell
Mountain Fog
Becoming a better film critic
July 3rd 2008 23:23
Yes, he outlines several points that are essential to improving as a critic, most notably, in my opinion, the idea that film critics should "develop an appreciation for all the arts". From the article:
"Cultivating an appreciation for other art forms will enhance your ability to write articulately about film. Visit art museums (The Passion’s cinematography is modeled on the works of Caravaggio, a 16th century Italian painter), actually read Shakespeare (Much Ado About Nothing singlehandedly birthed the romantic comedy), listen to classical music (John Williams, composer of some of the greatest movie themes ever, was directly influenced by Wagner and Richard Strauss), and even read comic books (Batman Begins would not exist if not for Frank Miller’s seminal 1986 collection The Dark Knight Returns)."
It's a great article, and he quotes and links to reviews by masters of the medium, including Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert.
Ah, Pauline Kael. Has any other English-language writer so thoroughly dominated a field of thought? Derrick links to her outstanding, monumental essay "Trash, Art and the Movies", where she knocks all us little critics down with one fell swoop:
"It’s appalling to read solemn academic studies of Hitchcock or von Sternberg by people who seem to have lost sight of the primary reason for seeing films like Notorious or Morocco—which is that they were not intended solemnly, that they were playful and inventive and faintly (often deliberately) absurd. And what’s good in them, what relates them to art, is that playfulness and absence of solemnity."
Of course, critics now would disagree with Kael, as Hitchcock is labelled as the unequivocal master of American cinema. On the other hand, I watched many Hitchcock movies as a young teenager, before I had any appreciation of the art of cinema.
I watched "The Birds", "Psycho", "North by Northwest" and "Vertigo", ignoring the fact that the pacing and style of his movies was distinctive. I just knew that they were damn good, and that old movies rarely kept my attention like that.
Kael's position, though, seems to be that we destroy the appeal of trashy movies by layering them with academic thought. That movies that try to be fun should be kept firmly in that category.
Can we agree with that?
I don't know. Or, at least, I don't think so... if you read Bryn's reviews of horror movies on Horrorphile, you'll definitely feel that he reads into his trashy horrors. Far from separating him from his horror, he revels in the depth and poise of a good horror film, a searing point of excellence in the genre.
Similarly, if you head over to JohnDoe's reviews on JDMFilmReviews, you'll definitely find that JD's take on the genres of the Western and the American Action film are no less thought out. He'll expound, at great length, on the importance and vitality of war movies, car chase scenes and cult classics.
There's a lot to be gained from analyzing trash. I suggest that we're not claiming to raise to academic levels, but, instead, looking deep inside, at quark distances. Why do certain films terrify? Why do sympathize with a hero? Why do these movies arouse, stimulate or amuse?
In the Guardian Film Blog, Ron Bergan wrote a piece on being an objective film critic. Certainly, he notes, we can never be truly objective, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to use objective language. He correctly admonishes critics for using language that takes away meaning, including the overuse of the word "I".
Unfortuanately, I'm guilty of this crime. Ack, I did it again. Twice.
Language is of upmost importance in film criticism, as the correct word has the power to evoke very definitive emotions. Famed critics like Kael and Ebert excel and picking the right language, which is why, even when they don't like movies, their reviews are still able to paint a hauntingly accurate picture.
I'll try...
| 139 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Jason King
Sydney Table
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Jason King
Sydney Table
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
I never thought I'd see my name in a post alongside Pauline kael, thanks for the kind words....if we can't over analyze the films we love, whats the point in writing about them. The why is much more interesting than the what!
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
God forbid a critic have his own opinion, that is meaningless, blasphemous even! In a medium that is based on human entertainment, we are nought but mindless gnads, we enjoy the exact same kinds of entertainment and hate the exact same kinds of garbage passing itself off as entertainment!
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Ahmed - I have no problem with opinions, in fact, I much prefer the New Journalism approach. If you read the linked article, Ron Bergan also supports film reviewers to have personal opinions.
What he stands against, is the overuse of language that dilute the review. It's tough not to use 'I' in an article with your opinions in it. Bergan uses the following example:
Comment by stu-kicks
stu kicks
Comment by Michaelie
Flick Wit
Interesting article, Cibb. A bit wanky, but interesting.
Michaelie
Comment by Evan Derrick
And I found the article by Ron Bergan to be fairly amateur. In the positive, his practical points in the latter half of the article are great and should be of value to any writer, especially using the terms 'slow' and 'long' inappropriately. But the example he gives here
isn't bad because it is subjective, it is bad because it resembles middle school writing. However, his example is also a strawman...easy to knock down. Let me share a quote from another review here:
'I' is used 7 times in this snippet from James Agee, widely considered one of the greatest film critics ever. This style typifies his work and is not an isolated incident. Are you telling me, Mr. Bergan, that James Agee did not deliver as a critic?
What Mr. Bergan seems to believe is that criticism is not an art in and of itself. He says "Anything that minimises the complex personality of the critic standing between the film - that obscure object of desire - and the prospective viewer, must surely be encouraged." Really? How dull would criticism be if it conformed to the standard Bergan is holding up? I read the critics I read precisely because of their complex personalities. Take that way -- the idiosyncrasies and prejudices and unique, 'complex' perspective they bring to the films they see -- and you have a bunch of critics that all sound exactly alike. Good film criticism, like essay writing, is an art form. It isn't just about the film being reviewed--it's also about the way in which the film is written about. I read the critics I read because of their style, whereas Mr. Bergan would have all critics sacrifice their style.
No thanks.
Comment by Evan Derrick
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
cheers big time for the props!
For the record, I covered my ass in my blog banner "The High Art and Deep Trash of Horror Movies" ...
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
thanks for sharing!
very good advice!