Features Jun 23 2008 @ 10:16 am

10 Ways to Become a Better Film Critic – Part 1

By Evan Derrick

This is an epic article, one that I have been working and retooling for months. I’m splitting it into two parts because reading half of it in one sitting will be daunting enough. Most of the length can be attributed to the selections from other critics that I’ve included. As such, I hope it serves more as an introduction to the work of many a great critic some of you may have overlooked or never heard of, rather than a personal ego trip expounding My Important Opinions. The selections I’ve included, if nothing else, are worth the time and effort it will take to make it through this article. Expect the second half later this week or early the next.

Since beginning MovieZeal, I’ve thought a lot about what makes a good film critic. There are no books or how-to dummy guides out there on the subject, perhaps because there is an intangible, subjective element to film criticism that is difficult to pin down. Ignorant film watchers will resort to the tired judgment of “A critic is someone who couldn’t cut it as a filmmaker,” but they miss the forest for the big fat tree staring them in the face. There is much more to it, and film criticism over the past century has become an art in its own right. This article contains my humble thoughts, in no particular order, on how one might get better at it.

I fully expect a few of these to generate some debate, and while I’m not new to serious filmwatching, I am rather young in terms of written film criticism. In other words, I’m not claiming to have it all figured out. I’m also excluding some points that I think are obvious. For example, if you’re neither passionate about film nor consistent in your cinematic intake (multiple films per week), then you’re likely to prove a poor critic, no matter how many of the pointers below you take to heart.

Some of my suggestions are specifically practical, some are more subjective, and many of them overlap one another to varying degrees. In addition, I’ve included excerpts from reviews and critics that I think illustrate the point at hand, as well as provided links to the full review or where to purchase the book I found them in. Please note that while I’ve drawn exclusively from English speaking critics, I’m not saying that there aren’t vibrant, influential film critics elsewhere in the world, just that it’s difficult to find translations of their work.

1. Expand Your Cinematic Vocabulary
Good film criticism often involves making astute comparisons. The more diverse and numerous the films in your vocabulary, the more insightful, relevant, and intelligent your observations will be. For example,V for Vendetta owes an incalculable debt to Fritz Lang’s 1927 silent masterpiece Metropolis; Akira Kurosawa has had a staggering effect on Western film, directly inspiring Star Wars, Vantage Point, and the entire spaghetti western genre (The Hidden Fortress, Rashomon, Yojimbo, and The Seven Samurai respectively); the anime classic Ghost in the Shell served as one of the Wachowski’s key inspirations forThe Matrix; and the lasting influence of films like Birth of a Nation, Citizen Kane and The Wild Bunch have echoed through the frames of every modern motion picture since. Film critics who exclusively limit themselves to modern movies or certain genres will write weak, myopic reviews. Expose yourself to the silent era, German expressionism, 70+ years of Best Picture winners, the French New Wave, documentaries, Japanese & Western animation, Bergman, Eisenstein, and Hitchcock, and you’ll become a better critic.

I’ve included two examples, the first in which Jonathan Rosenbaum observes The Thin Red Line through the lens of silent cinema, and the second in which Roger Ebert recognizes Alien’s spiritual predecessor.

  • Jonathan Rosenbaum on The Thin Red Line:
    “Malick’s intimate acquaintance with the aesthetics of silent cinema reaches well past Murnau. The punctuating shots of nature in the midst of combat – a wounded bird, a riddled leaf, a hill of waving grass – are pure silent-movie syntax, as is the notion of a collective war hero (often found in films and fiction about World War I; William March’s 1933 book Company K is one distinguished example). The poetic and philosophical internal monologues of Malick’s various soldiers, often paired with a sustained and soulful close-up of the character, are the structural equivalent of intertitles in silent films of the teens and 20s. This is a precious legacy that most major filmmakers of the 90s (excepting Godard, Tarr, Tregenza, Manuel de Oliveira, and a handful of others who live outside the Oscars sweepstakes) have either forgotten or never discovered in the first place – a sensibility that frees images from the tyranny of the sound track, allowing them to register in all their primordial power – and the major achievements of The Thin Red Line would be unthinkable without it.”
  • Roger Ebert on Alien:
    “At its most fundamental level, Alien is a movie about things that can jump out of the dark and kill you. It shares a kinship with the shark in Jaws, Michael Myers in Halloween, and assorted spiders, snakes, tarantulas and stalkers. Its most obvious influence is Howard Hawks’ The Thing (1951), which was also about a team in an isolated outpost who discover a long-dormant alien, bring it inside, and are picked off one by one as it haunts the corridors. Look at that movie, and you see Alien in embryo.”

2. Respect the Medium You Are Criticizing
Filmmaking requires blood, sweat, and tears, sometimes literally. Directors often pour so much of themselves into their films that it becomes physically and emotionally dangerous. And while the role of a critic isn’t to recognize the effort that went into something, only to evaluate the result that it produced, something can be said for maintaining a respectful tone. Granted, many films do not accord such respect, and you can often tell that the players were just drawing paychecks, but approach your critiques with fear and trembling. Don’t compromise your integrity (there are many critics who lavish praise on every piece of dreck that passes before their eyes – look to the latest TV spots for evidence of this), but be prepared to give the benefit of the doubt. In this day and age of the Great Internets, anonymity has revealed the worst in many of us (I once saw an equation that read Opinion + Anonymity + Online Forum = A**hole).

To put it plainly, when reviewing films, don’t be a prick.

I’ve selected two less-than-positive reviews of Arnonofsky’s polarizing The Fountain in order to illustrate this point. It should be easy enough to tell which one I feel is the pathetically limp of the two. Also, I’ve included the opening paragraphs of James Agee’s brilliant first column for The Nation in 1942, as well as Andrew Sarris’ humbling reversal of his opinion of Billy Wilder.

  • The Daily Mirror on The Fountain:
    “Think I made that last bit up? If only I had, because aside from being ludicrously affected, The Fountain is also as dull as hell. In fact, you might want to take your own time machine along so you can fast-forward yourself to the end credits…As far as the plot goes, I’m at a loss to explain exactly what it’s about – and whoever wrote the press notes didn’t seem to have much of a clue either. As far I can tell, it’s about how we’re all, like, too busy worrying about death to live, yeah? So we should all just chill out a bit and accept that one day we’re going to pop our clogs. Deep, huh?…The film does look good, while Oscar winners Rachel Weisz and Ellen Burstyn provide solid support. But what they’re doing wasting their time in this junk is as unfathomable as the film itself.”
  • Roger Ebert on The Fountain:
    “That said, I will concede the film is not a great success. Too many screens of blinding lights. Too many transitions for their own sake. Abrupt changes of tone. And yet I believe we have not seen the real film. When a $75 million production goes into turnaround and is made for $35 million, elements get eliminated. When a film telling three stories and spanning thousands of years has a running time of 96 minutes, scenes must have been cut out. There will someday be a Director’s Cut of this movie, and that’s the cut I want to see.
  • James Agee on being a film critic:
    “I would like to use this column about moving pictures as to honor and discriminate the subject through interesting and serving you who are reading it. Whether I am qualified to do this is an open question to which I can give none of the answers. But I can begin by describing my condition as a would-be critic. I suspect that I am, far more than not, in your own situation: deeply interested in moving pictures, considerably experienced from childhood on in watching them and thinking and talking about them, and totally, or almost totally, without experiences or even much second-hand knowledge of how they are made. If I am broadly right in this assumption, we start on the same ground, and under the same handicaps, and I qualify to be here, if at all, only by two means. It is my business to conduct one end of a conversation, as an amateur critic among amateur critics. And I will be of use and of interest only in so far as my amateur judgment is sound, stimulating, or illuminating.”
    - From The Nation, December 26, 1942, taken from “James Agee: Film Writing and Selected Journalism
  • Andrew Sarris on reevaluating Billy Wilder:
    “People often ask if I have any regrets over my ranking of directors in The American Cinema. Actually, there have been shifts and slides, rises and falls, all along the line. Film history is always in the process of revision, and some of our earliest masters are still alive. The American Cinema was a very tentative probe designed mainly to establish the existence of a subject worthy of study. The rest is refinement and elaboration. To go back to the question, however, at this time, I must concede that seemingly I have grossly under-rated Billy Wilder, perhaps more so than any other American director. His twilight resurgence in the seventies with such mellow masterpieces as The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1969), Avanti! (1972), and even the very flawed The Front Page (1974) made me rethink Wilder, but, mostly, I have been motivated by rueful memories of how somehow I managed to let people talk me out of my instinctive enthusiasm for his films. Whereas the moviegoer in me traipsed back again and again to see The Major and the Minor (1942), Double Indemnity (1944), The Lost Weekend (1945), Sunset Boulevard (1950), Stalag 17 (1953), Love in the Afternoon (1959), Some Like It Hot (1959), and The Apartment (1960), the film critic in me was always heard clucking that Wilder was too clever and cynical for his own and everyone else’s good. Somehow his clinkers always did double duty to discredit his classics. With other directors, the classics were credited to them, and the clinkers to the “system.” But Wilder was thought of as the system personified with all its serpentine wiles and crass commercialism.”
    - Taken from “American Movie Critics: An Anthology From the Silents Until Now”, by Phillip Lopate

3. Develop an Appreciation For All the Arts
This point is similar to the first one, except it is broader in scope. All of the arts resemble one another to some extent, and they all liberally plagiarize across the lines. 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).

Nathan Lee, ex-Village Voice Critic and posterboy for the death of film criticism, recently conducted an interview with Rottentomatoes.com where he said something that perfectly dovetails with this point: “I’m reading all the time, but I can learn more about the movies I’m seeing this week from reading a great 19th century novel than I can from whatever XYZ critic has to say this week about whatever. I think another problem with movie writing is that it’s insular, especially Internet writing. It’s so narrow and insular and just about movies, and I think to be a really good writer and film critic you need a range. You need to know what’s going on in painting, you need to know what’s going on in music, you need to read books, and get laid, and go to restaurants, you know what I mean? A lot of movie writing is very impassioned but it’s very limited, very narrow. And I think good critics can put movies into a larger cultural and social perspective.”

My first selection is opening paragraph for A.O. Scott’s review of The Passion, in which he brings to bear his encyclopedic knowledge of The Simpsons in order to make a wonderfully astute observation. Please allow me, in my second example, to submit the closing paragraph of my own review on Funny Games. I realize this may be the height of arrogance, but I think it fits the point at hand, I’m rather proud of it, and I promise I won’t do it again for the rest of this article.

  • A.O. Scott on “The Passion of the Christ”:
    “There is a prophetic episode of The Simpsons in which the celebrity guest star Mel Gibson, directing and starring in a remake of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, enlists the help of Homer Simpson, who represents the public taste (or lack of it). Homer persuades Mr. Gibson to change the picture’s ending, replacing James Stewart’s populist tirade with an action sequence, a barrage of righteous gunfire that leaves the halls of Congress strewn with corpses. The audience flees the theater in disgust. I thought of Homer more than once, with an involuntary irreverence conditioned by many years of devotion to The Simpsons, as Mr. Gibson presented his new movie, The Passion of the Christ, to carefully selected preview audiences across the land, making a few last-minute cuts, and then taking to the airwaves to promote and defend the film. It opens today nationwide. Given the Crucifixion story, Mr. Gibson did not need to change the ending.”
  • My closing thoughts on Funny Games:
    “One final observation. At the Hirshhorn Museum in Washington D.C. there is a light bulb on a stand. A plaque next to it explains that the bulb randomly turns on once every year for ten seconds. Your participation – how long you’re willing to stand there in the off chance you’ll see it light up – is part of the art. The exhibit is fascinating to think about and enjoyable to discuss, but it is neither compelling nor amusing to experience. Such is Funny Games. I’ve never had a more engaging post-film discussion, but I’ve never had a more miserable, manipulative, and soul-crushing cinematic experience either.”

4. Study Classic Film Criticism
Mastering any art form (and film criticism is an art form) inevitably requires studying the old masters of that form. A composer with no knowledge of Mozart, a writer with no appreciation for Shakespeare, and a filmmaker with no understanding of Hitchcock are all poor artists indeed. If you’ve never read (or even heard of) James Agee, Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, Manny Farber, or Otis Ferguson, then you lack a basic understanding of the foundation that modern film criticism is built upon. These five (and there are others, to be sure) are considered the titans of early American film criticism, and each is a valuable resource for the burgeoning film critic.

While it is not necessary to agree with or even like all five (although Kael and Sarris have had entire schools of thought spring up around their style, I find myself returning to the humble, piercing observations of Agee and the dense, devil-may-care prose of Farber), a familiarity with each is invaluable. The earliest, Ferguson (1907-1943), displayed an accessible, man-about-town sensibility towards the Hollywood picture; James Agee (1909-1955) was humble, witty, and employed a flamboyant style that was both accessible and intellectual; Manny Farber (b. 1917) danced all over the page, sometimes offering contradictory observations in the same sentence, burrowing down into films like a schizophrenic gopher; Andrew Sarris (b. 1928) brought to bear (and still does, as critic for The New York Observer) his encyclopedic knowledge of film history, delivering compassionate and guileless critiques with a scholar’s touch, as well as birthing the auteur theory into the English language; finally, Pauline Kael (1919-2001), who may be considered the finest of the lot, brought a personal touch to the world of film criticism, writing passionate, sensual pieces that exemplified her life-long pursuit of “falling in love” with the cinema.

I’ve included selections from each that I felt typified their style, although my grasp of their vast bodies of work is a weak one.

  • Otis Ferguson, on Citizen Kane’s inspirations:
    “There has been so much snarling and blowing on the subject of what this picture is about that it won’t hurt to clear the issue: most of the surface facts parallel incidents in the career of one W. R. Hearst; some traits are borrowed from other figures; some are pure ad-libbing. But any resemblance is distinctly coincidental; I could, and would if the editor were not afraid of libel, give you quite a list of Hearst’s undesirable characteristics not possessed by Kane. As for the importance of the figure as an element of society, I don’t think you can make that stick either. Kane started a war to get circulation for his paper; we hear in casual reference that he is a yellow journalist, and we see in a three-for-a-nickel montage clip that he fought graft and some corrupt trusts; there is a prophecy, not followed up, that when the workingman becomes organized labor he will not love the workingman; he is interviewed by the press and makes wild statements with gravity; when anyone gets in his way he calls him an anarchist. Otherwise his troubles are personal, and his death is that of a domineering and lonely man, known to all for his money, loved by none. The only possible moral of the picture is, ‘don’t be that way or you’ll be sorry.’”On the joy of unassuming cinema, from his review of Hands Across the Table:
    “These things taken by themselves are not much, but they indicate a wisdom of procedure that it is good to find in pictures, where careless use of camera devices, the didactic cutting in of wheels, clocks, calendar leaves and what not, and all march-of-timing and Eisensteining in general, are often confused with intelligent and true exploitation of the medium…Whatever its label may indicate in the way of old stuff to those who count on reading the label, it is encouraging to remember that anything which is delightful is never old in any real sense of the term, because delight is a fragile and immediate thing, and new always.”
    - Taken from “American Movie Critics: An Anthology From the Silents Until Now”, by Phillip Lopate
  • James Agee on The Bells of St. Marys:
    “The Bells of St. Marys    , like Going My Way, is distinguished for leisure and spaciousness, for delight in character and atmosphere, for its use of scenes which are inserted not to advance the story but for their own intrinsic charm. One such set-piece – in which primary-school children rehearse a Christmas play – is almost magically deft and pretty; and the picture is full of shrewed and pleasant flashes. It is also fascinating to watch as a talented, desperate effort to repeat the unrepeatable. But on the whole it is an unhappy film. Bing Crosby’s priest, who was so excellent in the earlier picture, at times looks just bored, cold, and sly, as if he knew that this sort of thing had gone on too long for the good of anybody’s soul, his own first of all. Ingrid Bergman replaces Barry Fitzgerald and, for my money, cannot compete with him in sex appeal, though she has and uses a lot too much to play a Mother Superior, comes painfully close to twittering her eyes in scenes with Crosby, and in general, I grieve to say, justifies a recent piece of radio promotion which rather startlingly describes a nun: ‘Ingrid Bergman has never been lovelier, hubbahubbahubba.’”
    - Taken from “James Agee: Film Writing and Selected Journalism”
  • Manny Farber, skewering the art-house and praising the genre flick, from his essay “Underground Films”:
    “It is not too remarkable that the underground films, with their twelve-year-old’s adventure story plot and endless palpitating movement, have lost out in the film system. Their dismissal has been caused by the construction of solid confidence built by daily and weekly reviewers. Operating with this wall, the critic can pick and discard without the slightest worry about looking silly. His choice of best salami is a picture backed by studio build-up, agreement amongst his colleagues, a layout in Life Mag. (which makes it officially reasonable for an American award), and a list of ingredients that anyone’s unsophisticated aunt in Oakland can spot as a distinguished film. This prize picture, which has philosophical undertones, pan-fried domestic sights, risqué crevices, sporty actors and actresses, circus-like gymnastics, a bit of tragedy like the main fall at Niagara, has every reason to be successful. It has been made for that purpose. Thus, the year’s winner is a perfect film made up solely of holes and evasions, covered up by all types of padding and plush. The cavity filling varies from one prize work to another, from High Noon (cross-eyed artistic views of a clock, silhouettes against a vaulting sky, legend-toned walking, a big song), through From Here to Eternity (Sinatra’s private scene-chewing, pretty trumpeting, tense shots in teh dark and at twilight, necking near the water, a threatening hand with a broken bottle), to next year’s winner which will probably be a huge ball of cotton candy containing either Audrey Hepburn’s cavernous grin and stiff behind to more of Zinnemann’s glacéed picture-making. In terms of imaginative photography, honest acting, and insight into American life there is no comparison between an average underground triumph (The Tall Tiger) and the trivia that causes a critical salaam across the land. The trouble is that no one asks the critics’ alliance to look straight backward at is “choices,” i.e. a horse-drawn truckload of liberal schmaltz called The Best Years of Our Lives. These ridiculously maltreated films sustain their place in the halls of fame simply because they bear the label of ART in every inch of their reelage. Praising these solemn goiters has produced a climate in which the underground picture-maker, with his modest entry and soft shoe approach, can barely survive.”
    - Taken from “Negative Space: Manny Farber on the Movies”
  • Andrew Sarris on The Birds:
    “The theme, after all, is complacency, as the director has stated on innumerable occasions. When we first meet each of the major characters, their infinite capacity for self-absorption is emphasized. Tippi Hedren’s bored socialite is addicted to elaborately time-consuming practical jokes. Rod Taylor’s self-righteous lawyer flaunts his arrogant sensuality. Suzanne Pleshette, his ex-fiancee, wallows in self-pity, and Jessica Tandy, his possessive mother, cringes from her fear of loneliness. With such complex, unsympathetic characters to contend with, the audience quite naturally begins to identify with the point of view of the birds, actually the inhuman point of view. As in Psycho, Hitchcock succeeds in implicating his audience to such an extent that the much-criticized, apparently anticlimactic ending of the film finds the audience more blood-thirsty than the birds. Although three people are killed and many others assaulted by man’s fine feathered friends, critics and spectators have demanded more gore and more victims.”
    - Taken from “American Movie Critics: An Anthology From the Silents Until Now”, by Phillip Lopate
  • Pauline Kael, from her essential essay, “Trash, Art, and the Movies”:
    “The Thomas Crown Affair     is pretty good trash, but we shouldn’t convert what we enjoy it for into false terms derived from our study of the other arts. That’s being false to what we enjoy. If it was priggish for an older generation of reviewers to be ashamed of what they enjoyed and to feel they had to be contemptuous of popular entertainment, it’s even more priggish for a new movie generation to be so proud of what they enjoy that they use their education to try to place trash within the acceptable academic tradition. [This] is a more devious form of that elevating and falsifying of people who talk about Loren as a great actress instead of as a gorgeous, funny woman. Trash doesn’t belong to the academic tradition, and that’s part of the fun of trash—that you know (or should know) that you don’t have to take it seriously, that it was never meant to be anymore than frivolous and trifling and entertaining. 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. There is talk now about von Sternberg’s technique—his use of light and décor and detail—and he is, of course, a kitsch master in these areas, a master of studied artfulness and pretty excess. Unfortunately, some students take this technique as proof that his films are works of art, once again, I think, falsifying what they really respond to—the satisfying romantic glamour of his very pretty trash. Morocco is great trash, and movies are so rarely great art, that if we cannot appreciate great trash, we have very little reason to be interested in them. The kitsch of an earlier era—even the best kitsch—does not become art, though it may become camp. Von Sternberg’s movies became camp even while he was still making them, because as the romantic feeling went out of his trash—when he became so enamored of his own pretty effects that he turned his human-material into blank, affectless pieces of décor—his absurd trashy style was all there was. We are now told in respectable museum publications that in 1932 a movie like Shanghai Express “was completely misunderstood as a mindless adventure” when indeed it was completely understood as a mindless adventure. And enjoyed as a mindless adventure. It’s a peculiar form of movie madness crossed with academicism, this lowbrowism masquerading as highbrowism, eating a candy bar and cleaning an “allegorical problem of human faith” out of your teeth. If we always wanted works of complexity and depth we wouldn’t be going to movies about glamorous thieves and seductive women who sing in cheap cafés, and if we loved Shanghai Express it wasn’t for its mind but for the glorious sinfulness of Dietrich informing Clive Brook that, ‘It took more than one man to change my name to Shanghai Lily’ and for the villainous Oriental chieftain (Warner Oland) delivering the classic howler, ‘The white woman stays with me.’”

5. Develop a Unique Voice
Previously, this point was titled “Recognize Your Prejudices,” and I spent multiple paragraphs extolling the virtue of acknowledging your critical blind spots, as well as a ludicrously in-depth analysis of Roger Ebert’s hatred for Adam Sandler comedies. After reviewing what I had written, I realized I was promoting a form of generic, audience-pandering criticism. Some critics take pride in their prejudices, slinging vitriolic barbs at a specific actor or genre with relish. They develop unique voices out of their subjective views, which speaks to the heart of the critical enterprise: of the two things that set a critic apart (the first being their talent at writing), their specific subjectivity (and ability to subsequently communicate that subjectivity) is the most important in establishing a consistent readership. Rather than curb their prejudices, critics should seek to harness them.

This lesson can be clearly seen from the previous point on Ferguson, Farber, Agee, Sarris, and Kael. Each of these critics register clearly in the mind’s eye the same way the best auteurs of the cinema do. In other words, Pauline Kael didn’t write film reviews, she wrote Kael reviews, and so forth. In order to become a successful critic (the kind people like to read on a regular basis and say things about like, “I wonder what [insert your own name] had to say about that film?”), the pursuit of a distinct, personal style that distinguishes one from the gray, undulating mass of interchangeable film critics is of the highest priority. The style can be humble, it can be arrogant (although see point 2, please), it can be conversational, it can be academic, it can be exhaustive or succinct, it can be personal, schizophrenic, or even profane, but it must be unique.

I’ve included selections from critics that, in my mind at least, stick out like neon-orange lifeboats in a sea of sameness. I don’t like all of these critics, and some flaunt their egos and arrogance to a disgusting degree, but they have set themselves apart. Nathan Lee, recently ousted from the ranks of the Village Voice, brings a glib, uber-sarcastic, and biting wit to his writing, which is insightful as often as it is juvenile. Regardless of one’s opinion of him, he remains a unique voice. I’ve chosen one his milder, yet fully entertaining, rampages against Pirates of the Carribean. My second selection is from a critic I cannot stand, Armond White, who will not (apparently) be content until he has insulted every human being on the face of the planet. With that said, he has carved a specific, unique niche for himself in the world of film criticism. No one else does quite what he does, which is saying something.

  • Nathan Lee on Pirates of the Carribean: At World’s End:
    “And so Disney’s immense, booty-busting, pro-piracy epic has come to an End. I doubt very much that Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End is, in fact, the last we’ll be seeing of Captain Jack Sparrow and, you know, all those other people. How could it be? Treasure remains to be squeezed from Planet Earth, great swaths of which are evidently held captive by the grip of this imbecilic Giant Squid. Far be it from me to spoil the conclusion of the picture, which may or may not hint at adventures to come. Not that I could even if I tried: Long before the third, fourth, or fifth climax in this endless, obligatory summer diversion, I slunk into my seat in a passive, inattentive stupor, fully submitting to the fact that I hadn’t the slightest idea what the hell was going on.”
  • Armond White on The Incredible Hulk:
    “Norton probably thought he’d get away with joining the same fake-political franchise as Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr. does a morose cameo as Tony Stark). His only smart idea was hiring director Louis Leterrier. But Leterrier (who did the terrific Transporter II) is hemmed-in by this King Kongification of The Hulk. Action fans who ignored the Èlan of Transporter II and such Luc Besson–influenced films as Unleashed, Crank and Hit Man will be settling for less if they accept The Incredible Hulk’s busyness. There’s a dull Cloverfield urban rampage and a behemoth battle royale no different than the damn polar bears fighting in The Golden Compass. Summer audiences are expected to forget Ang Lee’s attempted enrichment and simply go along with the Marvel inanity. After The Incredibles, couldn’t we reasonably expect Bruce and Betty to domesticate and become, say, The Flintstones? And the sex scene where Banner warns Betty, “I can’t get too excited.” is lame after The Simpsons’ Paul Bunyan episode where Marge cautioned, “Just let me do a few more yoga lessons.” Instead, The Incredible Hulk is another asexual Marvel adaptation, sublimating eros with pubescent violence. Hulk comic fans should reject it, grow up and become cineastes who appreciate Humphrey Bogart’s masculinity crisis in Nick Ray’s In a Lonely Place. That’s what Ang Lee rightly knew.”

…(see Part 2 here.)

Comments (88)

88 Responses to “10 Ways to Become a Better Film Critic – Part 1”

  1. on Jun 23 2008 @ 11:05 am 1. Cinexcellence said …

    Whew, what a read. I had to get a time machine to fast forward to the end :)

  2. on Jun 23 2008 @ 11:29 am 2. Luke Harrington said …

    Wait…you mean I have to work hard and study if I want to succeed? Oh, man…is it too late to change my mind about this “life” gig?

    Excellent piece. Can’t wait for part 2.

  3. on Jun 23 2008 @ 12:08 pm 3. Colleen said …

    Nice article, looking forward to the final section. Soon my film critism haiku’s will be unstoppable!

  4. on Jun 23 2008 @ 3:12 pm 4. G said …

    what a post. I appreciate this, especially as I try to become a film critic myself. your examples and exemplars are well chosen.

    I would like to disagree with point #2. Sure, Roger Ebert is the best of us, a consummate gentleman, and his gentlemanly belief that Aronofsky had a better film in him is certainly gratifying.

    But there’s a reason why we’re here out on the interwubs, and I like to think it’s not just because they haven’t offered us jobs yet at newspapers. It’s because the interwubs are a place to be, if you want to be, freer and more irreverent. And if you’re the writer for the Daily Mirror and you run into the Fountain, which you take to be a pretentious and half-baked attempt at profundity, you skewer it.

    Sure, it’s not gentlemanly, like Ebert is. It’s not in the least bit respectful. But nothing cuts through bullshit like harsh, low, disrespectful ugly mockery. And here on the interwubs, we can engage in it. I for one treasure that.

  5. on Jun 23 2008 @ 4:14 pm 5. Evan Derrick said …

    Hey G, thanks for dropping by and putting your two cents into the pot. I knew #2 would be problematic, as it is mostly a personal preference. It’s also contradictory with some other points (see point #5, where I praise Armond White for carving out a unique niche for himself, even though he breaks point 2 in every conceivable way), but I’m fine with that.

    I think the styles of criticism that I appreciate are more gentlemanly (good choice of words, there). I find low, disrespectful mockery entertaining to a point, but I don’t seek to emulate that myself. But I totally see what you’re saying, how that is one of the things that sets internet critics apart from print ones. I guess it ultimately comes down to preference and choice.

  6. on Jun 23 2008 @ 6:30 pm 6. Ari said …

    I think the two main problems with film criticism today are 1. no appreciation for film history and 2. no appreciation for the history of film criticism. People scoff at names like Eisenstein and Bazin. Anything pre-1980 has become meaningless. Insightful, intellectual analysis is immediately labeled as snobbery. “Pretentious” has lost all meaning from hack writers who think anything with real artistic merit is elitist. There’s a huge anti-intellectual movement in the art world in general these days. Younger generations are being conditioned to accept mediocrity as quality. The older generations have lost interest and inspiration because things have declinded in so many different fields. I think there’s a much larger scope to this issue, and I’m pleased to see you taking a shot at figuring it out a piece of it.

  7. on Jun 23 2008 @ 9:04 pm 7. Kristena said …

    Evan, great 1/2 of an article. I especially enjoyed the Pauline excerpt, though I don’t fully agree with her. It’s interesting to see a breakdown of what makes a good critic…helps me understand why I’m not well-suited for the job. :)

  8. on Jun 23 2008 @ 9:13 pm 8. Luke Harrington said …

    ^ Does this mean we’ll never be getting that 27 Dresses review? :)

  9. on Jun 23 2008 @ 9:34 pm 9. Kristena said …

    Honestly, I don’t know if I have anything worthwhile to say about that… Or anything that you wouldn’t have assumed from the previews. I hope I haven’t let you down too much, Luke. I’ll be happy to talk to you about the awesomeness of Pride & Prejudice anytime. Or Elf.

  10. on Jun 23 2008 @ 11:11 pm 10. Rick Olson said …

    I have to echo Luke’s sentiments, Evan … sounds a lot like work to me. It’s left me exhausted just reading it. I think I’ll take a nap.

  11. on Jun 24 2008 @ 1:42 am 11. William said …

    Add up the time reading a collection of reviews and see how many more movies could have been watched. Indeed film reviews have become a sort of art form, which may be part of the problem. The entertainment need not entertain or occupy your time because the reportage is brimming with a play on words and half-ass trivia that you can crib and pass off as your own opinon. We all know people who do this. They have strong views on the latest blockbuster and are especially determined never to actually see it. Reviews can be terrifyingly essential to theatre patrons, but as the newest form of word-of mouth on film online discussion is likely to be about on par with professional reviews for acuracy.

    If you are a filmmaker, there will be a point where the mindset of reviewer has to be shoved aside or contrary subjective schools of thought can keep you in check to a point of inertia. Does The Love Guru deserve only half a star? I didn’t see that coming when I saw the film. I’ve certainly seen much worse. Or The Happening? Ultimately I only read a review if I either have already seen the movie or have no intention of seeing it. I was motivated to pick up The Devil’s Rejects only after seeing a plea from a critic to avoid it because it was a threat to one’s sanity.

    There is a snarkiness in both paid critics and the typical habitual on-line discussion poster. It is easy to rip something down and the net is rife with overstatement and inexactitude. We might stumble upon each other’s opinions but they are best left unread and just as a venting mechanism. The same punk whining about Kingdom of the Crystal Skull may see his post years later and quietly delete it. Roger Ebert will have to live with and defend including Blue Velvet in his book “I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie.”

    For my money, mentioning The Hidden Fortress was an inspiration for Star Wars really doesn’t belong in a review. That would just be the student reviewer showing off the level of cinema history that most Star Wars fans know. And that’s a drop in the bucket. A true cinephile’s eyes glaze over with such familiar facts. Most well-written reviews acknowledge that they are subjective opinion and keep it personal. The good news is that critics are usually all about themselves anyway. The more you know about the person reviewing, the more context you have and the more truth you find in the review.

  12. on Jun 24 2008 @ 2:34 am 12. Anil said …

    About G’s comments, I think there is a thin line between irony and mockery and I believe that gentlemanly irony is quite possible. In fact, that is exactly what I find in most Ebert reviews.

    Insulting reviews work when they make sense. Otherwise, they make the critic look ridiculous and pretentious – hence my ultimate dilemma when Armond White is in question (although his The Incredible Hulk review was great in my opinion)

    Excellent post Evan, can’t wait for Part 2.

  13. on Jun 24 2008 @ 3:10 am 13. Thomas said …

    An excellent article on film criticism and the art of it. With the proliferation of semi-professional writing throughout the web, high maintenance of quality in reviewing movies has become an increasing rarity. Even more it is important to remind us of the vices and virtues of thinking and writing about films. Thanks for having done this here.

  14. on Jun 24 2008 @ 4:47 am 14. me said …

    ray durgnat

  15. on Jun 24 2008 @ 6:32 am 15. G said …

    I feel like I have to respond to post #6. Ari, I agree with you that things often feel that way. But if there’s one thing I try never to allow myself to say it’s: “The past was better and they appreciated better things then.”

    Sure, the cineplexes are crowded with mush in a way they have never been before, and art houses are on the rocks. But think about this: we are living in the golden age of classic movie viewing. Pre-VCRs, classic theaters were about the only way to see classic movies, and then DVDs and netflix came along and blew VCRs away. Never has the filmgoing populace has such unprecedented access to classic movies. That’s got to count for something.

    I’m sure there are plenty of people out there, possibly even film bloggers, who have never heard of Eisenstein and Bazin, but are there people out there who scoff at them? These sound like straw men to me – people literate enough to know Bazin but ignorant enough to scoff at them.

    The bottom line: Rather than make a sweeping generalization about how people today don’t appreciate the classics like they should (thanks, Grandpa), just do your best to get those names back into circulation. That’s what Evan’s doing here, that’s what I do on my blog, and I’m sure that’s what you do as well. That can help. Making generalizations about how things used to be better and how people used to care more just makes you sound curmudgeonly.

  16. on Jun 24 2008 @ 6:35 am 16. G said …

    I should say, in order to sound less like a Jackass, I meant Matt Groening’s Grandpa, not generic I’m calling Ari a Grandpa. I forget sometimes that not everyone thinks about the Simpsons and/or Futurama every time they read any sentence.

  17. on Jun 24 2008 @ 7:08 am 17. Stephen said …

    Excellent half-article on film criticism. If only more film criticism was as balanced and thorough! I think you can start a genre of crticism, film meta-criticism. Who critiques the critics?

  18. on Jun 24 2008 @ 8:03 am 18. Evan Derrick said …

    @William
    Thanks for the comments. You are right – film criticism, in light of trailers and marketing and internet gossip (which is what most people generally base their decisions to see or not see a film off of) is becoming less of a necessity and more of a hobby. I would not, however, consider online discussion to be on par with professional reviews for ‘accuracy’ (unless you mean something by that word other than its latent definition). This isn’t true of all professional film critics, but many pour a significant amount of time and thought and creativity into the pieces that they write, which is a different approach than the shoot-from-the-hip-ask-questions-later style applied by most online writers.

    And my Hidden Fortress example was just that, an example (and in retrospect, not a very deep one). The point still remains that film critics who have never seen a Kurosawa film will be operating with a handicap, whereas those who have immersed themselves in his work will bring that vocabulary and knowledge to the pieces that they write.

  19. on Jun 24 2008 @ 8:51 am 19. Brendt said …

    “Ignorant film watchers will resort to the tired judgment…”
    “This article contains my humble thoughts…”

    See also juxtaposition.

  20. on Jun 24 2008 @ 8:55 am 20. Evan Derrick said …

    Touché, Brendt. :)

  21. on Jun 24 2008 @ 9:03 am 21. Ari said …

    I agree that the access to older films is better than ever, but just because it’s out there doesn’t mean younger generations are inspired to explore it. Getting those names into circulation is the best thing any writer, critic or film fan can do. And my comment wasn’t meant as an attack on the quality films that are still made today (plenty of good movies still come out), it was an attack on a notable shift in film appreciation. And I only speak from my own experience at people who scoff at directors and movies from the past. It happens a lot. More than it should, I’d say. But things change over time, that’s just it how it works, I guess.

  22. on Jun 24 2008 @ 9:24 am 22. G said …

    It may be, Ari, that we’re simply generating some confusion over the word “scoff.” If by “scoff” you mean that many people couldn’t care less about Bazin, Eisenstein, and pretty much anything that happened before the New Hollywood (in my experience, even most casual movie fans are interested in New Hollywood to some extent, even if it’s only in the form of liking The Godfather and maybe Taxi Driver), then I certainly agree with you. But I would call this a sort of willful ignorance, or even dismissiveness, but not scoffing. I just don’t think they know classic cinema or cinema writers to scoff at them.

    Unless, of course, they simply don’t want to watch alot of artificial dialogue being hammed-up by pre-method actors for hours upon end. In which case, they might actually be scoffing – and they would frequently have a point. Not, of course, with the films that Eisenstein made and that Bazin wrote about, but if someone (like, for example, my wife) scoffs at Bringing Up Baby, then, well, I understand where they’re coming from. I love it, but if you want to dismiss it, there are lots of good reasons.

  23. on Jun 24 2008 @ 10:48 am 23. Jesse said …

    I disagree with some of the points you make. As a movie fan, and amature critic myself, nothing bothers me more than to read some hyped up jerk making references to movies and things that make no sense.

    Referencing the Simpsons in a review of Passion of the Christ, (despite having Mel Gibson in common) is silly. How did the first 2/3 of that paragraph have anything to do with the movie?

    And as far as your last point about gaining a unique voice…I see that you said you don’t necessarily agree or like what they had to say.

    But their “unique” voice was “we don’t like this movie. Movies like this are pointless, and we’d rather have tacks shoved in our eyes.” But they gave no reason within the movie itself. All their complaints lay with external sources.

    Granted I don’t like every movie I see. If I write about it, I try to explain why I don’t like THAT MOVIE.

    Like Napolean Dynamite. One of the worst movies I’ve ever seen, and it was praised as being some godsend. There was no plot. Nothing happened in that story. My reason for not liking it had nothing to do with tie ins, possible sequels, marketing campaings etc. The movie was just plain dull.

    Most critics I’ve read, need to pull their head out of thier butt, and remember how to enjoy a movie. And if they can’t, explain why.

  24. on Jun 24 2008 @ 10:49 am 24. Rachel said …

    Two points from an old English major/failed journalist:

    1. Who are your audience? If you are only writing for cinephiles, then you don’t need to reference allusions and homages, because your audience, all five of them, will already get it. If you are writing to inform and educate a reasonably literate, non-specialist audience, it is appropriate to inform and educate them.

    2. What is the purpose of your critique? Criticism used to be (ask Gore Vidal) about examining a work of art to see what worked, what didn’t, and why. That not only informed the non-specialist audience, it also gave the artist a response from which he/she/they could learn, so that the next work of art is better. (Not necessarily more commercial, but better.) If your purpose is to steer the hoi polloi to/away from this week’s best/worst bet at the cineplex, then advertising, trailers and the web are probably sufficient.

    Thanks for taking criticism a little more seriously, and raising the tattered banner of civility and reason.

  25. on Jun 24 2008 @ 10:55 am 25. Evan Derrick said …

    Ari and G, I think you guys are probably arguing towards the same point. On the one hand, the classics are not appreciated enough, and most self-proclaimed film lovers have never even seen a silent film, much less Bringing Up Baby. And no, you don’t have to watch those kinds of films to be a film lover per se, but I think you do need to if you want to grow as a film critic (one of the main thrusts of this article).

    On the other hand, many a critic takes the high road and bashes anything and everything that is new and interesting and (heaven help us) entertaining, all in the name of “the olden days.” Rex Reed would be a grand example of this. Perhaps part of that is a hazard of the job. After watching untold thousands of films, it wouldn’t be difficult to get a little cynical and jaded. Would you want to be forced into seeing yet another Martin Lawrence train wreck of a film and having to write about it? That cynicism can bleed into everything a critic reports on, until all they can remember is the days when they weren’t jaded and films were “better.”

    I think, ultimately, a film critic needs to combine both of those mindsets and find a middle ground. An appreciation of the old mixed with a wide-eyed enjoyment of the new.

  26. on Jun 24 2008 @ 11:11 am 26. G said …

    Jesse, you’ve mentioned the reason that I’ve moved my site away from reviews and more to amusing lists and historical commentary. Probably because of all the French philosophy I read as a grad student, I’ve ceased to believe in reasons.

    You hated Napoleon Dynamite. I loved it. You gave me the reasons you hated it; I disagreed. I could give you the reasons I liked it; you would likely disagree. This would get us nowhere.

    I’ve come to think of film criticism more or less as constitutional or temperamental, and I just disregard reasons. It seems to me that reasons are always retroactive; you hated Napoleon Dynamite, so you have reasons.

    So I just look for a critic who has the same temperament or constitution as I do – the best I’ve found are David Ansen and A.O. Scott. I’ve read a great deal of their reviews, and I seem to line up with them. I enjoy their writing, but I rarely care about their reasons. We just seem to share the same movie constitution.

    So if someone says “I’d rather stick tacks in my eyes than watch Blow-Up” I don’t care why they feel that way, I just file it away that we might be on the same page. And if they say the same thing about La Dolce Vita, I decide I probably can’t trust their opinions. That’s how movie criticism works for me, and that’s why I have a hard time offering reasons.

    The most useful film critism of all is the rating of a netflix friend/user with a high percentage of agreement with you. No reasons – no words. just 1-5 stars from someone who’s on the same page.

    Sorry for the length. I guess this is a future blog post.

  27. on Jun 24 2008 @ 11:19 am 27. Mira Hashmi said …

    Hey there,
    I am Pakistani and work as an English language film critic in Pakistan. I am also always second-guessing myself while writing reviews, not having received any training etc. I guess I try to be honest and simple. With some films it’s hard not to get snippy, but I also firmly believe that one should try to not be a smug prick. A few examples of my writings can be viewed on my web page http://www.mirahashmi.wordpress.com
    I would welcome any feedback

  28. on Jun 24 2008 @ 11:51 am 28. Collin said …

    Looks like you’ve, once again, set off a firestorm of debate here, Evan. Because I love following the crowd (and because it’s true) I have to say that your “half-article” was “excellent”.

    Your comments partially inspired me to start researching a potential online music business built around the subjective tastes of a few people. Thanks for fueling the idea machine!

  29. on Jun 24 2008 @ 12:32 pm 29. Luke Harrington said …

    G, I’m going to have to take exception to your thoughts on “constitutional temperment.” Even if it is, in fact, the case that people’s opinions on films are mere fated subjectivities, it seems to me that embracing this is essentially an intellectual surrender.

    What you’re saying is that opinions are meaningless in every objective sense, which makes all human communication irrelevant. Even if that is, in fact, the case, it seems to me that (a) it’s not particularly useful in terms of day-to-day interaction; and (b) it has no implications for human philosophical advancement.

    In other words, if your opinion is meaningless to me and my opinion is meaningless to you, where does that leave us? Worse off than when we started – not only do we disagree, we have no chance of ever understanding one another.

    (Please feel free to correct any assumptions I’ve made here. Looking forward to that potential blog post.) :)

  30. on Jun 24 2008 @ 12:47 pm 30. mitchsn said …

    5. Stop reviewing every movie as if the goal of every movie made was to try and win an academy award.

    or something to that matter. Its kind of like #2 but #2 doesn’t expand enough.

    Horror movies, action movies, summer blockbuster movies etc. They aren’t Shakespeare, aren’t meant to be Shakespeare and people who go to see them don’t WANT Shakespeare.

  31. on Jun 24 2008 @ 1:01 pm 31. begiles10 said …

    So far so great Mr. Derrick, but I would just like to make a comment on your point #2. The thing is, you’re right; asshole critics only feed the negativity that is surrounding Hollywood nowadays along with things like the tabloids and paparazzi. However I have to admit something. After I see a bad movie (which is pretty frequently), where the plot is generic, when the stars are disconnected, and when the filmmakers devote so much time to catering to what they believe is the public’s entertainment wants that they neglect to develop the soul of the film, consequently wasting my time and making me depressed about the state of film in general, then I’ll read Ebert’s gentlemanly, honest, yet forgiving comments and though I appreciate them and are given much food for thought, immediately afterwards I have a compulsion to visit to Mrcranky.com.

    The website is the the domain of a former film reviewer whose reviews are not so much criticism as they are completely crude and unabashed harassment, but after reading his review of the film I was disappointed with, I’ll feel a lot more satisfied by his comments. I know it’s immature, but after reading his description of this actor as a guileless dung load and the summing up of this plot as the half-baked scrawlings of a syphilis ridden chimp birthed by Farrah Fawcett, I’m more in agreement with his tone and basically more entertained than reading from Ebert something that’s more thoughtful but also a little boring.

    And I almost think, you know, films today aren’t classy. Sometimes filmmakers don’t seem to care what ill-formed, bull, nonsense that they feed the public so why should critics tame their words for them? They should be criticized, in every inch, just as badly as they have delivered. But there’s a difference between bluntly giving a movie what it deserved and being a cynical snarky arrogant bitch about every movie or even just about every movie.

    A good critic can tell when the film makers have put effort into making a movie and that alone affords it some respect from the reviewer. What I’m saying is that I think it’s okay to rip into a film with the movies or really the filmmakers that really deserve it, but in most cases a little respect should be used with your reviews because if you’re an asshole who hates everything, what insight are you really offering for film goers? (To be fair, Mr. Cranky is an asshole who hates everything, but he’s really funny while being so.)

  32. on Jun 24 2008 @ 1:15 pm 32. G said …

    Luke,

    I’m gonna do my best to answer your concerns without lapsing into the academo-speak that calls to me on this subject, since we’re touching on some areas that will be in the disseration i’m supposed to start in november – i come to the blogosphere to get away from it.

    the last thing i would want to imply was that opinions are valueless. opinions are vital. i value a.o. scott’s opinion immensely. it’s his reasons that i don’t care much about – not that i usually disagree with them.

    you’re right that this is a form of intellectual surrender – and not one i’d like to end up espousing in the long-term.

    but basically this instrumentalizes everyone’s opinions. i don’t care how or why a.o. scott gets his opinions, and i don’t want to know if they’re “right” or not. but i know that they’re right for me – in a way i’ve described as constitutional.

    again, this entire approach instrumentalizes film criticism to its purest, most pragmatic function: “I want to know what movies I should watch.” Since I seem to agree with Scott and view Travers as always wrong, then I can instrumentalize both of them – I watch what Scott recommends and avoid anything Travers likes.

    In the long run, you’re right: this is a limited view which forecloses the alteration of opinions through arguments and renders film criticism (and, as you point out all of human communication) purely instrumental. But it also works.

    To put it another way, I don’t care why A.O. Scott likes the movies he does or why the cashier at the burrito place asks me for $6. Their motive and reasons are, if not inscrutable, unnecessary. I just know I should see the movie and pay for the burrito, and I’ll be happy.

  33. on Jun 24 2008 @ 1:50 pm 33. Evan Derrick said …

    @Rick
    Suck it up, preacher man. No whining from you. :)

    @Thomas
    It’s time consuming and exhausting to maintain a certain level of quality with one’s reviews. How valuable they are in the long run, of course, is up for debate.

    @Stephen
    A critic of the critics is kind of like a paradox within an enigma, and probably just as useful. Also, that sentence doesn’t make much sense upon a second reading. Regardless, thanks for dropping by, Steve.

    @Jesse
    I wasn’t so much advocating that a critic spout off that kind of knowledge in a review, but that having that knowledge would make them a better critic. I agree, there is a point where referencing obscure Ozu films becomes the height of pretension. However, having watched said obscure Ozu films will allow you to make better observations in the future.

    And on Lee and White’s “unique voices,” providing a single snippet doesn’t really do justice to the point I was trying to make. They have distinct voices that carry over their body of work and set them apart which, whether you like them or not or think their opinions are validated with any kind of substantial evidence, makes the memorable and readable. I wasn’t necessarily defending their writing in and of itself, but defending the consistent and unique way in which they write.

    @Rachel
    Great points, Rachel. I wish I had come up with them for the second part of my article, as your points are a little better than the ones I have yet to make. :) Love having your voice at MZ, as always.

    @Mira
    Training? HA! None of us have received any training. We’re just a bunch of opinionated people with Wordpress installs who think we know what we’re talking about. :) When I have some more time, I’ll be sure to check out some of your writing. And also hope you stick around here – we could use some more international perspective at MZ.

    @mitchsn
    Agreed, sometimes a film needs to be taken at face value. Roger Ebert, more than any other critic, does this particularly well.

    @begiles10
    I’m with you 100% there, man. Sometimes you just want to read a piece trashing a terrible film. Those can be the most enjoyable. But (and I know you agree with this) that isn’t really film criticism so much as it’s entertaining sarcasm. There’s a place for that, to be sure, but again, it’s not real criticism. However, it’s really hard to walk that fine line between entertainment and respectability. One of my points from the next half of this article is “Don’t Be Dull,” which can directly contradict point #2 (as you pointed out in your great comment). I think the secret, perhaps, is to try and combine a little of both and not go too far in either direction.

    @Luke & G
    I don’t think I have the mental energy to engage you two in your discussion, but please, don’t stop. Your arguments are a great read.

  34. on Jun 24 2008 @ 1:52 pm 34. Jason said …

    So much of this (very good) discussion has to do with WHY someone reviews a film.

    Is it to advise others on what to see or not see?

    Is it to try and understand why or why not a particular film works as part of the medium?

    Is it a way of understanding the political and social forces of our time?

    I would think that, without careful consideration of which of the above (if not all) should be a factor in criticism, being a critic becomes a frustrating exercise.

  35. on Jun 24 2008 @ 1:56 pm 35. Kevin said …

    This is a great article, I can’t wait for the second half. I had to chime in and give a bit of praise, despite the debate on number 2. Where I am from, the local newspaper has a critic who, not only has no respect for the medium, has no respect for anyone having to do with it. While I understand opinions and the ‘art form’ are important, and while you touch on ‘carving out a niche’ for yourself, I don’t know if stomping a film into the ground with your boot is really a good read, or keeping with the art form. I really enjoy reading the critics who have heart for the material, good or bad, that their reviewing, and when that lacks, forget it.

  36. on Jun 24 2008 @ 2:32 pm 36. Christian said …

    I do agree that a lot of the film critics nowadays critique no differently than the average schmo..and the average schmo typically resorts to the same concerns as if all movies are meant to be held to the same blueprint.

  37. on Jun 24 2008 @ 3:00 pm 37. begiles10 said …

    I’m a girl actually Mr. Derrick and I do agree with what you thought I would agree with. Often times when someone advises that its best not to go too far off into either direction of doing something, in this case being either an asshole reviewer or a completely passive one, most people think its really difficult to find that middle ground, especially when their personality leans them more towards either extreme.

    however, I think the critics you mentioned in your article exemplify this, walking that fine line between the two, being accurate in your reviews as well as respectful, really hinges on being not only classy but non-biased. With several of the scathing reviews I’ve read or at least unfriendly reviews, the critic will base his/her dislike on a consequential element of the film such as the director, the actors involved, the subject matter included in the film, not really looking at the quality of any of them but simply the fact that this element is involved.

    A good example would be the reviews for Shyamalon’s The Happening. Most of them were horrible. Did the film completely deserve the repetition of bitch slaps? Maybe but more than likely most critics saw that Shyamalon was helming the pic and were sharpening their pens even before they had seen the film.

    If you’re going to be biased about a film because you don’t like M. Night or you think Ben Affleck sucks or hate Jane Austen related movies then, although you’re perfectly in your rights as a film goer, critics have to look at a film almost in a vaccum of and ask if it works as a film and judge it on that basis only. You can hate Ben Affleck, but if he does okay in the upcoming “He’s Just Not That Into You” be classy enough to admit it basically. If one can do that than I think you’re on your way to being a critic and not an ass.

  38. on Jun 24 2008 @ 3:24 pm 38. Amy said …

    As a lover of all things cinematic and an aspiring film critic I really enjoyed your article. Film criticism can be so polemic but I think that’s what makes it so interesting – e.g. is there anything more stimulating than a healthy debate about the merits of a particular film? Looking forward to part two!

  39. on Jun 24 2008 @ 3:52 pm 39. Geoff, Ohio said …

    I am reminded of the David Hare play, “Amy’s View,” in which an aging British stage actress butts heads with her daughter’s innamorata, a nascent film critic and wannabe filmmaker. Good stuff, check it out.

  40. on Jun 24 2008 @ 3:56 pm 40. Caleb said …

    Nice article! i’m looking forward to part 2.

  41. on Jun 24 2008 @ 4:31 pm 41. Yikbo said …

    A well-written article. Can’t wait for part 2!

  42. on Jun 24 2008 @ 5:44 pm 42. Phillip Johnston said …

    Thanks for the article, Evan. I’ve just recently started reading older critics (Kael, Sarris, Agee, etc) and theorists (Bazin, Eisenstein, Kuleshov) this year. Each one is so uniquely enriching, although in my reading I find less and less times to watch films. I’ve got to find the balance somewhere, but I have a feeling it will only come if more hours are added to the day. :-)

    Eagerly awaiting Part 2!

  43. on Jun 24 2008 @ 6:59 pm 43. Nick Faust said …

    Bravo Evan, comprehensive, informative, entertaining. Your additional reading has sent me searching for more.

    Am particularly fond of Kael’s definition of a good critic in “Circles and Squares.”

    Thanks for this incredible piece. Am looking forward to the rest.

    Nick

  44. on Jun 24 2008 @ 7:01 pm 44. CJencks said …

    My personal opinion – and it is just that – is that despite whatever analytical genius they may have for correctly stating which previous movies have used similar plot devices, etcetera, the simple truth of the matter is that the vast majority of film critics disagree with the vast majority of the public as to what constitutes a “good” film.

    The critics hated most of the most popular movies of all time. There are movies the critics loved that did not cover their own budgets (or even close). Some of that may be due to dumb people going to see some movie just because they saw a cute commercial, but a lot of it is word of mouth. If a movie sicks, a lot of people will hear about it and not go see it. And most of those people trust their friends and such, not film critics.

    Take “Enchanted” for example. A lot of critics probably thought it was some pathetic rehash of all the classic Disney princess movies. And maybe it was. But it was well put together and a lot of people enjoyed it.

  45. on Jun 24 2008 @ 8:13 pm 45. Dean said …

    Speaking of myopic, it bemuses me when a film critic tells us to expand our cinematic vocabulary yet fails to cite the fact that The Matrix was a lot better when it came out in 1982 and was called Tron. Seriously, watch the two side by side sometime.

  46. on Jun 24 2008 @ 8:57 pm 46. G said …

    CJencks, I think there are lots of reasons why critics and the people will disagree, and while occasionally I think the problem is that the critics are out of touch with the people I usually think it’s that the people are out of touch with the movies.

    More to the point: thanks to sites like rottentomatoes and metacritic, if you say “the critics didn’t like [movie x]” someone can double-check that.

    Enchanted: Metacritic 75/100
    Rottentomatoes 94/100

    Your point is still valid, but Enchanted is not a very good example. The critics loved it.

  47. on Jun 24 2008 @ 8:58 pm 47. Kristena said …

    No need to be snippy, friends. :)

  48. on Jun 25 2008 @ 12:02 pm 48. Evan Derrick said …

    @Jason
    That brings up a great point, the difference between a film reviewer and a film critic. The former tends to write for people who haven’t seen a film (helping them to choose whether or not they should see it), while the latter writes for those who have already seen the film. The film reviewer is becoming an increasingly pointless profession, as most people make their decisions based on the trailer, marketing, past experiences, etc. (a lot of people have already pointed this out in the comments). The film critic, on the other hand, is more interested in the art of criticism and determining why or why not a certain film worked. I personally think the middle ground between these two extremes works the best.

    @Kevin
    It is funny you should mention that, Kevin. We have a local critic here who is absolutely terrible, in much the same ways as the critic you mentioned. Not only is he a poor writer, but he seems to hate films on principle and each week is a diatribe against Hollywood. He’s one of the reasons I started this blog, because I figured if he could actually get paid to spew his middle school venom, I could at least do a marginally better job than him.

    @begiles10
    My apologies, miss. Those numerals in your name threw me off (as excuses go, that is a pretty weak one, I know :) ). Again, I agree with your sentiment. I don’t like pretentious critics who have a stick up their nether regions and enjoy ripping a film to shreds based on extenuating circumstances. However, every critic has their prejudices and blindspots, and the more I’ve thought about the more I’ve come to the conclusion that a critic should take advantage of their prejudices rather than crush them. In the end, what is there to separate one critic from another apart from their likes and dislikes? Again, this should be handled with care and respect, but I think a critic should capitalize on their prejudices as much as possible (goes back to that ‘developing a unique voice’ point).

    Amy, Geoff, Caleb, Yikbo, & Nick, thanks so much for dropping by. Hope you come back more often.

    @Dean
    I think you may have missed the point, my friend.

  49. on Jun 25 2008 @ 12:31 pm 49. Luke Harrington said …

    Dean,

    You and I both know that Tron was just a rip off of The Gospel According to Matthew. Why pretend otherwise? :)

  50. on Jul 01 2008 @ 6:13 pm 50. Jeremy Welsch (The Rub) said …

    Evan, this is a fantastic article that I think all of us could learn something from. Looking forward to part 2

  51. on Jul 02 2008 @ 3:46 pm 51. Casimir Fornalski said …

    In a film theory and analysis class, I floated the wholly ridiculous but entertaining-nonetheless hypothetical:

    Say there are too many films on earth and we need to jettison some into outer space. Don’t ask why or how, just run with it. The decision comes down to a choice between putting “Star Wars” or “The Seventh Seal” on the rocket and firing it into space. On what criteria do we make that decision?

    If we were to be democratic and allow the public to vote on this, I do not think it a stretch by any means to say that “Star Wars” would be the clear winner. But does this mean “Star Wars” is the better film? I believe that, to any serious cinephile, it would be hard to argue that “Star Wars” is superior to “The Seventh Seal” as a film.

    One thing I find rather heartbreaking is when people cast doubt on the ability for others to truly “enjoy” the more inaccessable, esoteric and challenging works of art that any medium provides. When people make comments like “Nobody really likes Bergman. They just pretend to so they can feel smarter”, I get really upset. This is really the populist equivalent of intellectual elitism.

    This is why I’m glad we live in a culture that says both are allowed to co-exist, if somewhat uneasily. Thankfully, we’re not forced to make this either/or choice between films the general public likes and films a certain niche appreciates, and I get very annoyed when certain schools of thought in film criticism say we should.

  52. on Jul 02 2008 @ 3:56 pm 52. Casimir Fornalski said …

    Sorry, I’m new to this board. Maybe I should have said that first.

  53. on Jul 02 2008 @ 4:00 pm 53. Luke Harrington said …

    Casimir, I couldn’t agree more. “Harder to understand” doesn’t necessarily mean “better,” but it’s just as false to say it always means “worse.” I’d like to see the general public appreciate arthouse fare a bit more, but no less than I’d like to see the arty elites among us learn to love the multiplex.

    Thanks for the awesome thoughts…come by MZ anytime. :)

  54. on Jul 03 2008 @ 5:24 pm 54. Cibbuano said …

    A fantastic, well-thought out article with terrific examples. I’ve got a lot of things to do today, but I’m going to make some time to read a few of these essays.

  55. on Jul 03 2008 @ 5:31 pm 55. Cibbuano said …

    just read Nathan Lee’s review of Pirates of the Caribbean – a terrific scathing of the movie, and of modern ‘epics’ in general. Weary to watch, uninspired in form.

  56. on Jul 04 2008 @ 8:23 am 56. Evan Derrick said …

    Cibbuano, Nathan Lee can be somewhat of an acquired taste, but when he’s on he’s on pretty strongly. He deftly combines middle-school sarcasm and intelligent thought, and although I find myself getting angry with him a lot of the time, I always enjoy reading him.

  57. on Jul 04 2008 @ 5:49 pm 57. narciso said …

    “V for Vendetta” and “Metropolis” are nothing related.

  58. on Jul 04 2008 @ 7:10 pm 58. Evan Derrick said …

    So narciso, if I was to describe one of the two films as being a “futuristic urban distopia where the people are oppressed and which deals with themes of revolution and anarchy,” which film would I be describing?

  59. on Jul 10 2008 @ 10:55 am 59. Tommy Salami said …

    This was a great read. I’d read parts of Kael’s essay on great trash before, and I think she hit on something all viewers and critics should remember; great art doesn’t always seek to entertain, and it is rare when it does.

  60. on Jul 15 2008 @ 3:49 am 60. SolShine7 said …

    Some good tips!

  61. on Jul 20 2008 @ 5:45 am 61. Sunday Reading « As Cool As A Fruitstand said …

    [...] at all lately, let alone a critic. But that doesn’t mean I don’t take MovieZeal’s 10 tips to become a better movie critic (pt. 2 is here) to heart. Most of them (probably even all of them) are easier said then done, but [...]

  62. on Jul 28 2008 @ 7:14 pm 62. AnthonyYes said …

    Excellent article! And by the way, due tha today the critic job is consider ‘endargered’, I wonder who was the first movie critic in film history.

  63. on Oct 06 2008 @ 3:26 pm 63. Those Incredible Pears & Apples — filmcake said …

    [...] Derrick offers up excellent advice on 10 Ways To Become a Better Film Critic. The first thing I got from his post was that I needed to immediately add a book to my reading [...]

  64. on May 19 2009 @ 11:19 am 64. Billy Idol said …

    I think this is so lame, you need to take a bath.

  65. on Apr 01 2010 @ 2:53 pm 65. Victoria said …

    Hello there, Happy April Fool’s Day!

    A Jewish grandmother giving directions to her grown grandson who is coming to visit with his wife,
    “You come to the front door of the Golders Green block of flats. I am in flat number 32. There is a big panel at the front door. With your elbow, push button 32. I will buzz you in. Come inside, the elevator is on the right. Get in, and with your elbow hit 14. When you get out, I am on the left. With your elbow, hit my doorbell.”
    “Grandma, that sounds easy, but why am I hitting all these buttons with my elbow?”
    “You’re coming empty handed?”

    Happy April Fool’s Day!

  66. on Apr 06 2010 @ 12:00 pm 66. Snooks said …

    Great post! Ive been looking for information like this. Could you recommend any other resources?

    Thanks!! craps casino

  67. on Apr 21 2010 @ 6:32 am 67. Cyril Smith said …

    Clash of Titans is a superb movie and i am a fan of the classic movies featuring Hercules and some other greek god.

  68. on Aug 30 2010 @ 1:54 pm 68. Mechelle Towber said …

    Fed up with obtaining low amounts of useless visitors to your website? Well i want to tell you about a brand new underground tactic that produces me personally $900 per day on 100% AUTOPILOT. I really could be here all day and going into detail but why dont you merely check their website out? There is really a excellent video that explains everything. So if your serious about producing quick money this is the site for you. Auto Traffic Avalanche

  69. on Aug 30 2010 @ 2:56 pm 69. Willard Rehling said …

    Sick and tired of obtaining low numbers of useless traffic to your website? Well i wish to share with you a new underground tactic that makes myself $900 on a daily basis on 100% AUTOPILOT. I could be here all day and going into detail but why dont you just check their website out? There is really a great video that explains everything. So if your seriously interested in producing simple hard cash this is the website for you. Auto Traffic Avalanche

  70. on Sep 22 2010 @ 8:09 pm 70. infinityxxi said …

    awesome article :) Where’s part 2??

  71. on Sep 23 2010 @ 6:27 am 71. Elbert Orosz said …

    Thank you for providing this great blog. View my very own!

  72. on Oct 21 2010 @ 7:54 pm 72. spokane escorts said …

    This would be beneficial to all mankind. Thank you for your contribution.

  73. on Jan 28 2011 @ 3:58 am 73. Electric Oven %0B said …

    ,:~ I am very thankful to this topic because it really gives useful information :,;

  74. on Feb 21 2011 @ 11:17 pm 74. Reeling by on Celluloid…» Blog Archive » 10 Ways to Become a Better Film Critic said …

    [...] PART1 PART2 [...]

  75. on Mar 10 2011 @ 8:29 am 75. Johnnie Moyd said …

    The previously mentioned procedures will undoubtedly work if the PS3 is only overheat. This is definitely a single of the remedies to the difficulty of how to fix PS3 Yellow Light of Death. If the over approach does not function, a single of your options will be taking the console to Sony to have it fixed. Nevertheless, you might need to devote up to $150 in purchase to resolve the problem if the guarantee period of time has ended. You might also require to wait for a thing like a month prior to you can get the console back again.
    Learn more PS3 suggestions

  76. on May 14 2011 @ 5:30 am 76. antyrama na plakat said …

    do you really think like that? because i`m not sure at all.

  77. on Jun 20 2011 @ 12:17 pm 77. Thad Jendras said …

    Watch your favorite blockbuster on freemoviestream

  78. on Jul 20 2011 @ 7:48 pm 78. Prada outlet said …

    My dear amazing benefits! an incredible write-up. Thank you!

  79. on Jul 31 2011 @ 2:51 pm 79. Deedee Scheurer said …

    My husband and i happen to be really comfortable which Raymond could cope with their research via the suggestions he acquired with all the site. It is now as well as once more puzzling to easily offer details that numerous various other folks have already been marketing. We understand we’ve the author saying thanks to with this. The sort of illustrations you have made, the simple website routing, the relationships an individual assist to engender ?ê? it’s everything remarkable, which is making our own boy as well as all of us think that the subject will be pleasant, and that’s incredibly necessary. Appreciate all!

  80. on Aug 06 2011 @ 11:44 am 80. creative communications agency london said …

    Have you ever considered about adding a little bit more than just your articles? I mean, what you say is important and all. But think of if you added some great visuals or video clips to give your posts more, “pop”! Your content is excellent but with pics and video clips, this site could definitely be one of the greatest in its niche. Very good blog!

  81. on Aug 09 2011 @ 2:17 pm 81. car repair lancaster said …

    You should take part in a contest for one of the best blogs on the web. I will recommend this web site!

  82. on Aug 16 2011 @ 9:09 am 82. Enrique Scieszka said …

    Dont statesman and juncture us now. I anticipate we should not imagine before making a salutary raft?.. if yeah, then penetrate here and catch online Zombieland HQ Official Movie part 1 . Dont poverty to download, dont trouble this would also let you past movies online for disengage

  83. on Aug 24 2011 @ 7:38 am 83. William Smith said …

    Please let me know if you’re looking for a author for your site. You have some really good articles and I feel I would be a good asset. If you ever want to take some of the load off, I’d really like to write some articles for your blog in exchange for a link back to mine. Please shoot me an email if interested. Thanks!

  84. on Aug 26 2011 @ 2:42 pm 84. golden retriever vs labrador said …

    Great article. Your material has obviously been researched in depth and you’ve done a wonderful job presenting your points. I agree on most but am on the fence on others.

  85. on Sep 08 2011 @ 3:51 am 85. pupu987 said …

    Youre so cool! I dont suppose Ive red nything like this prior to. So nice to find somebody with some originl thoughts on this subject. rely thnk you for strting this up. this web site is some thing tht is needed on the internet, someone with little originlity. helpful job for bringing something new to the internet!

  86. on Sep 21 2011 @ 10:02 pm 86. job fair said …

    You are obviously very good at gathering data and writing it in clear terms for your readers. I like your unique take on this topic and I agree with you on a lot of it.

  87. on Jan 04 2012 @ 2:31 pm 87. QueeryUncerie said …

    [url=http://www.uggelcorteingles.eu]ugg online comprar[/url]

    http://www.uggelcorteingles.eu

  88. on Jan 28 2012 @ 12:59 pm 88. ps3 ylod said …

    Excellent beat ! I would like to apprentice even as you amend your site, how could i subscribe for a weblog site? The account helped me a acceptable deal. I have been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided bright clear concept

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply