Film Critics, Who are they?

p38 said:
I look at it this way, if I like it I say so, If I don't like it, nothing said. No hurt egos and let the person find out on his own why people like or don't like his/her creations.
Click to expand...
So this falls into the question: If everyone did it that way, would
it be best for all?

If no one ever said anything about a movie they did not like but
only said good things about a movie they liked would that be
helpful to a filmmaker? How would a filmmaker grow and learn if
everyone did what you do? How would they find out on their own if
everyone did it your way?

I'm glad there are people out there who will speak up and say
something even at the risk of hurting egos. I'm glad I have people
like that in my life. If everyone I knew was like you and if they didn't
like it, said nothing I do not believe I would grow as a filmmaker or
a writer.
 
directorik said:
If everyone I knew was like you and if they didn't
like it, said nothing I do not believe I would grow as a filmmaker or
a writer.
Click to expand...
I'm stunting your filmmaker growth by not saying anything. ;)



Seriously, though. I agree with your position.

Some blogs and web pages allow users to only make favorable votes up, such as Vimeo. All you can do is "Like" there.
Whereas on other sites you can vote up or down, such as YouTube. You can either "Like" or "Dislike".

I pretty much understand both approaches from a site management perspective, and completely understand why any sensible forum has moderators (unlike the Yahoo message boards. OMG, the keyboard commando rage wars that go on there are... in-f#cking-sane), I just prefer to have both up and down viewpoint provided to me.

What if your girlfriend or wife only gave you positive feedback when you did something right?
How would you ever get any better at making her happy-er?
Oh, wait...
H#ll, I think I might enjoy the deafening silence!
Never mind! :lol:
 
First important fact: not everyone has the same goals. Some people want to be professional. Some people just want to have fun. Some people want to make popular films. Some people want to make artistic films. These viewpoints are all valid and none of them are mutually exclusive...I think we all fit somewhere on the curve.

However, because of that, not everyone is looking for the same thing. Some people post their creative work and want to hear how awesome it is. Some people want to hear what worked and what didn't. I would argue that people who are seriously trying to be professional fit into the latter category. People who get upset because of feedback someone gives them definitely fit into the former.

Second important fact: critique by your peers is definitely different than a final product presented to your audience. But on the other side of that, if you can't take your audience telling you that you suck, maybe creative work isn't the best career path for you. There will always be people to tell you that you suck, no matter what level you're at, because people can't often distinguish between QUALITY and TASTE. For example, I can like a movie (book, song, whatever) that is not technically very good. I can also DISLIKE something that I recognize is.

And either way, that does not reflect on what I think of the creator as a person, though there are lots of people who seem to not be able to make that distinction. I've met some of my favorite artists who turned out to be assholes...I didn't stop liking their art, but I did stop wanting to strike up conversation with them. I'm okay with that, and I presume so are they (I buy their records/movies/whatever, and they have no interest in socializing with me anyway).

Personally, I appreciate when people tear my work apart, but specifically when they can point out specific things that were done well or not ("it sucks" is just as useless as "it was good", or the bane of every musician ever "...that was interesting..."). If they like it, good, nice to hear, I'm proud of what I do. If they don't, well, no one likes everything. If they can identify why they did or didn't, that can help me improve what I do. Again, I'd like to be doing this sort of thing professionally, so any chance I get to improve, I can.

As for someone who is not a filmmaker (or part of whatever creative field you are in) not being able to offer critique, I disagree with that. When I was in high school, my friend was buying a used bass (I had just started playing guitar) from this woman who fronted a local country-rock band. He brought me along for a "slightly more informed" opinion on the instrument. We jammed for a bit, though I didn't play anything remotely like her style of music (more folk/goth stuff). I had been playing less than a year, but she asked me about some techniques that I was using. She told me "you can learn something from ANYONE, regardless of relative skill level, or style, as long as you keep an open mind". That really stuck with me, so yeah, someone who knows nothing about the process can DEFINITELY point out things they did or didn't like, even if they can't figure out why.

Anyway, yeah, lots of thoughts about this. Definitely don't hesitate to share your thoughts; there are lots of people around here who like getting feedback. If all you have to say is "that sucked", MOST people around here aren't going to get hostile. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I always LOVE getting feedback of all kinds!
 
Well, that was interesting.




Just teasing!



Isn't it the potential value of a site like Indie Talk, as opposed to something like Youtube? If you can succeed in creating something of a community of serious (to varying degrees of seriousness) as well as not quite as anonymous users as compared to such sites as Youtube, then you have the potential of having a helpful and constructive filmmaking sort of...online campus, as opposed to a flame war fest. And I think that anyone who hangs out on Indie Talk for any amount of time knows that that very thing is often achieved here.

I think that there are a few potential common sense precautions that could be taken by posters of original films in the screening room sub-forum that could help everyone to avoid hurt feelings. Say, if a poster didn't really want to hear about their film's possible failings or short comings, it might be prudent for them to state that fact. What the hell, why not? Nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, it would also be sensible for a poster who asked for critiques, asked to be told what works and what doesn't work, to be prepared for I.T. users to deliver on that request.

I have in the past noticed a small minority of I.T. users giving unfortunate and overly harsh or callous responses to posters here. Thankfully, as someone has already pointed out in another thread somewhere, those users seem to tend to be itinerants. I suspect that might have to do with their not getting the attention on I.T. that they are seeking, and so they get bored and wonder off (also not missing the the fact that trolls do also get banned). As as regular reader of the forum, I can't say that I'm displeased when the mean spirited move on. (Can you tell I'm currently reading the Dark Tower series?)

But, OP, I think if you post your film here as well as also get to know somewhat the other users of the forum, it should be easy enough for you to judge for yourself whose critiques matter to you and whose do not. =)
 
Last edited:
JoshL said:
Second important fact: critique by your peers is definitely different than a final product presented to your audience. People can't often distinguish between QUALITY and TASTE. For example, I can like a movie (book, song, whatever) that is not technically very good. I can also DISLIKE something that I recognize is.
Click to expand...

As with anything else, there are circumstances and reasons for an artists anger towards critique or review. Sometimes it's because the critique is demeaning and nasty (triggerstreet) Sometimes the reviewer doesn't make their point clear enough and the artist is confused. Sometimes people just want praise when it isn't earned.

I hate RUSH (seen them a bunch of times), and anyone who says they love them, I'll tell them how much I hate them. But, I will acknowledge they're excellent musicians. I just don't like their music.

Opinions should be taken with a grain of salt unless you completely agree with what the person is saying. Then you change for the better.

JoshL said:
Personally, I appreciate when people tear my work apart, but specifically when they can point out specific things that were done well or not ("it sucks" is just as useless as "it was good", or the bane of every musician ever "...that was interesting..."). If they like it, good, nice to hear, I'm proud of what I do. If they don't, well, no one likes everything. If they can identify why they did or didn't, that can help me improve what I do. Again, I'd like to be doing this sort of thing professionally, so any chance I get to improve, I can.
Click to expand...

So rarely do you get those critiques.

I know I'm opinionated, but I have a friend that when he talks I listen. He's always right. Unfortunately he's a musician and not a film maker. So, I know my mind can be changed. But, seldom do I get the feedback I'm looking for. I get thoughts and some ideas. But, I don't get that "Damn, you're right" moments.

JoshL said:
As for someone who is not a filmmaker (or part of whatever creative field you are in) not being able to offer critique, I disagree with that.
Click to expand...

You can get opinions, critiques and reviews from anyone. But, if they're going to spout off about things they don't know about, they usually come out sounding like assholes. Then you don't listen to anything they have to say.

Here's a few blurbs that I've taken offense to.

"The first ten minutes of Us Sinners contains two blowjobs (both of which are ineptly staged)"

"Unfortunately for us, like most low-budget productions, we are denied access to the actual crime, as most of the action takes place off camera"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWBCo_QRVsE

You can hate everything about this clip. The camera angles/the darkness/music/acting/everything. But, are those two blurbs true? No. Her face was hitting his crotch. If his dick was out, it'd have been in her mouth. That murder took place on screen. Every murder with the exception of one took place on screen.

Critiques/Reviewers whatever. If you open your mouth or write something it has to be based in FACT. It seldom is. That's why artists get upset.
 
I can see why someone would have thought this was a blow job scene - the only thing missing was seeing a penis in her mouth, which you can't show, or it would have been X-rated. But if you're getting upset with a reviewer because they mistook that scene for a blowjob rather than "her face hitting his crotch," with all due respect, I think your outrage is misplaced.

gelder
 
steve gelder said:
I can see why someone would have thought this was a blow job scene - the only thing missing was seeing a penis in her mouth, which you can't show, or it would have been X-rated. But if you're getting upset with a reviewer because they mistook that scene for a blowjob rather than "her face hitting his crotch," with all due respect, I think your outrage is misplaced.

gelder
Click to expand...

By saying it's ineptly staged, he's telling the reader, this looks so bad that you can tell it's not a real blow job. Which is complete bullshit. Because it looks exactly like a blow job. The only thing missing is his dick in her mouth.

This guy also talks about the terrible rapes that happen. The problem is there is no rape in the movie.

It's crap like this that's just wrong. It's not fair to anyone.

One guy wrote that Tim cuts a women's chest open and drops in his used condom. When I pointed out that it was an incorrect spoiler he replied "Well that's what I saw".

It's amazing how these critics/reviewers believe they can write anything and it's ok. But, if you correct them, they get upset.
 
He's wearing tighty-whitey's, it's shot way too close for us to know what's going on, and I can't figure out why she suffocated -- does she not have nostrils? Besides, you can hear her breathe, just a couple seconds before she dies.

This was your first film, dude. Nobody has ever hit it out of the park on their first swing. The criticisms you got would be unnecessarily harsh if coming from a peer or a friend. But a film critic is paid to be harsh.
 
Cracker Funk said:
He's wearing tighty-whitey's, it's shot way too close for us to know what's going on, and I can't figure out why she suffocated -- does she not have nostrils? Besides, you can hear her breathe, just a couple seconds before she dies.

This was your first film, dude. Nobody has ever hit it out of the park on their first swing. The criticisms you got would be unnecessarily harsh if coming from a peer or a friend. But a film critic is paid to be harsh.
Click to expand...

Thank God you didn't review the movie. People do take their dicks out the hole instead of pulling them down. That still doesn't make it an inept BJ shot. Also, he knew it was a BlowJob scene, so he knew what was going it. He just said it was ineptly staged. Which is flat out not true.

At 41 - 49 it's clear exactly what is going on.

At 51 he puts his hands around her neck and begins strangling her.

At 1:10 her neck snaps rather loudly.

So how you got suffocation out of that is beyond me. Again it comes down to FACTS. Opinions about the film making or film maker are fair game and can be as harsh as they like. But, the FACTS that are in the movie should remain FACTS.

Why not defend the person that said none of the kills took place on screen?

Oh and teeth. There's nothing to say the dick was still in her mouth. Maybe she did bite it and he was so full of adrenaline he didn't feel it. Maybe she was stoned and didn't think of it (and of course if you were in the same situation that's the first thing you'd think of). Everyone is a Monday morning quarterback. But, you know what some facts are? Prostitutes go missing and are murdered on a daily basis.
 
Last edited:
Oh, OK. So, when a viewer is confused by something, it's the viewer's fault, not the content of the film. And when multiple viewers are confused by the same thing, it's multiple viewers who are just stupid. Nothing wrong with the movie.

Dude, you are exemplifying the quality discussed earlier in this thread, in which any criticism is taken as an attack, and the person(s) lobbying the criticisms are all idiots. Self-improvement doesn't work that way.

So, he broke her neck? That's rather surprising to me. Other than the subtle sound effect, I see no indication of that. As far as I know, necks aren't broken by smushing-down on someone's head. The scene is rather muddled.

By the way, are you serious about people having sex (or even just fellatio) with tighty-whitey's on? So, we've taken the effort to remove pants, shoes and socks, but those tighty-whitey's gotta stay where they are? Really?!

This subject actually fits in with the thread, perfectly. A filmmaker will only get better by seeing the flaws in their own work, especially as seen by other people.
 
Zensteve said:
I've been reading this thread for a few days, and I still don't understand what the OP is saying. :huh:
Click to expand...

:lol: But ain't that all right? It's produced an interesting converstation that's stayed roughly on topic. Er, yeah, I'm not sure either about the latter part. =P
 
Cracker Funk said:
Oh, OK. So, when a viewer is confused by something, it's the viewer's fault, not the content of the film. And when multiple viewers are confused by the same thing, it's multiple viewers who are just stupid. Nothing wrong with the movie.
Click to expand...

One person, you cracker did not know it was a blowjob. Everyone else including that reviewer knew exactly what it was. He just said it was ineptly staged. If that was true no one would know what was happening.

You're one of the people who don't get the difference between fact and criticism. If you're going to specifically point something out that happened in a movie, you should have a clue as to what you're saying.

Cracker Funk said:
Dude, you are exemplifying the quality discussed earlier in this thread, in which any criticism is taken as an attack, and the person(s) lobbying the criticisms are all idiots. Self-improvement doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

That's completely wrong. Because this guy attacked me, and I didn't give a shit. That's an opinion. But, that ineptly staged was outright bullshit.

Buck from here gave Us Sinners an awful review, so have others. Criticism based on opinion and fact is fine.

Stupidity based on lies is not. Ineptly staged is a flat out lie.

Cracker Funk said:
So, he broke her neck? That's rather surprising to me. Other than the subtle sound effect, I see no indication of that. As far as I know, necks aren't broken by smushing-down on someone's head. The scene is rather muddled.
Click to expand...

Yes. I believe it's called strangulation. He snapped her windpipe. It's quite COMMON amongst killers.

I guess every time you see someone in a movie being manually strangled you think "That's rather surprising".

Perhaps you don't know the meaning of "Smush" -to mash or push". Since his hands are around her neck, that's not smushing. If his hands were on top of her head pushing down, that would be smushing. If you can't tell where his hands are, that's your eyes and not my shots.

Cracker Funk said:
By the way, are you serious about people having sex (or even just fellatio) with tighty-whitey's on? So, we've taken the effort to remove pants, shoes and socks, but those tighty-whitey's gotta stay where they are? Really?!
Click to expand...

Yep. That comes from fact and character. The fact is when I was a ticket scalper I hung with a bunch of guys that loved to go to NY and pick up prostitutes. They loved telling stories about it too. One of them said that he'd take his dick out of his underwear and not pull them down. That's specifically where that comes from. FYI, he's still wearing his pants, they're just pulled down. You can see them if you look. Which you should have, since you decided to mention it. But good FACT about PANTS SHOES AND SOCKS. Thank you for proving my point.

FYI Later on in the movie, one of the prostitutes asks if he's going to take down his panties, and he says no. It's a weird little character thing.

Cracker Funk said:
This subject actually fits in with the thread, perfectly. A filmmaker will only get better by seeing the flaws in their own work, especially as seen by other people.
Click to expand...

I found, and was pointed out so many different things that I learned from. But, ineptly staged blowjobs isn't one of them. But, that's because it's just not true. From your posts on this thread, I've learned one thing - If you're going to comment on someone's video, it's good to open your eyes while watching. It'll help you understand what's going on.
 
No, I knew it was a BJ, it was the death that I found confusing. Critics aren't fact-checkers. If I didn't notice that his pants are around his ankles, maybe that's because it's not too clear, in the video. And like I said, the "fact" that he broke her neck isn't really communicated very strongly in the video.

My point is that I'm not the only person who found this scene confusing. If you cared about improving your craft, you'd ask yourself how you could make things more clear to the viewer, instead of lashing out at the person who tells you they found the scene confusing.

You know -- I do watch other movies. And I'm not usually confused by what I watch.
 
I think the 'ineptly staged' quote probably comes from the fact that the whole thing is overdone. The wincing and moaning (along with the hail Marys), the over-the-top body and head movements...etc. I didn't realise that her neck had broken and I don't see why you think that was so obvious. The whole thing is just so melodramatic that I think 'ineptly staged' is not an unreasonable review.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top