My tour of duty as a movie
critic for Mass Media Ministries and its bi-weekly publication (now defunct)
back in the 1960s and 1970s gave me occasion, in contact with others in that
profession, to find out just how diverse the standards for criticism are. Not everyone who writes in this genre follows
the same policies and principles. Not
everyone defines it the same way. After
taking a few paragraphs in my recent review of “West Side Story” to air out my grievances
with Pauline Kael, who electrified readers over the space of three decades
until her retirement in the 1980s, it occurred to me that I have not spoken
much about my own policies and principles.
That I am about to do.
Frankly I do not know how
back yonder I ever kept up with all the first run releases. It involved a great amount of foot work and
hours upon hours of viewing in the dark cushy concealment of theaters. How the current crop of critics does it now,
with production having mushroomed in volume over subsequent decades, is a
wonder to me. My writings about motion pictures over the past six years since I
set up this blog have been more selective. I would go mad putting in the hours
these people do to cover the whole movie scene.
But as limited as my scope has become, I really do not think the basics
of my approach have changed. I would
like now to share those basics with you readers.
What is movie criticism?
For me “criticism” is the
wrong word for what I wrote and now write.
I prefer the word “commentary” to the word “criticism”, which is to say
I aspire to being thought of as a “commentator” instead of a “critic”. A critic at the very least is a devil’s
advocate, someone who finds fault or imagines having found fault, who holds a
body of work to strict standards. A
critic is a judge, someone who passes sentence, makes determinations about a
person or thing. In a court of criminal
law, a judge comes into the picture after a charge has been made, as a
participant in the prosecution of a defendant who has allegedly violated a law,
committed a crime. A jury in a criminal
case sifts through testimony and material entered into evidence and declares a
defendant guilty or innocent. But it is
the judge who makes the final determination of punishment in the event that a
guilty verdict has been reached.
I admit that the difference
in meaning between these two terms is somewhat thin, but the older I get the
more certain I am that the difference is quite real. At some point in time I
suppose I did act more the critic or the judge.
Being expected to establish a viewpoint on a given movie, especially if
it is one that is stirring up controversy or unrest in people’s minds, lays you
open enough that it is easy to slip into the role of superior jurist and start
passing out rewards and disapprovals; you are under pressure from readers who
respect you and are eager for your input.
And it is ever so difficult to avoid the temptation to shock or to shake
up your audience, maybe even to go on the attack, if something in the film has
really rubbed you a little raw. But it
all comes down to what you strive for, whatever your lapses into the
judgmental. One strives to be objective,
whether or not one always succeeds.
Let us be very frank! There is no such thing as complete
objectivity. We who publish printed
comments about motion pictures may strive to be objective, but we deal in
opinions; make no mistake about it – our own opinions. There is no escaping it. So it behooves us to make sure our announced
opinions are the result of careful thought.
I could never see a movie one day and then have my review in the paper
the next day. I need more time than that
to mull over what I have seen; I would not trust myself to arrive at anything
resembling objectivity if that were all the lead-in time I were allowed. And given that we deal in the issuance of
opinions, we must make sure we are issuing an informed opinion, one
that draws upon knowledge of the medium as a whole, its history, tradition and
a movie’s basic structure. It helps
immensely if the commentator/critic has a background in theater and a
familiarity with character creation and the dynamics of performance. One who has only screened movies
spasmodically over a few young adult years and given attention only to her/his
favorites has not absorbed enough data or ingested enough emotional or
psychological experience to write with any kind of authority on the
subject. A critic should have a wide
range of viewing experience. All kinds
and varieties of film should be of interest to him/her. This person should be a student on the
subject of cinema, with trained perceptions, perhaps even a scholarly
absorption in it, though the scholarship should not get stuffy. Movies are for entertainment mostly, a means
of escape from the workaday world. And
of course a certain maturity informs opinion.
I was in my 30’s when I worked for Mass Media Ministries. Earlier than that I do not believe I would
have been ready to launch upon a career in the field.
I approach a motion picture
as a work of art. I am not, nor was I
ever a commercial commentator. That is,
I do not let myself be influenced by the politics of Hollywood or by movie
moguls who are looking for commentary to serve as publicity for the selling of
their product. It helps if the
commentator is employed by a publication that allows a considerable amount of
freedom in expression and sophistication in viewpoint. One can hardly function as a free
thinker/writer if editors are forever looking over your shoulder and ready to
pounce if you stray an inch from tight strictures or if you are considered too
offensive to the publication’s choice readers.
A motion picture has to be judged by a standard that transcends popular
notions. A commentator/critic should not
consider herself/himself a performer or entertainer. That is my objection to the writings of
Pauline Kael. Her language was too
flamboyant for my taste.
I personally like to read
the comments of someone who has lived in the story or the material. If it does not feel lived in, if it does not
feel as if the film has reached the heart and soul of the writer, in such a
case it sounds to me as if it has only been considered from a point of casual
curiosity. When I write a review, I must
remember that it is not essentially the production that I am describing but my
experience of that production, that piece of art. One does not make hurried or flip comments
about a new sculpture or a new portrait, especially if it is a departure in
form from previous artworks. The same
should apply to screen works. That is
not to say that some movies are not works of obvious vulgarity or obvious amateurishness. But even in such instances an informed and
trained viewpoint does not speak carelessly.
If you do, you run the risk of your words coming back to haunt or bite
you at a later date.
I do not know how many
practicing full time critics would agree with me, but I place a high value upon
keeping an open mind. There are films I
am sure I would approach differently now than I did when they were new. I am speaking of a willingness to learn over
time; there is always more to take in.
The last thing I want to be called is close-minded. My employers at Mass
Media, when I was starting out with them, only asked one thing of me as a
guiding policy: Don’t become God. I took it to heart and am glad I did, though
I suppose I sounded a bit like God on occasion.
It might sound reckless to
say so, but there are no set guidelines for movie analysis and comment. That is one thing just about all of us movie
reviewers would agree on. There is no
form to it. Some of it involves just
plain common sense and intelligence. One
who molds clay does not follow any pattern the way a sower does. Cinema is
soft, fluid and dynamic; it evolves over time.
There are always surprises that emerge out of the hand of those who
approach it experimentally. And even
with those that hue to a tight tradition or seem to, nothing is for sure in
terms of the final pay-off. Nothing is
cut and dried; if it were, it would be DOA for certain. A movie maker is an explorer; each production
worth its salt is an investigation. An
artist in any genre follows instinct more so than guideline.
Reviewing, on the other
hand, does require some discipline. The
writer needs to know how to compose a coherent sentence, many of them, in
fact. We obey the rules of grammar and
syntax and composition. But once we have
conformed to those, the rest is a swim.
And only those who enjoy the swim keep on keeping on.
To read other entries in my
blog, please consult its website:
enspiritus.blogspot.com. To know
about me, consult the autobiographical entry on the website for Dec. 5, 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment