Andy Horbal's Film Criticism Blog-a-Thon -- the center of the movie criticism universe this weekend.
This is another contribution to Andy Horbal's Film Criticism Blog-a-Thon at No More Marriages!, a blog which is itself devoted to the subject of film criticism. As Andy introduces the Blog-a-Thon: "I regard film criticism as simply the larger conversation about film, and this is a conversation about that conversation. Many of us read and write a great deal of film criticism, and this is a chance to think about what exactly we're doing." Here's to the occasion!
The few of us who are fortunate enough to get paid to write and think about movies are constantly asked for advice about how to do it -- or, even more often, how to get a job doing it.
My answer to the second question is simple: There is no "career track" for a movie critic. See a lot of movies. Read a lot of film history and criticism. Practice writing. If you're in school, submit reviews to your school paper. If they like your writing, they'll probably ask you to write more. Or publish your own blog or web site. The best way to get the attention of people who may give you writing assignments is to get your writing somewhere it can be read.
The first question (which boils down to: How do you write film criticism?) is far more difficult, because everybody does it differently. The worst thing that could happen would be for a critical Bob McKee to come along and turn film criticism into a formula, the way most Hollywood movies have become illustrated formulas. (Actually, most print reviewing has been an inverted-pyramid-type formula for a long time: Intro that sets up the verdict; plot description; something about the acting; something about the cinematography or costumes or sets or whatever; summary.)
But, as I've said before, reviews are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to film criticsm. But they're still a necessary part of the discussion that makes movies a living part of popular culture. As I wrote in September:
... I see films and film criticism as two sides of the same coin ("The unexamined film is not worth watching").... Imagine what it would be like if the conversation about movies (whether academic study, criticism, or casual after-movie talk) ended with the final credits. What if the movie was just over and you never thought about it or discussed it with anyone again? It's unthinkable, about as likely as the prospect that movies themselves -- storytelling with moving images -- would cease to exist.But writing is only the first stage of critical engagement with film (or any art) -- or maybe the second, after initial verbal discussions (see David Bordwell's essay, "Studying Cinema," here). Next, come responses to the original written criticism, for which a blog Comments section is ideally suited. It gives readers a chance to critique and enlarge upon the initial post, the original writer the opportunity to clarify and refine his/her thoughts, and everybody a chance to discuss amongst themselves. This, to me, is where criticism really starts to get exciting. The primary piece stands, but can be read and re-read in light of the ensuing discussion. In ideal situations (as with my piece on two reviews of "Nashville" in light of "Bobby"), it's possible to quote not only from what the critics have written, but to "quote" (with frame grabs, or even clips) directly from the movie(s) under scrutiny.
Jean-Luc Godard's frequently cited pronouncement is that the best way to criticize a movie is to make another movie. (And I would argue that this little variation on the "Bobby" trailer is so cogent it makes further criticism of the movie -- indeed, makes the movie itself -- practically unnecessary.) Godard's early films are clearly intended as critical appreciations of other movies. And Altman's "The Long Goodbye" and the Coens' "The Big Lebowski," for example, are unthinkable without reference to a tradition of Hollywood private eye movies in general, and "The Big Sleep" in particular." (It's like certain kinds of mainstream jazz -- you have to be aware of the original melody in order to fully appreciate and understand what the artist is doing with it.)
"The Pervert's Guide to Cinema" takes film criticism in yet another direction. It's an essay in the form of a documentary, incorporating clips and placing the critic (Slavoj Žižek) into the film-worlds he's examining and interpreting. As I wrote from the 2006 Toronto Film Festival:
This isn't quite the first film of this sort ("A Journey Through American Cinema with Martin Scorsese" springs to mind) -- but there ought to be more. The genre of movies about movies -- in-depth appreciations and evaluations of films that go beyond clip reels like "That's Entertainment!" into something deeper and, well, more entertaining -- is something I hope will blossom over the next few years. It's something I've been thinking about a lot: Film criticism needs to expand beyond mere words, and make better use of other media, including the web and film/video itself, where the images themselves can be seen while they are analyzed.That's where I hope we're going. I love film criticism as much as I love film (as I've said -- neither lives without the other), and I'm excited to see where we can take it. Meanwhile, here are just a few basic, mundane guidelines I set for myself whenever I'm writing about movies. Not that always I live up to them -- or that you should. These are just the rules I try to play by -- and I don't claim that they all originated with me, by any means. Some of them will already be familiar to Scanners readers:
1) Know as little as possible about the movie before you see it. This isn't easy -- especially when you're buying a ticket or renting a DVD -- but be aware that anything you know about the film in advance will create some kind of expectation in your mind, whether you're conscious of it or not. And that can mislead you, or deflect you from what is really happening on the screen. It's practically impossible to not know who some of the actors are, or who the director is, but images implanted in your head by trailers or TV spots can really throw you off -- whether it's because you find yourself expecting them to show up, and fitting them into what you're watching while you watch it; or because the trailer images aren't actually in the movie itself.Now, get thee to Andy Horbal's Film Criticism Blog-a-Thon!. To the Blog-a-Thon -- go!2) Do your research afterwards. If the movie leaves you with questions, see what you can find out about them. Consult reference books, look up filmographies on the web. Refresh your knowledge about the subject(s), whether they're historical, philosophical, biographical, literary, scientific, religious... You never know what enlightening tidbits you may discover or re-discover. But experience the movie fresh first -- and, if you feel like it, revisit the movie.
3) Trust your instincts. Then don't. Or, as I like to say: "Whatever you're feeling while you're watching the film, whatever questions you may have -- those are essential to your experience of the film. That's what you should write about." And be aware that your initial impressions may be misleading. If you find yourself asking, "Why the hell would this director do that?" -- rephrase the question. Try asking: "What the hell do I think the movie is doing? Why do I think it's doing that? And might it be doing something else instead?" Re-run the movie in your head.
4) Pay particular attention to the opening shot, or opening sequence. Look for visual or verbal motifs that may repeat throughout the film. Maybe you'll find an indication of what direction the filmmaker intends to go, how the movie will go there, and what its deepest concerns are. Compare the final image/sequence with the first one to see how/if they're related.
5) Always cite examples directly from the film. Try to use a specific example -- a line (or line reading), a composition, a sequence of shots, an actor's movements or expression -- to illustrate any point you're making about the movie. Fight the urge to make general pronouncements, unless you can show how they're rooted in a particular observation.
6) If you're writing a review, intended to be read by people before they see the movie in question, don't describe the story beyond the basic premise. OK, you have to tell 'em something about the story. But I prefer to summarize who the characters are and leave it at that as much as possible. Think of the review as a party invitation: You want to give people an idea of what kind of party it is, where it's held, and who's attending -- but you don't have to spell out where everybody winds up at the end of the evening.
7) Pretend you're not a consumer guide. We all know that some people read reviews (or at least check thumbs or star ratings) to help decide what movies to see. Reviews are the moviegoers' first defense against marketing, since critics are the first to weigh in after actually seeing the movie. But don't get pompous about it. Don't tell your readers they "must see" a movie, or (even worse) urge them to "don't see" a movie. You don't know the individuals who are reading your stuff. Respect them enough to give them your opinions, and allow them to make up their own minds.
8) If you write something that reads like an ad blurb, re-write it. The last thing you want to do is come off like a quote whore. Besides, if the marketeers really want something for an ad, they can just pull out an adjective or two. (See my inspired contribution to the current campaign for "Borat": "Hilarious.")
9) Don't hedge and don't exaggerate. If you're not sure if you really mean something, don't say it. (I find this is a handy rule for daily life, as well.) Don't directly anticipate imagined counter-arguments ("There are those who will object that..."). Just make your argument as best you can. Some critics (especially inexperienced ones) are forever crying "Eureka!" -- certain that they've discovered the best or the worst thing ever made. That is hardly ever the case.
10) Some other rule I don't remember because I can never remember all the rules I make up for myself.
I don't entirely agree with Rule 1, but I like most of your rules (or perhaps I should say "guidelines.) I particularly want to applaud you for Rules 7 and 8. There is a lot of pressure to be a consumer guide; indeed, many people view film critics as nothing more or less than that. And I dare say the best paid film critics in the country ARE primarily consumer guides, a terribly depressing thought. I try hard in my criticism not to predict audience reaction (except in certain cases), because that's a pretty arrogant thing to do. I strive to present an argument as clearly and succinctly as possible.
I can think of at least two other rules I try to live by. The first is slightly related to your Rule 1 and why I don't completely agree with it.
1) Respect the consensus, but don't be enslaved by it. If you are encountering an "All-Time Great Film" for the first time, understand why it is allegedly an "All-Time Great Film." Take seriously the opinions of educated and talented critics who have helped it accumulate such a reputation. Don't be so arrogant as to dismiss the body of criticism that has come before. BUT... don't assume this means you cannot dissent. Look through the history of film criticism, and you will find no such thing as total consensus when a film is first released. This only evolves over time, and I think it's partly because new critics are afraid to rock the boat. This can be problematic when canons become rigid and inflexible. You're not wrong to write a skeptical review of 'Citizen Kane' - but back it up, and be aware of the many arguments on the pro-side that you may have to deal with.
2. Be generous in your attempt to understand a film.
This doesn't mean you have to be a "soft" critic and dish out all kinds of praise. But try to approach a film on its own terms, understand what the filmmaker was trying to do, and then react. Understand the film was not made BY you or FOR you - you are essentially playing in someone else's backyard, one that they spent months or years building, and you just visited for a few hours. You're still entitled to say you think it stinks, but be as understanding as possible.
In other words, don't be John Simon.
Sorry, was that a cheap shot?
My answer to the second question is simple: There is no "career track" for a movie critic. See a lot of movies. Read a lot of film history and criticism. Practice writing. If you're in school, submit reviews to your school paper. If they like your writing, they'll probably ask you to write more. Or publish your own blog or web site. The best way to get the attention of people who may give you writing assignments is to get your writing somewhere it can be read.
This is some fine advice for those interested in film criticism. I know that some people (Joe Leydon says that when he was as young as 16 he knew he wanted to be a critic) do make becoming a critic a goal and then succeed. But it's far more fulfilling for most of us to set more personal goals: I want to understand the historical context of the films I'm seeing, I want to become a better writer, I want to find other people interested in the same films and filmmakers I am to talk to.
Goals like these are satisfying both in their fulfillment and, more importantly, in their pursuit. They make it more likely that you will find employment as a critic. And instead of spending your time in the single-minded quest for one objective, they can send you in countless unexpected directions...
I think it's great that so many people are sharing their "rules" for approaching film. I find writing much more interesting when I have an idea where the author is coming from...
Hi Andy: I can only speak from my own experience, but I started writing about movies in college because: 1) I loved movies, and I was thrilled to discover there were actually classes where you could learn about them; and 2) I also loved journalism and had started writing for the University of Washington Daily the first week or two I was on campus.
I never dreamed I'd work as a film critic -- but I've never had much foresight about my own life. I was an English Lit major (art was my life -- and has been ever since!), and my fellow English majors and I used to joke about the impracticality of our chosen academic pursuits (at the same time that congratulated ourselves on our financially unsullied intellectual and aesthetic "purity" -- as if there ever was such a thing). We figured we'd just wind up poor, useless suicides with no marketable skills in a society that didn't care about art. It seemed terribly romantic at the time...
Christopher: Don't be John Simon. You're a cruel man -- but fair! (to paraphrase Monty Python)
I like your additional "rules." The most important thing, I'd say, is indeed to at least try to understand what a given movie is doing, to actually risk getting out of yourself and seeing the world through someone else's eyes (which, I do believe, is what art tries to do). That's why I don't much care for the superficial, knee-jerk "debunking" of so-called classics when it's done just for the sake of being contrary. I can say why I think a movie works or doesn't work (and I have profound objections to some films others regard as sacred), but I've always thought those who dismiss or deride something just because it's popular or an established "classic" are the worst kind of poseurs, more concerned with their own (self-) image than engaging with a film (or with readers or art or society...). As you read them, you can see them stealing glances at themselves in the mirror. (See Peet Gelderblom's FilmCrit Blog-a-Thon piece on critical hipsterism -- and its mirror-image: anti-PC, anti-"hipster" posing.)
I've seen people denounce "Citizen Kane" as a boring old movie, completely unaware how much of their own blindness and ignorance they're exposing. I want to say to them: Go ahead and build a case against "Kane" [or fill in other title] if you really don't like it -- you might even learn something in the process! But just taking swipes at it (or, worse, implying that those who do value it are only pretending to do so because of some kind of mass-hypnosis conformity) only exposes your own unjustified arrogance.
Yet another excellent post, Jim (surprise, surprise).
Incidentally, I only recently discovered that a number of the little "mini-reviews" that I like to read on Amazon.com (a site which, along with IMDB, I end up having to go to quite a lot here at the video store) were written by you. I love those things. Good job. :)
I think there are at least two forms of (or aspects to) the question: "How do I become a film critic?" One is: How do I learn to write about movies? Jim's post provides addresses this one quite eloquently.
Two is: How do I get PAID to write about movies?
You'd think the first question would be harder to answer, but I think the second is tougher. I even asked it of a very high profile critic recently, and his reply was "I have no idea." He wasn't being coy either.
I've still never heard anyone formulate a really good answer to the second part beyond the old familiar saw: "You just have to get to know the right people."
I am published regularly at two major DVD review sites, have written chapters in a few film studies books, and had a few articles published as well. I am no closer to figuring out how to get paid (well, I just got a contract that pays me in $250 worth of a publisher's books, so maybe that's the answer) to do this thing I devote most of my waking hours to.
I used to think the idea was to try to hook on with a newspaper, but papers are laying off critics (see what Village Voice did to Atkinson and Lim) not hiring any, and I don't know if the "weekly newspaper film critic" is even going to exist in ten or so years.
The Net opens up many opportunities to be published and read, but few to be paid.
What do you think? Is there almost no future for (adequately) _paid_ film criticism? Needless to say, it's something I think about a lot, but I can't say I've come up with any answers.
great post, jim... i really enjoyed reading it...
i have never aspired to be a film critic and most certainly never will... however i am in love with film as a medium and will practically sit through anything that is projected on a screen...
i particularly liked your third guideline... at university i had taken all the film credits available for which i had to write an assignment in order to get a mark... my first papers proved to be very tedious as i tried to put on the "film critics'hat" (whatever that may be) to regurgitate facts from books, and present opinions that were not my own but pretended to share... fortunately i had a great lecturer who taught me to trust my impressions of the film, if these are based on an attentive viewing and reading of literature...
i write merely cause i enjoy doing it and love what i write about...
To follow up on what Christopher Long said, it's getting harder and harder for newspapers to justify having a movie reviewer on staff. Newspapers pay lots of money for multiple wire services (the last paper I worked at, a modest circulation daily, paid $28,000 a month for the AP alone), and syndicated reviews are part of the package -- why pay someone to write about something that you're already technically paying for, and who says their reviews will be better? With that said, a syndicated reviewer is nice work if you can get it (not speaking from experience, of course).
This may be a a bit of a tangent, but the best criticism I've seen of a movie from it's own director is for the trailer "Marnie" by Hitchcock. It's worth taking a look at; a second time even.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXzimYdXPQs
This blog has changed the way I view film criticism - for the better, of course.
regarding 'debunking' the classics, i think a lot of the time it is the rabble reviewers — poseurs, as jim said, trying to say something dangerous and coming off stupid.
it's like making a case for atheism merely by calling religion a mental disorder. you haven't really stated your case, just made a reductive, small-minded potshot.
'citizen kane' is great not only because of the ground it broke, but it is terrific storytelling, among other things.
i will say this, though, using another medium as an example. at age 25, the beatles are less important to me than contemporary bands like radiohead. i appreciate the ground the fab four paved, but i'm much more interested in what newer bands - influenced by the beatles though they may be - are recording. i'm just saying if forced to, i'd choose OK Computer over Revolver. its themes are more relevant to me.
Rule #1 is a must for me. To this very excellent list, I'd add "Be careful of writing from the gut." I usually let a movie-going experience percolate for a day (no more, no less) before I sit down to talk about it. 24 hours won't be the magic number for everyone, but for me provides the perfect blend of subjective reaction and objective (whatever that is) observation.
This ties into your rule #3, "Trust your instincts. Then don't." This could possibly be the hardest rule in the set. Too often I come away from a movie (or a scene, or a line of dialogue) thinking one thing, only to soften or harden over it in the following 24 hours. I'll go with the reformed opinion and regret it later -- for not trusting my instincts, or trusting them too much. That may be the one that takes years to refine.
I've violated #9 on occasion ("There are those that will say..."). In my defense, when I employ that line I'm typically addressing film festival buzz from months previous to a film's release. But it's a bad habit, and one I need to drop. Thank you for the advice.
Christopher: Don't be John Simon. You're a cruel man -- but fair! (to paraphrase Monty Python)
In the same vein as "Manbearpig," I am fully of the belief that this world would be a much better place with more Dinsdale Piranha jokes in it.
Ken: You're right, the more time that passes before you write about the movie, the greater chance you'll re-shape it in your head. I think of movies as "stored" experiences, and I often don't know exactly what I want to say until the process of writing about them. But they still have to be fresh enough in me memory for me to remember my way back into them!
Ali: I agree. One who transgresses the unwritten law deserves to have his head nailed to the floor.