Bob Balaban (left) plays an Evil Film Critic in "Lady in the Water."
"Reviews should be objective. Keep your opinions out of your reviews!"
-- actual comments from alleged "readers," sent to Roger Ebert and just about every other critic on every planet in the solar system (except Pluto)
(NOTE: If the above quotation does not bring tears of laughter to your eyes, do not let those eyes tarry here.)
People love to quote William Goldman's famous saying about the movie industry, which is that "Nobody knows anything." Most people who quote it have absolutely no idea what it means. The phrase is tossed about as being the wisest thing ever said about showbiz, and fortunately for those who are doing the tossing, it's just vague enough to sound true under almost any circumstances. So, it is thought to be "right" more often than a stopped analog clock, which is said to tell the correct time twice a day. (The clock is not "right," of course -- it just coincides with external events that allow someone to perceive it as being correct if you check it at certain times. It's a coincidence. That's an important distinction.)
I think perhaps the most profound meaning of "Nobody knows anything" (out of all possible meanings) is not just that nobody knows what will be a hit, but that the audience does not know what it wants. They'll tell you what they want, but if they could really articulate it or quantify it, and if the studios could create some kind of quality control mechanism to manufacture it, Disney and Paramount and Warners and Fox and Sony would be as financially successful as, say, oil companies.
When I worked at Microsoft, editing the CD-ROM and web movie encyclopedia Cinemania, I and my colleagues at Music Central had a difficult time explaining to the marketing folks the qualitative differences between people's (I'm sorry -- consumers') relationships to movies and music and, say, their relationships to their kitchen appliances. We liked to say that movies and music were not refrigerators, but that didn't help. Marketing still didn't know what we were talking about.
But here's the thing: Some people choose refrigerators (or cars or spouses) with their analytical brains -- by comparing features, reading test lab results, consulting reviews, and making lists of pros and cons. Some people look for movies or music this way, too, but it doesn't work as well since you can't check the stats on the cameras or microphones or guitars to find out which makes better movies or music. Other people don't care at all about stats or track records or anyone else's opinions -- they may not be able to describe in advance what they want, but they know it when they see it, and will immediately buy or drive or boink or even marry it when they do.
People are happy to tell you how they make decisions about what movies to see. They invariably insist that they are never swayed by advertising or reviews, that they rely almost entirely on their own inerrant predictive judgment and taste, and the recommendations of their trusted friends and family. Somehow, this applies even to those who go to the theater on opening night with their trusted friends and family. It's not so much that they're deliberately trying to fool pollsters; they're just like all of us -- really good at fooling themselves.
But people don't like to be fooled by others -- they don't want to look like suckers, especially not to themselves. So, there's a cultural (or maybe just human) instinct to want to justify time and money spent. People are far less likely to trash the movie if asked about it as they emerge from the theater (and they still have the ticket stub in their pocket) than they are a few days later, when they are more likely to look back on it as a trial-by-fire bonding experience, and yowl about how hilariously awful it was to sit through. Plus, who wants to admit they paid 10 bucks to see "Lady in the Water"? Only after a little time goes by does it become fun to talk about how bad it was.
When it comes to film criticism... well, most people know as much about it as they do about the self-defrost mechanisms in their freezers. They will say, for example, that all they want is an "objective" assessment of the movie, without understanding that there can be no such thing as "objective" criticism of art or entertainment -- which is inherently subjective. It's the critic's point of view that matters, coupled with reporting skills. Moviegoers will also say they want to know the story -- but don't give too much away. I'm always amazed at how much of the story they want to know -- pretty much everything except the ending in many cases. Some people really don't like surprises -- not in their dinners, and not in their entertainment. As a critic, I am not willing to oblige them, and prefer to describe little more than the premise and then talk about the imagery, the characters, the music, and so on.
And, of course, movie fans (and just about everybody considers himself a movie fan) demand some kind of quantifiable scale of measurement -- stars, thumbs, letter grades -- to fool themselves into thinking this represents a definitive (and "objective") form of evaluation. In fact, these gimmicks are just clumsy attempts to quantify non-quantifiable judgments. Roger Ebert has, on occasion, gotten so frustrated with people who quibble with him about stars or thumbs that he tells them they shouldn't even bother to read reviews. (They probably wouldn't understand them anyway.)
"What're you doin'?"
"Nothin'."
"Wanna see a movie?"
"Yeah, sure."
"There's that new 2.5-star at the Neptune."
"Cool."
A movie audience that has no use for film criticism, doesn't understand it or realize that it has nothing to do with predicting box-office success or failure, and even less with predicting what you will think of a movie (most critics don't know you), can hardly be expected to understand that movie reviewing is only incidentally a consumer guide -- or that the vast majority of film critics I know never even think about influencing audience behavior. They're critics because they like to write about movies.
As the illustrious Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll indicates, most people claim not to read reviews before they see movies (they've already made up their minds). So, if they read reviews at all, when do they read them? My experience from my years at newspapers and Cinemania and RogerEbert.com (though not as scientific and objective as Times/Bloomberg) is that many people who like to read reviews actually prefer to read them, and discuss them, after they've seen the movie (especially after watching them on DVD).
Again, that's a small segment of the moviegoing audience -- but it's also the most passionate, informed, intelligent and influential. Outside of a few film societies, the most stimulating discussions about movies are happening at online blogs with comment threads such as (just to name a few) girish, Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule, and The House Next Door -- and, I hope, Scanners.
In 30 years of writing movie reviews, from my college newspaper to the web, I've learned a lot from readers. One of the things I've learned is that film criticism is whatever a particular reader likes, and is not what that reader does not like. That hasn't changed, and never will. Really. You could do a poll on it.
25 Comments
An interesting related note--I'm a playwright in Madison, Wisconsin, and was sort of undergoing an anxiety crisis. My work tends to be on the dark side, and found myself more and more frustrated that I couldn't find any places that were looking for darker material.
Sometime later, I met up with a successful playwright named Theresa Rebeck, who also writes fairly dark stuff, and I asked her if she thought that no one was looking for darker plays anymore.
She said, "Oh, y'know, the whole thing is just a crap shoot--no one knows what or why anything's going to be popular. So you might as well just write what you want to write, because you've got just as good a chance of selling that as something you hated writing."
Good advice.
JE: VERY good advice, Rob. Sometimes people are appalled when they ask me who I write for and I say I write for myself. Of course I want to communicate (that's one thing I especially like about writing for the web), but I can't just conjure up some imaginary readership of "cinephiliacs" or "mainstream moviegoers" and write for them. All I can do -- all any writer can do -- is write about what they find interesting and hope to communicate that interest to others.
Here's how I decide if I want to spend $9+ and put up with talking crowds and go to the movies, rather than wait six months, pay $19 for a DVD and watch it at home on my 16x9 TV:
1. Is it a movie that will look better on a huge screen (i.e. most action films or films that are grand in scope)?
2. Will the audience actually enhance, rather than detract from, the experience (i.e. the woman next to me shrieking in a foreign language and pointing throughout "Snakes on a Plane")?
3. Do I have to see the movie RIGHT NOW (i.e. "The Descent," which didn't fit #1 or #2 but was touted as the best horror film - my favorite genre - of the year by many horror-fan friends)?
I freelance as a DVD review, read Mr. Ebert's reviews regularly (get well soon!) and find that the only time reviews really influence my decision to either go to the movies or rent/buy a DVD is if I'm on the fence about a film or if I was not especially aware of a film and it gets excellent reviews.
But I value movies first and foremost as entertainment, rather than something deep and meaningful. So maybe I don't know anything, either.
JE: As you point out, Eric, just because something doesn't fit the requirements of one category doesn't mean it doesn't fulfill others. And there's no reason a movie can't be 1) entertainment; as well as 2) deep; and 3) meaningful. In fact, I'd argue that the qualities that make it #2 and #3 are likely to make it all the more #1.
I must admit, reviews don't affect my movie choices at all, or at least only occasionally (I was going to give The 40-year-old virgin a skip until I heard all the positive reviews). So many hollywood movies play it safe and "position" themselves firmly within a genre that it's pretty easy to know what to expect.
But I still read film criticism, and avidly. Why? Well, when a movie is great, I love to read analysis of it for various nuances that I may have missed. These reviews (like David Edelstein's review of "Munich") really make me think.
When a movie is bad, I love to read the scathing jibes because they're funny! A well-written review of a bad movie is often more entertaining than the movie itself.
JE: I've always thought the ideal reader is somebody who sees the movie first and wants to think about it more afterwards. That may mean reading reviews and/or talking about the movie with friends and/or posting in a discussion group...
This might not be tightly related to your post, but I feel in the need to confess that Cinemania '96 was my favourite passtime during afternoons in during the pre-Internet age while in my teen years.
One of the main resources that I had for American film-criticism, and how I got to know the brilliant Pauline Kael, and my personal heroe Mr. Roger Ebert.
I must have probably seen the Casablanca clip like 3000 times, since that was the most inmediate way that I had to re-live that moment, and had read all his 1 starred reviews (my personal favourites then). What wonderful memories.
I must have probably read all the reviews on my Windows 95 486 PC. Roger Ebert's were my favourites, and his brilliant style inspired me to have film criticism as my #1 after-school activity.
I'd write a review for each movie that I'd see, and after having written it, I'd check Ebert's and Maltin's reviews to see if we shared the same opinion,
I found out that I had more in common with Roger, and you wouldnt believe how happy I was once I had my first dial-up connection and I found out that Roger had a website, it was like a dream come true. No longer I'd have to settle with the quotes on the VHS covers, to get to know Ebert's opinion about a particular movie.
My personal experience might not be unique but I know that I had a hard time trying to find someone in Caracas that I could talk with about film criticism when I was 14.
Maybe my degree of love for film criticism reached some strange high levels when I decided to paste printed versions of my reviews on the walls of my high-school, funded by myself. I thought that it was a public service I'd be doing to prevent people from wasting their time on watching crappy pictures. I'd see fellow students reading them on Friday, only to see my 5 star review of "Magnolia" on monday X'd out to 1 star, or even Zero stars by my classmates. But I liked the fact that they were even motivated to take a stand about their movie preferences, so much as to even destroy my ridiculously detailed movie reviews.
I'd go to see every movie out. They made my life better, and movie reviews made my knowledge a lot deeper. Not just in regards of moviemaking, but also in how should one stand before someonelse's opinion and develop a dialectic mindframe.
So when I read that critics are being less important these days, I can't help to think that the person rtying to argue that is probably motivated by loathing of people who feel passionate about movies. And as you point out since most people are really fond of movies, I'd think that a critic of film lovers is actually a misanthrope.
JE: I'm thrilled that you had Cinemania96! I not only miss it as a resource (although I use my copy of Cinemania97 all the time for reference), but the people who made working on it one of the best professional experiences of my life.
Usually when I'm going to see a movie, my mind is already set on seeing it, so I don't read any reviews. I know this is a bit of a gamble, but so far my intuition has been pretty good. The only time I use reviews is when I need to convince my friends that some "authority" agrees that my intended movie is worth their money.
I generally read reviews after seeing a movie, unless it is something I am highly anticipating. Most of my movie viewing decisions are based on early reviews from festivals, the track record of the director (or actor but not as much), and metacritic scores.
I also consider myself a great reader of trailers. This may occassionally mean I miss a good movie at the theater, but I will catch it later on DVD.
As for Lady in the Water, I stayed away initially because of my annoyance with Shyamalan. When the reviews started rolling in I was glad I had. I might still rent it so that I can talk about how bad it is.
I'll be the first to admit that I paid ten bucks to see Lady In the Water.
And guess what....I liked it.
It's a children's story. Things are going to be far fetched and silly...that's what children's books are all about.
But it seems critics couldn't stand to see one of their own getting munched. And because of that, they began piling onto a film that really didn't deserve it.
I can think of at least ten other films I've seen this year that have a whole lot less interesting things going for them, but have not recieved the lambasting from critics like Lady In the Water has recieved.
I usually don't base movie attendance on reviews but try to base it on that "gut instinct" from trailers, buzz, hearsay, or whatever else. I do read reviews, such as those of Roger Ebert, but only after I have seen the movie. I respect his opinion, but don't want it before I see the movie; I want to form my own ideas/opinions on the movie and then see if my take on the movie is the same as Ebert's, or, more usually, how it's different.
In fact, I often disagree with the opinion of a critic whose review I have read, but I find those differences more interesting than the similarities. And more often than not, it's refreshing to hear a different take on a movie -- rather it brings another reason to love it, or perhaps advice for other, better films to see if I enjoyed this movie.
You make a capital point their by relativizing the "truth" in poll "results" and especially in the level of sincerity of audience when asked about consuming choices (not to mention the basic poll manipulation of leading/begging questions that could make anyone say anything)
you say : "the audience does not know what it wants."
This might be a worry for studio marketers, like you point out, but as far as entertainment (or art) is concerned we shouldn't expect an audience to define what they want to "consume". The magician doesn't ask the public what kind of trick he should perform, the surprise is part of entertainment. Invention is the burden of the artist, who propose the best he's got. Then the audience and the market laws will decide, afterward, whether it's satisfying or not. Sometimes it takes some time to appreciate a work that was neglected upon first release, because the crowd initially missed it.
We don't care what the audience wants! not the artist, nor the critic, nor the audience. This question is yet again the intrusion of an industrial concern into an emotional field. I say, let the producers worry about this and leave statistics out of arts.
The "bulk audience" symbolized by majority poll numbers is not meaningful to the individual viewer, only to the mainstream public who just like to watch what everyone else is watching. Individual viewers with personality who care to customize their taste don't need to know what "most people" like to watch.
JE: I agree, Harry. That's what I think is so funny about the millions the studios waste on "test screenings" and "market research." It is -- and always has been -- valuable for filmmakers to watch their works-in-progress with an audience, to see how things play and make adjustments accordingly. But beyond that, the chances of focus groups and opinion sampling actually predicting a film's success aren't significantly more accurate than the old tools of gut instinct and common sense. No amount of fiddling is going to make a misconception or failed execution significantly better -- and, in fact, test screenings often result in self-fulfilling prophecies. Instead of putting more money into trying to fix the movie, or in trying to sell it, the studio will just lock it and dump it on the market, guaranteeing it has no chance of success. And the truth is, asking people out-of-context questions, like whether certain characters are "likeable" or what parts of the movie they liked or didn't like, don't take into account the experience of the movie as a whole. Eliminating the "slow spots" may do even more harm to the pacing of the movie, because it will flatten it out and make the "fast parts" less exciting by contrast. A movie that's all peaks isn't much of a movie -- it's just noise to which you soon become inured. And what if certain characters are supposed to be unsympathetic -- or, at least, not entirely "likeable"? That's part of the drama (or comedy). I always think of the brilliant little sitcom "Buffalo Bill," in which Dabney Coleman played an awful local TV talk show host who was terrible to everyone. Turns out the network's marketing research revealed that Coleman's character was not likeable -- which was precisely the concept on which "BB" was based. NBC cancelled the show.
I too enjoyed Lady in the Water, flaws and all. The biggest flaw being the logic behind how the Reviewer was, well, logically dismantled. He gave the correct information - it was Paul Giamatti's character that assumed it was certain people, when it wasn't. So, it was never the critics fault as the film so blatantly points out later on (though the line was funny, "What kind of pompous... something or another..." Not a direct quote. But still. With logistical flaws like that I don't condemn anyone for hating the film. Shyamalan still finds moments of humanity in his sometimes flawed films that more conventional filmmakers fail to recognize could even exist. I'm certain through all of this he'll come out on the other end with a stronger and more authentic voice; I feel he's searching a little right now for something authentically different.
JE: I didn't mean to pick on "Lady in the Water" -- which, as some have pointed out, has been picked on enough (though Shyamalan set himself up for a fall with his book making personal attacks on Disney execs who had legitimate criticisms of his screenplay. Never thought I'd feel sympathetic to development executives -- now THAT was a quite a feat!). I just chose it because it was one of several recent films that plummeted in its second weekend after bad word-of-mouth. Most people who went to see it really didn't like it. Now that I think about it, though, I think the "X-Men" movie set something close to a record of a 65 percent drop...
For me, the bottom line is this: I LOVE FILM!!!
Honestly, why does a person who loves sports spend hours and hours discussing and arguing about the nuances of the game, the strategy, the scores, the players, the Fantasy teams, etc...?
BECAUSE THEY LOVE IT-pure and simple!
For me, it's film. I can barely focus at work all day because every hour I'm checking Scanners, Ebert, Ainitcoolnews, and Wikepedia to read and learn and study and discuss film. Why? Sure, I like to get a general idea about a film before seeing it (depending on the film, a la Million Dollar Baby, about which I wanted to know nothing going in)...but the bottom line is HOLY MOTHER OF GOD, DO I LOVE FILM!!!
I read reviews and essays on the subject incessantly, not to DECIDE anything (though there is the occassional nudge this way or that), but to simply learn and delve into the art of it all.
JE: You know what, Lee? I think you're onto something!
Shyamalan: Yes he did set himself up for a fall with this book, but imagine if people accepted this film in general, then Disney would have looked really dumb and the artist in us all would have scored a point against the corporate moguls - he came close. There's still that hint though of big studios who try to control artistic integrity.
The reason why I think Shyamalan is a good discussing point is because it brings up a valid discussion point about film critiscm, and not just these days, and that is the mob mentality that critics can have at times. Ganging up on a film or actor or director. One of the biggest instances being "Bonnie and Clyde". It was finally Pauline Kael's insightful piece that changed minds, and if it hadn't been for her, the film would have disappeared. Or "Blade Runner" which was horribly reviewed and ganged up on when it came out, and look at the impact that it has had on filmmaking. Even Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai" was named the number three film of the year in Japan when it came out, does anyone remember the first two? Sometimes it takes awhile for a film to be realized for what it is, and for some reason every now and then when the stars align against a film, so will the critics. Of course there are some instances in which the film deserves it... "Battlefield Earth" anyone?
JE: I see your point, but critical opinion is far more diverse than people seem to think it is. (Even "Lady in the Water" has about one quarter positive reviews according to RottenTomatoes.) I dispute the "mob mentality" myth, anyway. For example: Warners screened "Lady in the Water" within a few days of opening. I had to come straight home from the screening and write a review that very night. Most critics work on tight deadlines and don't have any time (or desire) to discuss their opinions BEFORE they write their reviews. On the contrary, a lot of us jealously guard our opinions and insights -- and don't want to be influenced by anybody else's -- before publication. We're just as surprised as anyone to see who said what when the movie opens on Friday. As for me, I very much wanted to like it (I am not one of those people who enjoys sitting through bad movies), but I thought Shyamalan chickened out and wasn't ambitious enough to make the thing the least bit compelling.
Not sure who "named" "Seven Samurai" the third best Japanese film of 1954, but I'm not terribly surprised since Kurosawa was considered by many Japanese to be too "Western." (It was, after all, remade as a commercial American western six years later: "The Magnificent Seven.") Also, Kenji Mizoguchi's "Sansho the Bailiff" was released that year, and Ozu's "Tokyo Story" in 1953 or 1954, so if those were the competitors I'd say the critics were absolutely right to rank them above "Seven Samurai," even though it's a wonderful movie.
I can't imagine any critic today having the influence Kael had with "Bonnie and Clyde." Roger Ebert, the most influential critic on the scene nowadays, often champions films that the distributors dump. We live in an entirely different film culture than we did in 1967. On the other hand, Vincent Canby's negative review of "Cutter and Bone" (aka "Cutter's Way") killed the best film of the 1980s. It was pulled from release, although given a limited resurrection with the blander title by UA Classics, the first of the studio "classics" divisions. As for "Blade Runner" -- critical opinion is still deeply divided. The LOOK of the film has indeed been influential (and so has Philip K. Dick, the author of the original story), but perhaps you forget about the terrible, TERRIBLE voice-over that Harrison Ford provided (at studio insistence) for the original 1982 release. The studio thought the story was too confusing and wanted narration to "clarify." Ford himself later admitted he read it so badly he was hoping they wouldn't be able to use it -- and that's exactly what it sounded like. In his various "director's cuts," the first thing Ridley Scott did was to remove that narration, which improved the film immeasurably. But I still feel disappointed, every time I see it, that it isn't the great film I've always wanted it to be, despite many breathtaking moments. Apparently Scott feels that way, too. He has another "director's cut" due on DVD September 5.
It's nice to converse with someone about film who knows a little about it.
Oh, I'm well aware of the voice over debacle in "Bladerunner", and yet it was the version that first captured me when I was young, the Director's Cut had not been released yet. The Director's Cut is obviously my first choice now, but I look forward to another revision. Moreso than another revision of "Alexander"! Let it die... another film that deserved the kicking it got.
It was too bad, I felt Shyamalan pulling back a little too. He said he wrote some 13 drafts, maybe he should have stopped at five.
It was the Japanese Film Comission or something like that which named "Seven Samurai" number 3. I read it in a book a couple years ago. Against Tokyo Story though, hmmmm. I have not seen the other, but now I will have to.
I can imagine reviewers huddling around every clever thing they have to say about a movie like it was the antidote Indiana needed at the beginning of "Temple of Doom". Regardless, it's strange how many reviews will focus on the same things and state things sometimes in the same generalized way, even repeating exact words other writers will use. Picking and praising over the same bits and pieces. Could it be that reviewers (in general, we will say excluding yourself) are just as much affected by the buzz of the film, or anti-buzz. Mob mentality was a simplistic way for me to describe this, I just feel something in the cosmos sometimes working against certain films that aren't as bad or as wonderful as critical appraisals will make them out to be. It might be in the fact that criticsm sometimes becomes more entertainment, or that a critic will try to be the one to get it right that they will overtly bludgeon or praise something in order to draw attention (probably inadvertantly). Now I'm just postulating. I find myself as a writer, as writers do, exaggerating some opinions to draw the reader in that extra touch, or getting so excited about something that I begin to over do it a bit. I guess I have no problem if that is the case, but eventually a steadier hand should be used to properly analyze a film.
I was just wondering something. There was a Harry Tuttle who posted a comment August 24. There was a movie from 1985 or 1986 called "Brazil" directed by Terry Gilliam and there was a character played by Robert Deniro whose name was Harry Tuttle. Just wanted to know what you think of this.
JE: I'm sure it's some kind of bureaucratic error. Probably supposed to be "Buttle."
Mr. Emerson,
Like carlos I also spent way too much time with Cinemania96. It was a wonderful resource and got me hooked on reading film critique. Plus, it was MOVIES playing on my COMPUTER! How cool that was in '96.
I personally think a quantifiable scale of measurement, even something as simple as thumbs, is a valuable resource. Why? Because I can see if critics I respect recommend a movie without learning anything else about that film, even the premise. I'm very selective about the information I allow myself prior to watching a movie. Discovering the joys of a good movie is one of life's great pleasures. I want to be able to watch a film and say, "Hey, those were some good costumes." or "Wow, that young starlet really can act" and feel like I came to that conclusion on my own. If a critic (or ad, or friend) makes me aware of those things ahead of time, then the discovery is lost. I walk into the film aware of those elements and am prepared to agree or disagree.
I don't have the time or money to see all the films I'm interested in so I treat respected film critics like trusted friends: Only tell me if I should see it, then afterwards we'll talk.
Cameron
PS - I live 2 blocks from the Neptune and have said to a friend as we passed Xanadu Comics "I'm excited to see this movie, but Ebert only gave it 2.5 stars"
I love your blogs and you are slowly growing to be one of my favorite writers on film. Unfortunately, I disagree with your notion that it's impossible to be "objective" about art. If someone knows enough about a particular craft or talent, they can critique others within that craft or talent without necessarily connecting with it on a subjective level.
For example, my favorite film (my subjective choice) is Pleasantville. I love the visuals in that film. The cinematography is so rich and I find myself finding more and more satire with every viewing. But objectively, I think Citizen Kane is the best film of all time.
Now, if I find Pleasantville more entertaining, does that mean it should be my personal best film of all time? I don't think so at all. I can step aside and say that Citizen Kane is far superior from a critical standpoint.
I hate watching Easy Rider, but I know it's well made. I love watching Billy Madison, but I know it sucks. How can that be explained? I think this shows that there is some sort of separation between what I like and what I appreciate. I think this separation becomes more apparent the more you learn about the craft.
Dear Brian: Thanks for the nice words. I see what you're saying, but I think what we're really discussing is the meaning of the words "objective" and "subjective." Certainly, a critic should cite direct evidence from the film in writing a review (which might be called "objective" evidence), but how the critic interprets that evidence will, unavoidably, be subjective -- some kind of value judgement. I think of it like a lawyer buiding a case -- citing direct evidence (though often selectively, to support a particular position or illustrate a point), but interpreting it based on your reading of it, depending on whether you're chosen to champion the defense or the prosecution.
I agree that what you "love" and what you think is "the best" are two different criteria, but I don't think one is subjective and the other objective. Both are subjective evaluations based on your interpretations of what's happening in "Pleasantville" or "Citizen Kane." I'm sure somebody could pick apart "Kane" (which I also consider, subjectively, to be one of the most enjoyable and entertaining movies I've ever seen) based on observations from the movie (the expressionistic camera style, the jarring shifts in time or perspective) -- and, in that case, the movie remains the same; all that's changed is the subjective judgment of the critic.
I always think of Pauline Kael in this regard, a writer I loved to read and yet often thought wrong-headed. She'd often make brilliant observations about what a movie was doing, and how it was doing it -- describing precisely what I found exciting and worthy about it -- and then say she didn't like the film for those very reasons. Again, we both saw the same movie, but our subjective experiences and evaluations of it were quite different.
P.S. It's funny you should say "Easy Rider" is "well-made." That's exactly what it was criticized (and praised) for not being when it was released -- the scruffy antithesis of the "well-made" studio picture of the time. Now, however, I think you are onto something: What was once raw and anti-establishment now looks almost like classicism.
I think you have a point about my thoughts on subjectivity vs. objectivity. Perhaps those are the wrong words to use. I guess the question I'm really asking is this: Is it possible for there to be a difference in personal criteria that determines whether or not you enjoy a film and a more impersonal criteria that determines whether you think it's a good work of art or not?
On the topic of Easy Rider, I have heard that it was criticized when it was initially released. Looking at it now, from the point of view of someone who didn't live during that time, Easy Rider appears to embody the spirit of the 60's. The rawness acts as a visual metaphor for rebellion. The opening shot of Easy Rider would fit nicely in your opening shots project catalog.
Perhaps the main point of all this is the realization that nothing is objective: death, love, smell, taste. To me, a glass of Coke might taste like a refreshing breeze whirling throughout my mouth. To you, its flavour might come closer to that of burnt chalk. The real meaning behind this is understanding the inherit similarity between this example (X) and how, at the end of it all, X relates to everything: All is Subjective.
Perhaps an 'objective' for everyone in life is to understand this difference and to realize how the two are the exact same thing.
I hope I haven't confused you. My train of thought is sometimes hard to track, let alone to conduct.
On the issue of "Seven Samurai" --
"Seven Samurai" was the 3rd best movie of 1953 on the Japanese cinema magazine Kinema Junpo's "best 10 list". It placed behind "24 Eyes" and the virtually forgotten "Woman's Garden" (Onna no Sono) both directed by Kinoshita Keisuke. Both of these films feature strong acting and the type of melodrama that was popular with Japanese audiences in the 1950s. "24 Eyes" has been remade several times and is still well-loved and remembered. It is still as famous as "Seven Samurai" in Japan.
"Sansho the Bailiff", always more highly regarded abroad than in Japan, placed 9th in 1954.
Tokyo Story was ranked the second best Japanese film of 1953 by Kinema Junpo. It ranked behind Dir. Imai Tadashi's Nigorie (not one of the director's best remembered films).
These lists were (and still are) compiled by a poll of around 30 critics who award 10 points to their top film down to 1 point for their 10th best. The numbers are added up and a "best 10" list is compiled. There were still many critics who saw "Seven Samurai" as the best film of 1953.
Really enjoy the blog, BTW.
You opened part 2 to this blog with this alleged quote from an Ebert fan: "Reviews should be obvective. Keep your opinions out of your reviews!" Yet here in Part I, you discuss Straw Man arguments and other fallacies related to propaganda techniques. Isn't your use of the above quote more or less your own brand of the same thing? First off, the quote is given no context, so I have not a clue what this "fan" was ranting about. Secondly, if I had to guess, the fan is probably talking about the oftentimes obtrusive politically-charged commentary on the part of some reviewers. Thirdly, my belief is that you know exactly what this reader is getting at in this misphrased comment, but you utilized this unfortunate soul to make yourself look smarter (how's that for "truthiness?"). I respect your expertise on propaganda. I really do. You utilize it so well, especially when you begin a blog addressing the nonexistent relevance of critics, yet can't resist the urge to soapbox on all things Bush/Iraq/Fox. So, perhaps it's becomming obvious that the opinion-challenged reader you quoted may feel much like I do: I orginally thought I was going to be reading about movies when I clicked on your blog.
JE: Oh, it all comes back to movies eventually -- and movies are not made or viewed in a political or cultural vacuum. Critical thinking (the larger subject of this blog) should apply not only to the arts, but to life in general. As for the "keep your opinions out of your reviews" comment: As I said, Roger Ebert isn't the only critic who's been told that. I have, too -- and I don't know any critic who hasn't. Next time we get one, I'll post it.
Why do I read film and book reviews? I usually watch and read for the sake of it, and hardly ever look for hidden meanings and references. First and foremost, I want to be entertained. But sometimes the movie or the book is too good to pass up knowing more about it, and certainly the insights of people who breathe and live for literature and film can give me a thrill when I "get it." Sometimes I will read the review again after I see the movie, to see how it fixed my preconceptions of it, and how the work itself changed them. Sometimes it can hurt to read a review beforehand. Some gentle hints about the ending really ruined my enjoyment of Dennis Lehane's Shutter Island. And finally - sometimes, even if I know wild horses couldn't drag me to that movie, I will still read the review for what the reviewer says and HOW he says it. Yes, that is why I visit Roger Ebert's website regularly. It's amazing how often I disagree with him, and yet how much I appreciate his point of view and love reading his reviews regardless.
I concur with Jim on the matter of objectivity/subjectivity, but for me there are two levels of subjectivity that have to do with my own upbringing and the belief systems that formed out of my early experience.
When I was eight years old, I saw the Columbia Studios musical, COVER GIRL, with Gene Kelly and Rita Hayworth, and loved it. I didn't know why, but I was more engaged watching that film than most others. Thirty years later I, by chance, watched it again on television. Suddenly, I reverted back to my eight-year-old self and all kind of messages about relationshps poured forth, messages that I had been using as guiding forces the previous three decades. When I was 19, I saw RASHOMON and I was startled by how it addressed questions I had within myself about perceptions of "truth." The film helped me to dig into the topic with more clarity than I'd
been able to muster up to then.
I think for people who truly love movies films have a formative impact on their lives, sometimes their careers. These are what I call "favorite" films. Other films--well made and not--that don't speak to my issues and interests, have lesser force.
Director John Carpenter is reported to have said: "We go to movies to find out who we are." That's certainly my experience.
The Blade Runner director's cut being released on September 5 is, in fact, the same crummy work print that's been released as the "director's cut" since 1992. The new "Final Cut" that Ridley Scott is working on will be released theatrically next year for the 25th Anniversary. I'm quite looking forward to, as it's a film that's flawed in many ways yet it's impossible for me not to be moved and fascinated by every time I see it.
I for one will never watch a film if has a REALLY low ranking on rottentomatoes. I find that the critics are usually right on the money. I also like to read reviews after i've watched a dvd i did'nt enjoy to see if i mist something. For instance, a movie like "Inside Man" had rave reviews, but i found it quite boring and i wanted to find out why i'm in the minority.
Leave a comment