Please, critics, write about the filmmaking

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

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.

I would disagree with the idea that they're being taken more seriously. Their opinions are taken more to heart; these days, thanks to RT, if a critic says something bad about a film with a huge fanbase, the fanbase will react by often attacking the critic (as you pointed out). But the mentality, thanks to the fanboys, and even casual filmgoers that I talk to seems to be "I don't need a critic to tell me what to think." And I agree with that, but that's not what film criticism is about.As for your original point, I guess you maybe right. Certainly, more in depth criticism isn't a panacea to the problems that film criticism faces. At the same time, it's a step in the right direction. 

[AniNate]

I would disagree with the idea that they're being taken more seriously. Their opinions are taken more to heart; these days, thanks to RT, if a critic says something bad about a film with a huge fanbase, the fanbase will react by often attacking the critic (as you pointed out). But the mentality, thanks to the fanboys, and even casual filmgoers that I talk to seems to be "I don't need a critic to tell me what to think." And I agree with that, but that's not what film criticism is about. 

 

Most people don't read critics to educate themselves on filmmaking, they read them to help make a decision on how to spend their leisure time Friday/Saturday night. That's how it's always been, even with the fanboy backlash. You can't deny they certainly matter come Oscar season.

 

Now, there may be a market for more in-depth film critique once a movie's legacy has been established, but you can't expect Rolling Stone or Entertainment Weekly to put an academic journal article about every new film coming out in every issue. Indeed, it's probably beyond the capabilities of most critics. Even Ebert wasn't immune to falling back on simplistic "I liked it"/"hated it" reviews. How else can you explain his enjoyment of 2012?

Edited March 25, 2014 by tribefan695

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Most people don't read critics to educate themselves on filmmaking, they read them to help make a decision on how to spend their leisure time Friday/Saturday night. 

 

Now, there may be a market for more in-depth film critique once a movie's legacy has been established, but you can't expect Rolling Stone or Entertainment Weekly to put an academic journal article about every new film coming out in every issue. Indeed, it's probably beyond the capabilities of most critics. Even Ebert wasn't immune to falling back on simplistic "I liked it"/"hated it" reviews. How else can you explain his enjoyment of 2012?

So why can't a critic do both educate and advise? Why must he sacrifice one for another. I was rewatching parts of The Departed the other day, and the first kill came up. The way Scorsese cut to that kill was so fast that it completely left me shocked and confused. I rarely felt a kill like that.^What have I done there: I've analyzed the formal technique of a film (educated you) and also told you how I felt (should you pay to go see it). I didn't finish the movie, so I can't review the entire thing, but suffice to say that the scene left a mark on me.It isn't as difficult as it seems. As for Ebert, he wasn't perfect, but in general, he did a better job than most. I'll check his 2012 review out. 

[AniNate]

So why can't a critic do both educate and advise? Why must he sacrifice one for another. I was rewatching parts of The Departed the other day, and the first kill came up. The way Scorsese cut to that kill was so fast that it completely left me shocked and confused. I rarely felt a kill like that.^What have I done there: I've analyzed the formal technique of a film (educated you) and also told you how I felt (should you pay to go see it). I didn't finish the movie, so I can't review the entire thing, but suffice to say that the scene left a mark on me. 

 

Well, if this is what you mean, then I think you're giving critics less credit than they deserve. Plenty of them go into detail with moments like those that stood out to them either positively or negatively. Todd McCarthy, Peter DeBruge, MaryAnn Johanson, and Drew McWeeny to name a few.

Edited March 25, 2014 by tribefan695

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Ebert's very first paragraph from that reviewt:
"It's not so much that the Earth is destroyed, but that it's done so thoroughly. "2012," the mother of all disaster movies (and the father, and the extended family) spends half an hour on ominous set-up scenes (scientists warn, strange events occur, prophets rant and of course a family is introduced) and then unleashes two hours of cataclysmic special events hammering the Earth relentlessly."

I would not call this criticism "like it/hated it." He's still doing analysis. It's not the analysis of film properties, but he's educated you on the structure of the film and how that structure helps make the predictable 2nd half (the Earth's destruction) actually exciting. That's far more advanced than "I liked it."

Later on in the review:
"In all disaster movies, landmarks fall like dominos. The Empire State Building is made of rubber. The Golden Gate Bridge collapses like clockwork. Big Ben ticks his last. The Eiffel Tower? Quel dommage!"

This is actually analysis of the visual FX without talking about it. He's explaining to us how the director doesn't adhere to the real world. He seems to suggest by his final two words that while it's outrageous, it's a whole lot of fun.

"And Emmerich gives us time to regard the effects and appreciate them, even savor them, unlike the ADD generation and its quick-cutting Bay-cams."
^More criticism on formal techniques. It's a little lacking here, but by contrasting Emmerich to Bay, he's sort of made his point in a concise in manner.

The rest of his review is fantastic too, but it doesn't really fit the mold of our argument. I'm  a huge Ebert fan, so I have bias, but this is one of his better reviews, imo. And I don't even care if 2012 is good or not.







 

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Well, if this is what you mean, then I think you're giving critics less credit than they deserve. Plenty of them go into detail with moments like those that stood out to them either positively or negatively. Todd McCarthy, Peter DeBruge, MaryAnn Johanson, and Drew McWeeny to name a few.

Perhaps I am being unfair and just need to read more critics. I've read a lot of the big name critics, like McCarthy, and haven't been that impressed. But maybe I just need to read more of him and the others. I'll check the other guys out, for some reason none have been on my radar.

[AniNate]

 

"And Emmerich gives us time to regard the effects and appreciate them, even savor them, unlike the ADD generation and its quick-cutting Bay-cams." 

 

I'll give you this passage, but the other ones are just statements of fact. They could just as easily go into a negative review as a positive one.

 

And again, he's not the only one capable of making statements like this. I'm sure the same has been said many times about Nolan and Cameron's movies.

Edited March 25, 2014 by tribefan695

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

I'll give you this passage, but the other ones are just statements of fact. They could just as easily go into a negative review as a positive one.

 

And again, he's not the only one capable of making statements like this. I'm sure the same has been said many times about Nolan and Cameron's mvoies.

Of course it's statement of fact, but he's using that statement to then explain why he liked the movie.The first paragraph is him talking about structure and telling you what's going on, but he makes it clear that the structure of the film made all of the cliché destruction more enjoyable. In other words, he's saying "the setup made the impact much better.""It's not so much that Earth is destroyed, it's that it's done so thoroughly," implies that had Emmerich not taken his time, this movie would have been pretty dull and boring. But by taking his time, he sucks you in.^I apologize if I keep repeating myself here. 

[AniNate]

"It's not so much that Earth is destroyed, it's that it's done so thoroughly," implies that had Emmerich not taken his time, this movie would have been pretty dull and boring. But by taking his time, he sucks you in. 

 

I don't think that passage sounds particularly persuasive on its own. When he says "this is fun" is when you really get the idea that what he just described is very entertaining.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

I don't think that passage sounds particularly persuasive on its own. When he says "this is fun" is when you really get the idea that what he just described is very entertaining.

That's in the 2nd paragraph right?Well, you can still link that line to the first paragraph and realize that part of the reason it's fun is because of the detail that Emmerich took in crafting the story (or whoever the screenwriter was).But regardless, I think the point is sort of clear. Ebert's not just going "I like it." He's giving us a why. Now, what me and Telemachos are demanding is that the "why" be focused more so on film techniques than it usually is. That's not to say that Ebert should have gone into every single technique that Emmerich uses, because quite frankly, in that film the only interesting one is the visual FX. However, in other films, such as TWOWs, editing and cinematography should be looked at more than they are. 

[AniNate]

That's not to say that Ebert should have gone into every single technique that Emmerich uses, because quite frankly, in that film the only interesting one is the visual FX. However, in other films, such as TWOWs, editing and cinematography should be looked at more than they are.

 

I guess that's where my issue lies. The really great films more often than not already have a ton of fans foaming at the mouth to analyze every frame and technique and possible metaphor. But when you don't like a film, how do you explain that in an interesting way, especially if it's the kind where the lack of interesting filmmaking is the main problem?

[Phil in the Blank]

Good film criticism elevates film as an artistic medium.

 

We largely lack good film criticism unfortunately. 

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

I guess that's where my issue lies. The really great films more often than not already have a ton of fans foaming at the mouth to analyze every frame and technique and possible metaphor. But when you don't like a film, how do you explain that in an interesting way, especially if it's the kind where the lack of interesting filmmaking is the main problem?

We spoke about RLM's reviews earlier, well let's assume you are RLM, writing instead of commenting.  A quick mock paragraphOne of the issues with Revenge of the Sith is that it lacks any real energy in the moments that don't have action. The films from the original trilogy had a way of parceling out exposition with interesting sets and strong direction. Things like blocking and camera movement mattered. In the latest film, Lucas seems to have abandoned that. The set still looks pleasing, but the camera is always static. When a conversation happens, characters don't move around, instead they have been directed to sit and just talk to each other. Lucas only adds to the dullness with his editing, which just keeps cutting from one character talking to another character talking and then back to the first character. This is boring cinema. I found myself uninterested in the film when we had to linger in these moments. As a result, I barely cared about any of the information that was being passed to me, and was taken out of the story.^I probably used too many words. I didn't need to even analyze his editing, but I chose to incorporate everything that RLM talked about. There you get some education (blocking/camera movement) and also my emotional reaction to all of it. I don't think that answers your question, but it proves that you can talk about uninteresting filmmaking with the same seriousness and depth as you talking about interesting filmmaking. 

[lab276]

This sounds more like looking back on a film after a few years rather than here and now criticism. Do most critics watch a film more than once before reviewing?

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

This sounds more like looking back on a film after a few years rather than here and now criticism. Do most critics watch a film more than once before reviewing?

Some do. And I disagree, it really doesn't. Are you telling me that only when you watch a movie the 2nd time do you notice things like editing and cinematography? 

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Last post: I think it sums up my argument.Edit: It's not letting me embed. So I'll just quote it:"Criticism doesn't have to be either/or thing: form OR content. Reviews can address both. And should. Doing so deepens criticism."-Matt Zoeller Sitz on Twitter. 

Edited March 25, 2014 by Dark Jedi Master 007

[AniNate]

I don't think that answers your question, but it proves that you can talk about uninteresting filmmaking with the same seriousness and depth as you talking about interesting filmmaking.

 

Yeah, I guess. I just wish I had an example of the kind of film criticism Seitz was complaining about, and whether he feels his demands should be applied to all movies, not just to popular and/or acclaimed titles. I just can't fault anyone for wanting to keep their blurbs on Bucky Larson or Battlefield Earth as short and to the point as possible.

Edited March 25, 2014 by tribefan695

[lab276]

Some do. And I disagree, it really doesn't. Are you telling me that only when you watch a movie the 2nd time do you notice things like editing and cinematography?

No, but the quality of such criticism is higher when you don't miss things as you inevitably would from the first viewing.

[Jessie]

 

So says Matt Zoller Seitz. Preach it!

 

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

 

 

 

 

I agree with this, there are thousands of people working on big budget films, it would be nice for some of those peoples work to be recognised. For example Total Recall was slated pretty hard yet the special effects were very good, where the film gets slated for its bad plot people overlook the amount of work others had put into it who have absolutely nothing to do with the script.

[RobinHood26]

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

 

I'd argue if a film is well made a movie can't be terrible. It doesn't have to be good but an understanding of film and filmmaking goes along way. 

 

Bryan Singer/JJ Abrams are both AMAZING filmmakers. Superman Returns for example or Star Trek both aren't the 2 most well loved films, but you can't watch those movies and tell me they aren't better made films then Non-Stop.

 

I may even enjoy a film like Non-Stop more but I find Superman Returns to be a much better made movie.

 

 

 

I'm not very good at making written points but if we had this conversation face to face i'm almost sure I could convince you.