Please, critics, write about the filmmaking

[Plain Old Tele]

So says Matt Zoller Seitz. Preach it!

 

http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/please-critics-write-about-the-filmmaking

 

 

Movies and television are visual art forms, and aural art forms. They are not just about plot, characterization and theme. Analytical writing about movies and TV should incorporate some discussion of the means by which the plot is advanced, the characters developed, the themes explored. It should devote some space, some small bit of the word count, to the compositions, the cutting, the music, the decor, the lighting, the overall rhythm and mood of the piece. 

 

Otherwise it's all just book reports or political op-eds that happen to be about film and TV. It's literary criticism about visual media. It's only achieving half of its potential, if that. And it's doing nothing to help a viewer understand how a work evokes particular feelings in them as they watch it. 

 

 

[rukaio101]

I disagree (specifically with the idea that all reviews need to talk about the filmmaking (and the idea that reviewers need to read up on how filmmaking works). A review is your opinion of the film as a objective, everyday viewer. Objective, everyday viewers usually don't know or care about most filmmaking techniques. A filmmaking expert may appreciate a certain shot in a film, but an everyday viewer probably won't notice anything out of the ordinary and, if they did, an 'uneducated' critic can spot it as well and comment on it if they consider it worth commenting on.

 

Now if we're talking about an indepth analysis of a film, then yes, you should talk about specific filmmaking techniques the film uses. But there's no need for a review to do the same

[Plain Old Tele]

I largely agree with him, otherwise it comes down to "I like this" or "I don't like this" (which, frankly, is where most critics have ended up these days.) The "why" is important. It doesn't need to be incredibly analytic or in-depth (though it's great if you can do that, especially in longer-form areas like blogs or online reviews), but some sense of meaning behind the discussion is helpful... otherwise it's basically the equivalent of breathless red carpet "reporting". A good critic should help bring meaningful discussion to the content (and some of them do).

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

This guy is quickly becoming my favorite reviewer out there. There does seem to be a disconnect these days in film criticism between form and content. While content might be why we go to the cinema, form is extremely important because its what helps give meaning/emotional weight to that content. There's a line that Ebert used to have, which Seitz borrows, it reads "a movie is not what it's about, it's how it's about." (I might have fucked up the line badly, but the point is the same). While story and characters are extremely important, how they are presented to us is just as important. You could have the best freaking story in the world, but if your execution is lacking, then that's a problem. Most film critics focus on execution, but they focus on the literary aspect of the execution. How was the character developed through the dialogue and the plot? How was the plot developed through the script? Outside of editing, film critics rarely tell us how emotion/character/plot is developed or enhanced through film technique (such as cinematography). And yet, one shot can make or break a movie.While watching The Wolf of Wall Street, I was really enjoying it. But at the end, Scorsese had that "sell me this pen" scene. And the way he positioned his camera was not to focus on the pen or Jordan Belfort, but instead to focus on the audience. He was asking us, through the camera, to think about how the average person participates in Belfort's schemes. When you think about it, the entire concept of "sell me this pen" based on earlier scenes is that people only buy a product when they absolutely need it or demand it. While watching that scene, it seemed rather awkward. Why would Scorsese bring up this pen again; it's not important to the plot? Well, if you just look at the shot composition, you realize it. The audience is at the center of the focus, not the pen. And when I realized that, I realized what the point was. The product/image in this scene isn't the pen, it's Jordan Belfort. You realize this from the fact that the audience is looking so attentively at him, almost like a lecture is being presented to them (which it is). But this raised important questions: why was Belfort a product? Why would you be interested in what he has to say about business? Yes, the guy made a ton of cash, but he also did so while ruining people's lives, and most know about this. Yet, people still pay to listen to him and for his services. This means that they need something; they demand something. That "something" isn't just money, but it's fast money. It's the concept of cashing in as quickly as possible that our society loves, and that's why we pay to listen to crooks like Belfort. But it's also why the Belforts of the world create a mockery out of our financial system: because they exploit our desires for money. After all, the men Belfort swindled were also trying to cash in quickly through the stock market. They were willing to run the risk in order to attain this dream that we've created of fast money, and as a result, they let the Belforts of the world thrive (they might not have created Belfort, but they helped him out big time). Now, this isn't to indict us (even though it sounds like that). I'm not saying it's our fault and that Belfort should be let off the hook. But if we want to stop the Belforts of the world from swindling us, we need to first reassess our viewpoint on how to make money. We need to stop looking for the quick way out. That doesn't mean that we should not enter the stock market, but that we shouldn't attempt to make it our way of making big bucks quickly. We shouldn't exalt those people who do make money quickly (like Belfort) and go to their sessions on how to make cash. We need to change our attitude to the situation.To me, this is some pretty deep stuff. And the only way that I understood it was because of one shot that Scorsese placed at the end of his film. Of course, I had seen the theme at other moments, but this was the moment where it changed from being a theme to being an idea. This moment sealed the deal for me, Scorsese had made a masterpiece. And that image has stayed with me for the last 2 and a half months. Yet, none of the positive reviews mentioned this scene. The only people who mentioned it were those who didn't like the film. Armond White just bitched about how the image was used in another film (like he always does). Meanwhile, other critics felt that the image was pretentious and placed the blame on the wrong people. Perhaps, they are right, but that's not the point. The point is: why did nobody who enjoyed the movie ever talk about this moment? Did they really not notice it? How could I notice it and not them? Chances are, they did notice it, and they did understand it. Yet, they still had nothing to say about it? I mean some critics loved this movie, and yet they had nothing to say about its best aspect? Well, perhaps they liked all of the movie except for that one last shot, okay fine, maybe that should be mentioned though? After all, this is what Scorsese leaves us with at the end of the film. Your job, even if you mostly liked the movie and disliked that last image, should be to comment on it if you're a film critic. If you liked the image, you should comment on it as well because it's where one of the most crucial ideas in the film is unpacked. And yet, nobody talked about it. And in general, the criticism for TWOWs has suffered because people didn't care about having this type of analysis. Instead, those who loved the film focused on its comedy and performances, which is fine. But they should have focused on that last image because it gives the movie some added weight and depth. Worse, by not focusing on that image, they only further aided those who were against the film and who were saying "well, it has a lot of excess, but never comments on it." For starters, it does so in many places. But again, in that one image, it really offers its best commentary. What we see when we examine the failure of film critics to comment on that last shot is the failure that Seitz talks about: by not focusing on how film techniques can contribute to meaning/emotion, certain ideas that were only developed through those techniques get lost.Sorry for the long ass rant. 

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

I disagree (specifically with the idea that all reviews need to talk about the filmmaking (and the idea that reviewers need to read up on how filmmaking works). A review is your opinion of the film as a objective, everyday viewer. Objective, everyday viewers usually don't know or care about most filmmaking techniques. A filmmaking expert may appreciate a certain shot in a film, but an everyday viewer probably won't notice anything out of the ordinary and, if they did, an 'uneducated' critic can spot it as well and comment on it if they consider it worth commenting on.

 

Now if we're talking about an indepth analysis of a film, then yes, you should talk about specific filmmaking techniques the film uses. But there's no need for a review to do the same

Part of a critic's job is to also help people talk about movies in an educated way. When you read Ebert's obituaries or tributes, they always talk about how Ebert allowed them to appreciate and talk about movies in a sophisticated manner (at least for an average person). If this is the job of a critic, then this should also include an analysis of film technique. We may not need every shot to be explained, but a couple of shots should be.That's not to say that film critics who don't do this are bad, but it means that they're not reaching their fullest potentials. 

[rukaio101]

I largely agree with him, otherwise it comes down to "I like this" or "I don't like this" (which, frankly, is where most critics have ended up these days.) The "why" is important. It doesn't need to be incredibly analytic or in-depth (though it's great if you can do that, especially in longer-form areas like blogs or online reviews), but some sense of meaning behind the discussion is helpful... otherwise it's basically the equivalent of breathless red carpet "reporting". A good critic should help bring meaningful discussion to the content (and some of them do).

It comes down to 'I like this' or 'I don't like this' no matter what you do. You can talk all you want about filmmaking theory and what goes into a shot and etc, etc, but all it boils down to is 'This shot is good because I like it'. Good and bad are subjective concepts and it's impossible to definitively prove anything as either, no matter how many technical terms you throw around.

 

And reviewers delve into the 'why' all the time. Hell, a review is basically just an entire article on why the critic feels that way about a certain movie. If you feel reviews aren't going enough into the 'why' then it's not because they're not talking enough about filmmaking or have not educated themselves about it, it's because you're not reading good reviews.

 

Part of a critic's job is to also help people talk about movies in an educated way. When you read Ebert's obituaries or tributes, they always talk about how Ebert allowed them to appreciate and talk about movies in a sophisticated manner (at least for an average person). If this is the job of a critic, then this should also include an analysis of film technique. We may not need every shot to be explained, but a couple of shots should be.That's not to say that film critics who don't do this are bad, but it means that they're not reaching their fullest potentials.

Since when?

 

A critic's job is to give their opinion and assessment on a work. Nothing more, nothing less. That's not to say a critic can't go beyond his parameters and help people understand movies in a more sophisticated way. But it's not a requirement of the job, not something everyone can do well and does not instantly make that critic superior to others who have their own ways of reviewing.  

[Water Bottle]

Eh, it's not like people care about critics anymore.

 

They care about the total Rotten Tomatoes score.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

It comes down to 'I like this' or 'I don't like this' no matter what you do. You can talk all you want about filmmaking theory and what goes into a shot and etc, etc, but all it boils down to is 'This shot is good because I like it'. Good and bad are subjective concepts and it's impossible to definitively prove anything as either, no matter how many technical terms you throw around.

 

And reviewers delve into the 'why' all the time. Hell, a review is basically just an entire article on why the critic feels that way about a certain movie. If you feel reviews aren't going enough into the 'why' then it's not because they're not talking enough about filmmaking or have not educated themselves about it, it's because you're not reading good reviews.

 

Since when?

 

A critic's job is to give their opinion and assessment on a work. Nothing more, nothing less. That's not to say a critic can't go beyond his parameters and help people understand movies in a more sophisticated way. But it's not a requirement of the job, not something everyone can do well and does not instantly make that critic superior to others who have their own ways of reviewing.  

If a critic's job is to simply give an opinion, then what exactly is the point?t This type of logic is exactly why film criticism isn't taken seriously anymore because so much of the public thinks that a critic is simply giving his opinion. And so their response is "I don't need someone to tell me what to like." And they're right, nobody should tell you what to like. But what a film critic can do is show you how to like. How a critic approaches a film and what he looks for can tell you how to approach a film and what to look for. For example, in the middle of RLM's Star Wars reviews (here I go talking about him again), he began to nitpick Lucas' direction. His analysis floored me. He wasn't nitpicking how Lucas directed action scenes, but instead how he directed talking scenes. RLM showed how boring Lucas' direction was, how he only resorted to shot-reverse shot to convey dialogue. He then contrasted this to how Lucas and other filmmakers directed the OT. That to me was amazing, not because it changed my opinion of the film (although it did somewhat) but because it taught me an important lesson in criticism: just because you're watching a kids movie, doesn't mean that you should stop caring about direction. The shots in the OT did have more energy and emotion than the shots in the PT, and it was because of their direction. Now, if I go into a blockbuster, I actually look at the images and the shots, as opposed to just how cool the explosion is.

That's what criticism can do for you: it can change how you approach a movie. And your approach does change how much you enjoy a film. If it wasn't for my Film Studies teacher showing me the importance of technique, I would never have appreciated Citizen Kane (arguably my favorite movie ever). He didn't even show us the film. He showed us a bunch of other films, but his teachings changed how I approached film, and as a result, I've enjoyed many more films than I ever thought I could.When I read critics, I don't care what their opinion is. I care about what their vision is. 

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Eh, it's not like people care about critics anymore.

 

They care about the total Rotten Tomatoes score.

This is exactly why what Seitz is saying should be followed.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

I should also point out, rukaio, that I'm talking about good critics here. A good critic shows us his approach to cinema (while doing other things as well). While a bad critic usually doesn't show us his vision (unless it's Armond White).

[Plain Old Tele]

It comes down to 'I like this' or 'I don't like this' no matter what you do. You can talk all you want about filmmaking theory and what goes into a shot and etc, etc, but all it boils down to is 'This shot is good because I like it'. Good and bad are subjective concepts and it's impossible to definitively prove anything as either, no matter how many technical terms you throw around.

 

It's not about "good" or "bad", necessarily, it's about illumination. It's about the "why". To use the example Seitz mentions: the crane shot in 12 YEARS very succinctly and ironically shows a free man being literally enslaved in the shadow of the symbol of our democracy. Yes, people need to have that pointed out.

 

Another example: the overhead lighting in THE GODFATHER, during Don Corleone's private meetings with his supplicants or family. Not only does it hide eyes, everything is underlit. But visually, withholding that information is also key: we tend to identify people's emotions and reactions from their eyes, so Don Corleone is more of an emotional mystery through that disconnection. 

 

Would you review A Clockwork Orange (the book) without discussing (at least briefly) Anthony Burgess' use of slang? This is the same sort of thing.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

It's not about "good" or "bad", necessarily, it's about illumination. It's about the "why". To use the example Seitz mentions: the crane shot in 12 YEARS very succinctly and ironically shows a free man being literally enslaved in the shadow of the symbol of our democracy. Yes, people need to have that pointed out.

 

Another example: the overhead lighting in THE GODFATHER, during Don Corleone's private meetings with his supplicants or family. Not only does it hide eyes, everything is underlit. But visually, withholding that information is also key: we tend to identify people's emotions and reactions from their eyes, so Don Corleone is more of an emotional mystery through that disconnection. 

 

Would you review A Clockwork Orange (the book) without discussing (at least briefly) Anthony Burgess' use of slang? This is the same sort of thing.

        :worthy:I was just watching clips from The Godfather and thinking about why his eyes were lit like that...... 

[The Panda]

I know when I review (I haven't reviewed much lately, been to busy), I review what stuck out to me as a viewer without spoiling any plot points (or important shots), I save in depth looks for analysis reviews (which I did for Pulp Fiction and Gravity, Gravity I only analyzed the imagery and shots taken).Most reviewers do the same (including those who review movies because they like them but don't know much about film as an art form), so to a person who doesn't know much about say, cinematography, won't say much about it. They may say it looks cool or something to that affect, but it just depends on the person reviewing. People will talk about what stuck out to them.

[Plain Old Tele]

Joseph Kahn (he directed TORQUE, of all things) tweeted this:

 

  @JosephKahn
@mattzollerseitz @RennBrown The lack of critics promoting discussion also makes producers believe filmmaking language doesn't exist either.
3/24/14, 6:03 PM

 

  @JosephKahn
@mattzollerseitz @RennBrown Critics are crucial in the filmmaking ecosystem to protect and promote the artform.
3/24/14, 6:04 PM

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

I know when I review (I haven't reviewed much lately, been to busy), I review what stuck out to me as a viewer without spoiling any plot points (or important shots), I save in depth looks for analysis reviews (which I did for Pulp Fiction and Gravity, Gravity I only analyzed the imagery and shots taken).Most reviewers do the same (including those who review movies because they like them but don't know much about film as an art form), so to a person who doesn't know much about say, cinematography, won't say much about it. They may say it looks cool or something to that affect, but it just depends on the person reviewing. People will talk about what stuck out to them.

Seitz responds to your point about people who don't know cinematography. He says that they should read some of the basic books, like David Bordwell's book. And he's dead right. If this is your job, you should read up more on it. Once that happens, cinematography that advances the meaning will stick out and should be commented on.I haven't had any formal training in film education outside of a basic high school class that wasn't taken seriously by 90% of the kids in it and in which everyone got above a 90. And yet, that one class was all I needed to understand the basics of interpreting a shot and looking for moments that add to meaning. It isn't that difficult, and it can be enriching to the film.I will concede that perhaps we don't need it in every review. I mean, I don't need to read up on the film language of Need For Speed. But for classics like The Godfather, it would be appreciated if I was told why the Baptism of Fire scene had such great editing rather than being told that it does (and I know why). 

[The Futurist]

Color Red means menstruation.

I can be analytical.

Not sure what that says about Iron Man though.

[Plain Old Tele]

It's not about high-faluting or being deep... taking the time to examine why a director used a particular technique or even why it affected you is helpful on all movies.

 

In TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE the technique of cutting away right before the gore has the subliminal effect of letting your mind make the leap... making the movie seem far more vicious and gory and horrific than it actually is.

 

In HALLOWEEN the long Panaglide POV tracking shot that opens the movie is a double-whammy: you begin to identify (naturally enough) with the POV, only to realize it's the killer -- which is unsettling... and then the killer is revealed, and he's just a boy (even more unsettling).

 

Cuaron's long takes (which ironically take a great deal of technology and effort) are designed to strip away the filmmaking, so the audience -- without the constant reminder of edits -- starts to subliminally feel that they are there, watching events unfold in real time.

 

...and so forth.

 

Why do audiences generally hate "shaky-cam" yet don't seem to be bothered by it in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN? Because it's used for clear and distinct purpose there and even if they don't automatically identify what that is, on a visceral and emotional level it still works.

[Lordmandeep]

A film can be made well but it can still be a terrible film. 

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

A film can be made well but it can still be a terrible film. 

 

 

Nobody said that a film that is well made is automatically good, if you read Seitz, he says that you should analyze how a film is made.And he also said something even more important that fits your line of thinking: which is that technique should not just be thought of as "beautiful" but the critic should also ask what meaning/emotion the technique conveys. In other words, how does the shot act in relation to the story. Which is what you're getting at. You're saying that a film that is stylistically great may not match a film's substance, and hence it may be a bad movie. Seitz is saying that a critic should comment on whether or not the style fits the substance, whereas most critics are commenting on just how aesthetically pleasing the style seems.  

 

 

[AniNate]

If a critic's job is to simply give an opinion, then what exactly is the point?t This type of logic is exactly why film criticism isn't taken seriously anymore because so much of the public thinks that a critic is simply giving his opinion. And so their response is "I don't need someone to tell me what to like." And they're right, nobody should tell you what to like. But what a film critic can do is show you how to like. How a critic approaches a film and what he looks for can tell you how to approach a film and what to look for. For example, in the middle of RLM's Star Wars reviews (here I go talking about him again), he began to nitpick Lucas' direction. His analysis floored me. He wasn't nitpicking how Lucas directed action scenes, but instead how he directed talking scenes. RLM showed how boring Lucas' direction was, how he only resorted to shot-reverse shot to convey dialogue. He then contrasted this to how Lucas and other filmmakers directed the OT. That to me was amazing, not because it changed my opinion of the film (although it did somewhat) but because it taught me an important lesson in criticism: just because you're watching a kids movie, doesn't mean that you should stop caring about direction. The shots in the OT did have more energy and emotion than the shots in the PT, and it was because of their direction. Now, if I go into a blockbuster, I actually look at the images and the shots, as opposed to just how cool the explosion is.

That's what criticism can do for you: it can change how you approach a movie. And your approach does change how much you enjoy a film. If it wasn't for my Film Studies teacher showing me the importance of technique, I would never have appreciated Citizen Kane (arguably my favorite movie ever). He didn't even show us the film. He showed us a bunch of other films, but his teachings changed how I approached film, and as a result, I've enjoyed many more films than I ever thought I could.When I read critics, I don't care what their opinion is. I care about what their vision is. 

 

Critic hate these days is typically derived from fanboys that desperately want the film to be good and refuse to believe it isn't no matter how bad the critics say it is. I imagine the RLM critique (assuming he could've done that completely from memory after one screening), would've been met with the same kind of rage. Probably to the tune of "What a snob, it's just a movie! I don't care about cuts or acting or whatever, I just want some old fashioned Star Wars action!"

 

Point is I highly doubt it would end if they all started posting more in-depth technical reviews like that. If anything, critics are being taken more seriously as a whole these days thanks to easy-to-access aggregate sites. It's just by the same token the fans in denial are even more vocal.

Edited March 25, 2014 by tribefan695