Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login
 
Reviews, previews and chuckling and snorting...

What every film critic must know

May 15th 2007 18:47
That's not my title. It's the title of the post on the Guardian film blog, entitled, predictably, 'What every film critic must know'.

I railed before about how being a film critic is nearly useless in a sea of Hollywood blockbusters and people that pay to watch them, leaving the really original, clever movies to flounder in the indie theatre market.

This critic, however, is of the intellectual elite, teaching film at some fancy school in the States, and claims that to be a film reviewer, you must have an educated background in order to truly appreciate the art form.

Here's what he says:

"I believe that every film critic should know, say, the difference between a pan and a dolly shot, a fill and key light, direct and reflected sound, the signified and the signifier, diegetic and non-diegetic music, and how both a tracking shot and depth of field can be ideological.

They should know their jidai-geki from their gendai-geki, be familiar with the Kuleshov Effect and Truffaut's "Une certain tendance du cinéma français", know what the 180-degree rule is and the meaning of "suture".

They should have read Sergei Eisenstein's The Film Sense and Film Form and the writings of Bela Balasz, André Bazin, Siegfried Kracauer, Roland Barthes, Christian Metz and Serge Daney.

They should have seen Jean-Luc Godard's Histoire du Cinema, and every film by Carl Dreyer, Robert Bresson, Jean Renoir, Luis Buñuel and Ingmar Bergman, as well as those of Jean-Marie Straub and Danielle Huillet, and at least one by Germaine Dulac, Marcel L'Herbier, Mrinal Sen, Marguerite Duras, Mikio Naruse, Jean Eustache and Stan Brakhage. They should be well versed in Russian constructivism, German expressionism, Italian neo-realism, Cinema Novo, La Nouvelle Vague and the Dziga Vertov group. "

Can you make that claim? I can't. I'm a film enthusiast and I watch a lot of movies, but I'm not going to pretend that I'm able of writing a dissertation on anything on this list.

Sure, this writer appreciates film in a way that I can't, but is he also missing the sheer thrill of enjoyment? Is his mind corrupted by the very knowledge that he has?

I'd say that I have the advantage in that realm. I can appreciate some awful movies just for the sheer entertainment value: the gratuitous sex and violence, the obvious humour, the boring frames.

But it's slipping... the more films I watch, the more truly excellent films I get to see, which corrupts me even further.


79
Vote
Add To: del.icio.us Digg Furl Spurl.net StumbleUpon Yahoo


   
subscribe to this blog 


   

   


Comments
7 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by Winston

May 15th 2007 21:07
wow....I really enjoy movies, and I tend to try and look at them on a deeper level to think about what the director was trying to express (assuming I'm watching a more serious film and not something by the Wayans brothers). However, having read above what it takes to be a film critic, it's clear that I'm not qualified to review a yogurt commercial.

I took several film classes in college, and touched on a few of those topics, but all I can say to this super-critic is.....damn, dude, lighten up!

Comment by Tracy

May 16th 2007 00:39
Gosh, I know some knowledge would be helpful but these are hefty prerequisites...according to this geezer I'm not qualified at all...ah well.....

Comment by Kleonaptra

May 16th 2007 01:23
How ridiculous. Way to take the fun out of it! Would you want a snotty dietician reviewing your hamburger?

Comment by Tracy

May 16th 2007 01:39
I like your analogy, Kleo!!

Comment by Cibbuano

May 16th 2007 13:34

Comment by Kleonaptra

May 17th 2007 00:09
Why thank you, dudes! Im so glad we all still eat hamburgers!

Comment by patrickg

May 18th 2007 01:17
Sheesh, I have an honours degree in film studies, I've been published in peer reviewed film journals, and I worked as a critic for about four years, and I certainly don't qualify under his criteria.

I think it's bollocks. Anyone can be a film critic, imho, the only prequisite is that you must love cinema. If you've got that, everything else you need will follow (and there's not much else you need anyway!).

Add A Comment

To create a fully formatted comment please click here.


CLICK HERE TO LOGIN | CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Name or Orble Tag
Home Page (optional)
Comments
Bold Italic Underline Strikethrough Separator Left Center Right Separator Quote Insert Link Insert Email
Notify me of replies
Notify extra people about this comment
Is this a private comment?
List the Email Addresses or Orble Tags of the people you would like to be notified about this comment


One per line max of 30

List the Email Addresses or Orble Tags of the people you would like to be notified about this private comment thread. Only the people in this list will be able to see or reply to your comment.


One per line max of 30

Your Name
(for the email going out to the above list, it can be different to your Orble Tag)
Your Email Address
(optional)
(required for reply notification)
Submit
More Posts
1 Posts
14 Posts
10 Posts
1142 Posts dating from March 2006
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
0

Matt Shea's Blogs

I have no other blogs :(
Moderated by Matt Shea
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]