Film Criticism on IndieTalk

No one should take offense to this post or think I was targetting anyone, I just wanted to know where people draw the line between criticizing and accepting something as that director's artistic choice. I don't see any problems on the forum. It's interesting to see everyone's take.
 
More Blorange, people.

I tend to think when people are making suggestions, they are talking about the "form" aspects, as opposed to the "art" parts. And (for me anyway) it's hard to get people to actually sit down and tell you what DIDN'T work in the video period without a lot of dancing egos and spared feelings. But ultimately it depends on whats being said/ If it's "Well, I would've done at least one cut-away of the main actor so hide that jump cut", then that's cool. I can use that. But if it's "Your composition is wrong. You needed to be at f2.4 and turn off your auto focus, dumb-dumb. I would have done that far superior to yours... except I didn't", well then, that's just kind of digging in with the spurs.

If authority must always be questioned, why can't art then? Question it, and pick it apart, you vultures... and the maker of said film will EVOLVE based on your pickings, until he comes out with something that is "critic proof".
 
There are very few 'critic-proof' films out there, but I recognize them.

Film is still an art, technically in the same vein as modern art (Yes, Indie, I'm going there). While one can look at a room-sized painting of paint splatter and see the universe, others will say the see a tranquil garden. Then there's the weirdos who will see flying vaginas.

Film is much more as the director, if s/he did their jobs properly, will properly allow the viewer to see specifically what's going on so there's no mistaking the great battle scene of Akira Kurosawa's Ran to Andy Warhol's Blood for Dracula.

Again, art, in any form, is subjective. Everyone has different tastes.

Personally, I'll never say anyone's film "sucked, blew chunks, should DIAF" or anything like that, I accept it for what it is.

Maybe film reviewers (most of the young, inexperienced ones) should look a bit deeper into the subject from different angles to understand the piece before giving it a positive or negative review. Most of reviews I read say things like "Who does this (director) think he is? I didn't enjoy this." THAT is the problem. Too many people allowing their own personal tastes to spoil the broth. Very unprofessional. My question to them is "But what did you like?"
 
Loud Orange Cat said:
...

Again, art, in any form, is subjective. Everyone has different tastes.

...
Click to expand...

But there is a big difference between art produced by classically trained artists and art created by those who had little to no training, i.e. "folk art". Folk art generally has a limited audience. If your goal is commercial success and mass appeal, then the execution of your message and methods should lean more towards mainstream. If your goal is nothing more than film festivals and coffee house cinema, create whatever the heck you want however you want. And with commercial success comes more acceptance of those films or any art you create that is "out there". Your name and reputation would gather the audience, and then you'd have those who would spend hours contemplating your ECU shots of man boobs wondering, "What is the hidden meaning here?"

Hopefully a critic will note the distinction and critique accordingly, i.e. don't judge a folk art film by the same criteria you'd use on, say, Transformers.

I'll admit, the Blair Witch ad campaign had me hook, line and sinker. They got my box office money. While in the darkened theater (a Cafe Cinema, which that should've clued me in right there), I saw right through it and felt duped. As such, did I rush to see Blair 2? Nope. After the fact, I reflected on Blair Witch and grew to appreciate it for what it was. Even though the filmmakers failed to suspend my disbelief the film has artistic merit. Every film I've watched on here has artistic merit, even the Cat Antics 101 series. If every film is art and every independent filmmaker an artist no matter how much training and education he/she may have, then how do you critique it?

If reviews are relegated to:

Circle one
(A) Worked for me
(B) Didn't work

Then I'd sooner watch paint peel than read the review. I agree that personal opinion needs to stay out of it, though.

As for the Freudian ink blot reference, you can achieve the same effect watching clouds shift and spare putting pubic hair in the paint. :)
 
Last edited:
indietalk said:
Knightly, if I had a problem with you I'd have the respect to PM you and discuss :) This was just a light discussion.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt in my mind that you would have PM'd me. Light discussion - From a critic, thumbs up, thumbs down with reasons...as an indietalk critique from peers, I like to have different technique and perspectives (even your spat...which is sadly, not terribly different from my perspective, I just have a better shutup filter). It helps me stretch the craft into an art by learning different ways of doing things. I put these in a storytelling toolbox and pull out the tools I need when I need them. Right now, my tools are limited, but with the addition of dolly shots and crane shots, my tool box expanded on the last shoot. Next one will expand more. If I wanted "Sux or doesn't" criticism, I'd post them on youtube ;) (of course they all come back..."SUX")
 
I think that the whole issue is that really most criticism is based upon the critics personal tastes. Very few issues in a film are solely objective. And I think that the critic who admits that is the better critic. I've had criticism of shorts that have praised and criticized the same event or issue. That's the whole point. I don't like criticism that says you should have done. I can live with, I didn't like though. I can't stand, you screwed up when, but I can live with I would have done differently.

But like criticism, the criticism of criticism is also subject to criticism. My likes are my likes, your likes might be different, but does someone always have to be right?

Chris
 
VPTurner said:
And with commercial success comes more acceptance of those films or any art you create that is "out there". Your name and reputation would gather the audience, and then you'd have those who would spend hours contemplating your ECU shots of man boobs wondering, "What is the hidden meaning here?"
Click to expand...

:rofl:


I'll admit, the Blair Witch ad campaign had me hook, line and sinker. They got my box office money. While in the darkened theater (a Cafe Cinema, which that should've clued me in right there), I saw right through it and felt duped. As such, did I rush to see Blair 2? Nope. After the fact, I reflected on Blair Witch and grew to appreciate it for what it was. Even though the filmmakers failed to suspend my disbelief the film has artistic merit.
Click to expand...

The Blair Witch Project has been talked about alot here. Just as a sidebar, If you didn't like the original movie, part 2 made the original look like Citizen Kane...:D But I understand that the original people weren't involved with the second film.

...and that was an opinion, not a critique...:)

-- spinner :cool:
 
VPTurner said:
But there is a big difference between art produced by classically trained artists and art created by those who had little to no training
Click to expand...
Not really, it's still all 'art.'

There's a million artists out there with a million different styles. It's difficult to compare wildly differing styles like Stanley Kubrick to Michael Mann. Total opposites. Orson Welles, John Ford, Kurosawa, Godard... the list is endless.

But they're all still artists. :D While I may relate to some and not to others, it doesn't necessarily mean that their films are bad...
 
Ok, let's all look at 'styles' for a minute.

I have a top ten list of favorite films, I'm sure you have one in the back of your head too. These are the 'comfort' movies we watch when we're depressed to cheer us up, or they're the films we watch because we just can't get enough of them... 20 years after their release.

While some of these films were Oscar winners, some were not. Does that make them bad? Hell no!

For an example, I'm going to list my top ten list here (In no particular order). Notice the Oscar winners... and losers.

  1. Seven Samurai
  2. The Legend of Billie Jean
  3. Ran
  4. Goodfellas
  5. The Godfather
  6. The Adventures of Ford Fairlane
  7. Pink Floyd The Wall
  8. Return of the Living Dead Part 2
  9. Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me
  10. Knightriders
No matter what critics may think about some of the films listed above, these are still my favorites. I don't care who says what about this list. Like 'em or hate 'em, they mean something special to me.

Art. (giggling) :lol:
 
Loud Orange Cat said:
Not really, it's still all 'art.'

There's a million artists out there with a million different styles. It's difficult to compare wildly differing styles like Stanley Kubrick to Michael Mann. Total opposites. Orson Welles, John Ford, Kurosawa, Godard... the list is endless.

But they're all still artists. :D While I may relate to some and not to others, it doesn't necessarily mean that their films are bad...
Click to expand...

I think you may be missing my point. Every one you just mentioned knew the rules and the tools, they just chose to effectively break the rules. It's like poker, specifically Texas Hold'em; if you don't know the rules, the statistics and the techniques, you rely purely on luck. If you don't know anything about writing or storytelling or camera techniques, etc., or can't lead a crew through the muck and mire of making a film, you're lucky if you entertain someone outside your immediate friends and family with the end result. You may as well toss a cat dipped in paint against a canvas (rinse and repeat) and let someone else interpret what you were trying to say. Just make sure you film it! Would that be considered a modern art cat-astrophie? :lol:

I have way more than 10 films in my list, but I grew up watching the summer blockbusters and to this day look forward to the high-budget special effects laden movies. Transformers opens on my birthday, and I will be there. I do enjoy watching all sorts of film, good and bad (for learning experiences), but I won't watch them over and over unless there is something specific I want to learn about, like the long takes in Children of Men.

In no particular order, these are the films I can watch again and again for pure, relaxing entertainment and escape:

1) Poltergeist
2) Star Wars (all six of them)
3) Lord of the Rings (the extended editions)
4) Harry Potter
5) E.T.
6) Back to the Future #1 and #3 (#2 was horrible)
7) #1 and #3 of the Indianna Jones trilogy (yes, I'm thrilled they're filming a fourth - Spielberg missed the mark with #2, IMO)
8) A few of the Star Trek movies
9) Titanic
10) Bladerunner (Director's cut)

Honorable mentions:

Alien and Aliens (after that, they went downhill)
Empire of the Sun
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
12 Monkeys
Saw
The Sixth Sense

I could go on, but we're digressing. Needless to say, we have very different tastes is movies, although Goodfellas and The Godfather (very well done) are in my library, they're just not among my favorites.
 
Last edited:
There's a difference between art and bad filmmaking. Is that what you're trying to say VP? To me, I don't expect reviews when I post any film or sketch on here -- I expect critiques. I also know what to expect from my fellow IndieTalkers. I know knightly’s gonna give me a good technical critique. I know LOC’s gonna tell me what he liked most. I know VP, John, and others will give tips on things that I might have overlooked. And I know Spat’s gonna make a sex joke. I welcome it all. Why?

Because this is a community of filmmakers and I personally believe our goal should be to help each other grow.

As I look back over my years on this forum I think about how far I’ve come as a filmmaker. I attribute about 60% of that growth to criticism I’ve received from folks here and other places. If one member wasn’t so tough on a screenplay I wrote, I might never have known as much about story structure and dialogue as I do today (which isn’t much, but far more than two years ago). If some folks hadn’t criticized my “available lighting” comments in an old thread about DV, I might never have sought out ways to make my lighting more interesting.

The only way we grow is by realizing what we did wrong and correcting it next time. But sometimes it takes another person pointing out our wrongs.

That being said, I usually try to stick to the mantra – “If you don’t have something nice to type, don’t type anything at all.”

But back to my original sentence:

There's a difference between art and bad filmmaking.

Like VP said, you gotta know the rules before you break ‘em. I see a lot of films posted here that aren’t shot wide or crooked because of an artistic choice – they’re shot that way because the filmmaker just doesn’t know any better. I met a guy a few years back that showed me a short film he made – It was BAD! I was nice, but I told him everything I thought he did wrong. He took what I said to heart and has become quite a filmmaker. His name was Steven Spielberg – his name would be Brett Ratner if he hadn’t listened to me.
 
Pink Guy said:
I know LOC’s gonna tell me what he liked most.
Click to expand...
You're darn right.

Personally, I don't believe in being negative. It's counter-productive. Someone pours their heart and soul into a project for everyone's enjoyment (or education), not to be ripped to shreds by someone who didn't understand it.

As an example, the only one bad review/post/comment I've ever received was from this guy who didn't understand BC3. The post is here . Okay, maybe this guy didn't like it. So what? There's NO SUCH THING as a 100% satisfied audience. Some people will like you movies, some will not. That's life.

Getting back to my original comment... I believe in being positive. I will always point out my favorite parts of a film and explain why. There's NO reason to be negative, it's just an emotional downer. I don't want to be responsible for depressing someone to the point of them considering leaving filmmaking. That's a waste of talent.

I've been watching Pink Guy's new series and laughing my ass off. If I found something truly horrific or offensive in them, I wouldn't post a whiny complaint all over the board. At least I'd have the common courtesy to ask why he chose to do something in his film in a PM.

"No, nothing wrong here." - From the film Cujo
 
Pink Guy said:
There's a difference between art and bad filmmaking. Is that what you're trying to say VP?

...
Click to expand...

I just get tired of poor execution in any creative category getting defended as "art". But even those poorly executed projects have a devout following. You know what, though, LOC is also right because even the untrained filmmaker creates art, just folk art. My only point was that a critic should take a piece at face value, and that means getting to know the filmmaker and his/her background and intent. Even in film school you wouldn't necessarily measure a Freshman handycam project against a thesis film project.

I plan to some day (hopefully) make money from these endeavors, so I would expect and invite any example of my work to get torn apart technically. But there's another dynamic at work here, and that's personal preference. I may not like something because it hits a little too close to home despite how well executed it is. For instance, I really didn't like Upside of Anger because I had close relatives who were like that. My reaction to the film was emotional, not technical, and on that level it succeeded. To critique something like that, I'd first have to take a large step back and try to look at it objectively. Another example, I shot a 30 minute documentary aimed at a very specific audience so for someone outside that audience to give it a good critique is asking a lot. They're not close enough to the material to understand the subtext and inside humor nor appreciate how much work it was getting some of the participants in front of the camera to begin with. As such, the critic is left to break it apart technically and not aesthetically.

I coined this phrase a long time ago, and it also weighs heavily on one's viewpoint. I will most likely use this as my signature:

"When in a certain frame of mind, all the enters the mind is filtered through this frame."

A critic should approach any project with the right frame of reference and mind or else the execution of the review may fail.

A side note, any critic that gives away crucial plot points or movie endings should be strung up by their pinky toes, covered in honey and left to the bears, bees and squirrels. Either that or I have a nice knife trick to share with them. :D
 
VPTurner said:
I just get tired of poor execution in any creative category getting defended as "art".
Click to expand...

I think that maybe we are talking about 2 different things.

One is Art vs. Bad Filmmaking technique wise, the other is giving a critique where you are telling someone what they should have done.

If you take a movie like....Pi:

What I understood us to be saying was:
"You shouldn't light it that way, you should light it this way." I think this is a critique we try to avoid in terms of telling the filmmaker what to do. At the same time, we should be open to suggestions to make the project better. If the lighting is bad, we need to take the critique for what it is. Sometimes that doesn't happen. (In the case of Pi, it doesn't apply.)

Now if Pi was badly lit, no amount of "its art" bs would cover up the bad filmmaking aspect.


Another example, and this is not from anyone's film:

I've seen lots of film shorts where: yes the subjects eyes are about 1/3 of the way down the screen/shot. That is fine, but why is the subject so small that you can't really make out features? That is a critique. Yes, its a head and shoulder shot but why is there so much room on one side and on the other his face is almost touching the side of your screen? That's a critique.

So when I say: does it work? I mean that there has to be some reason, some point to why its being done that way. Because, IMO, anyone who pays money to see it will know that something is off, they just won't know what it is. And if it is badly done, what people will know is that they don't like it.

If you shoot it in a way where it makes sense that the shot is that way, that's art. Just calling it "art" doesn't cover up bad technique.

does that make sense?

-- spinner :cool:
 
indietalk said:
What is your take?
Click to expand...

This is a very tough line. There are criticisms and there are preferences and the line in between is very blurry. I think you can give constructive criticism, including advice on other options, but they can also just be preferences.

In the example you gave, of an entire movie with master shots, I would not find it offensive or even preferential to make the suggestion to get more close ups, as long as you explain WHY they need close ups, or how it might enhance the story they were trying to tell. It still comes down to preference, but these are ideas and concepts for the basic grammar of cinema.


If someone says, "I wish the story would have been more about X..." then I agree, that's more of a preference situation. It's all very difficult. Maybe it's up to the person submitting, but sooner or later all of our movies are going to get reviewed and we won't like what is said about them.

I have no idea if IndieTalk should or shouldn't allow it.
 
spinner said:
If you shoot it in a way where it makes sense that the shot is that way, that's art. Just calling it "art" doesn't cover up bad technique.

does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Yes it does make sense. It still opens the door for someone to claim they were pioneering a new style, though. "It's not bad! It's my style!"

I haven't seen Pi yet, so I can't comment there. I'll go rent it and see what that's all about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top