David O'Connell
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:
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.
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. "
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.
| 80 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
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
Movies and Life
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Comment by Tracy
Movies and Life
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Comment by patrickg
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!).