What is it about film criticism and commentary that draws you in, or scares you away? Is a trailer all you need, or a Rotten Tomatoes aggregate score? Or trawling through page after page of thoughts?

I don't think that film criticism is dying, quite the contrary, but I'd love to hear what you guys have to say on the topic, and what niches you love.

Hopefully it's not just up to Ebert to defend this space anymore, but here's what he's got to say, for good measure.

I also support half of this. Context creates value - being 'well-viewed' is what gives you something to say. Not being a dick, and painting a balanced picture are important, too, especially the former. After that, things take a turn for the worst.

It's not about humility - it's about honesty and, as mentioned above, not being a dick. Overly snarky criticism is pretty tiring, but sometimes you need to bring out some sass to make a point.

And cutting slack? Get real. Everyone is competing with everyone now - don't pander to the new maker. Tell them what they did wrong, and how to improve it. That's how to defend audiences from wasting their time. And that's how we make better stuff.

Personally, I love to talk about film the same way that Wall St junkies talk about the market.

This summer only two films have actually made me leave the theater saying "they went out to set a bar here". Those films were The Avengers and Moonrise Kingdom.

A great film is a maze that the imagination and subconscious must run through together. It feels like fewer and fewer people are trying to create that. This goes beyond TDKR. Snow White and the Huntsman , Brave, Total Recall , and every sequel made were so incredibly insulting in terms of screenplay. Studios should focus less on "idea first" and "screenplay next" and find great original screenplays regardless of whose daughter or nephew wrote it.

Sorry... ran out of room.

As selfish as it might be. I listen to film criticism extremely seriously as a resource to making my own films. The various Podcasts and blogs that I read during my "writers block" period allow me to get in touch with the audience members I seek to reach. Today's film journalist/critics might not be exactly like a person in Jefferson City, Missouri... but they're all "that" family member or friend that recommends a DVD to a family member at dinner or makes the choice for the group of friends on a saturday night at the cinemas. Not listening to or contributing to film criticism is the same as not creating a better filmmaking community.

Hackett

Sean, thanks for that. I do think that there is room for sequel films, so long as the screenplay is well executed and adds something to the conversation. It's like a good cover song - ties in to previous art and develops its own message (see the soundtrack to I'm Not There).

That said, each film you mentioned did seem cash-grabby (maybe not Brave, though I certainly didn't enjoy it). They forgot the execution, and any sort of style that gives a movie lasting impact or enjoyment.

We can certainly agree on film criticism's role, and that's improving the film community. When you do read and listen, what is it that attracts you to a given critic?

I use a custom google news feed to give me a lot of the information. There are a lot of writers / podcasts that I'm partial to . Although I'm probably missing a few... I'd say I roam FSR, /Film , Playlist, Cinemablend, and LatinoReview the most. Nerdist Writer's Auteor, Panel, DP/30, and Q&A w/ Jeff Goldsmith along w/ Op Kino, /Film are jogging material.

As simple as it is, I can usually tell if someone is putting their own voice into what they report. Are they relaying PR pressure or are they looking out for the fans. Are they someone that I'd eat pizza with? Are they someone who expects my generation to do better than the one ahead of us?

"Someone I'd eat pizza with for dinner." Ace. Got a few new sources out of that, too. Cheers!

And here's another vote for quick edit, since you didn't say 'for dinner'.

I love reading good film criticism. I gave up on reading reviews in order to decide what to watch; instead I prefer to see as many films as I can. After, I look to the great critics to illuminate a given work for me.

I am a sometimes critic. I am opinionated, but I love seeing what others see in a film, especially when they disagree with me.

Ebert. A.O. Scott. Matt Zoller Seitz. Jim Emerson. I could go on all day.

It's also nice to look at the historical record of film criticism and writing. Go back and read Manny Farber, Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris and so on. Check out compilations like John Boorman's Projections or Scott MacDonald's A Critical Cinema series. Lots of good, sometimes forgotten work in there.

Those compilations really are lovely - the one that got me into it was Kurt Loder's 'The Good, the Bad and the Godawful'. Wealths of knowledge on film, criticism, and writing for the community in general.

On reviewers, I miss Pauline Kael. Not only was she powerful back in her day, but such a symbol that people like Warren Beatty employed her, which kind of leans in a bad direction; imagine a fellow reviewer who's scoring a film she had helped make, for example.

Speaking of writers on film, please don't miss Anthony Lane's book "Nobody's Perfect". From this book, on "Pearl Harbor":

'The last Michael Bay film, Armageddon, was a handy guide to what you should do when an asteroid bumps into your planet,' he writes. 'His new picture, Pearl Harbor, maintains the mood, pulsing with fervour as it tells a tale familiar to every child in America: how a great nation was attacked and humbled by the imperious pride of Ben Affleck.'

On reviewing, I think opinions always matter. They do. I like certain reviewers more because of their previous reviews - if I often agree with them, it's probable to say that I will be interested by their next review - but I also like to jump into high water and try some film merely based on a blazing review.

Which turns more interesting, I think: how does one review film? Do you compare a film with others, or see it completely as its own? Do you compare it with the director's/actor's/etc. prior engagements? Does the environment in which you've seen the film deserve mentioning (e.g. at home, in a noisy cinema, while going through mental breakdown)?

I think "Be personal and honest" kind of break it down for me. And Anthony Lane's maxims!

I got a good laugh out of Anthony Lane. One thing I always struggle with is the inclusion of environment in a writeup. It seems that universality and things related to the cast/crew belong in a review. That would eliminate comments on theaters, which nobody involved in the film had any control over (in most cases - some important screenings involve a good long chat between the director and the projectionist. Eek!). It wouldn't eliminate comments from the director before or after the film, though, since they're providing added insight.

Film criticism is more than judging if a film is 'good' or 'bad'. Well-supported observations are infinitely more valuable than an unsubstantiated score. Rating a movie with a single quantifiable scale can be useful for some purposes, but leaves out the reasoning behind a score. Too often a viewer's perception of if a film is 'good' will be subconsciously skewed by the film's success or other outside factors, so individual and aggregate scores need to be taken with a grain of salt. A well-supported critique of a film is more transparent. Even if a critic has some bias, a person's perspective becomes clear with even a little bit of explanation.

Agreement all around. I'd go so far as to say I prefer critics with bias - that often leads to a more apparent personality, which is the real treat in reading a review. It's a lot like the show Top Gear in its heyday - I don't care about cars, but I'd watch those guys talk about anything.

From a potentially more artistic view, I think as a filmmaker it's entirely helpful to read reviews (although maybe not always for your own films). The people who get paid to write *about* film often think in different terms than those who get paid to write *for* film. Reading a reviewer who emphasizes the importance that he or she found in, say, the environment around the characters, or the recursive nature of the dialogue, or how a movie may actually be a combination of two other movies and it works or doesn't work... it's all helpful. For screenwriters trying to break into the biz, we can read a review and think back on that page 46 that's giving us trouble, and think, "Oh, what if I thought about it like this?"

At first I thought you were going to go with "When art critics get together they talk about Form and Structure and Meaning. When artists get together they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine." I always loved that line. Here's a great article that runs with it. cdixon.org

I hope that other filmmakers actively work the same way - taking the viewer-and-critic's scene into account can help to avoid a vivid issue here and there.

I've never heard that line before! That's so great. Although in my circles it's more like, "When filmmakers get together, they talk about where you can buy the cheapest Guinness."

The other thing that I had meant to say and forgot about, was that I greatly appreciate being able to read film criticism because, being a poor post-grad, I can't always make it to the movies-- and I want to always be aware of what's being made and how it's working. There's nothing worse than getting 75% done with a really cool script and having a friend break it to you that you're writing Prometheus.

Haha! Love it.

That would be a truly heartbreaking moment - the immaculate conception great! ...that's already showing on the big screen a mile away.

I'm in the inverse position with film right now - I love to see what everyone is doing with their projects so that I can be a better critic. I'm trying to switch gears a bit and start working on some of my own projects, but then it becomes hard to find spaces that are 'uncolonized' and accessible to a newcomer. It's still a blast to think about, though.

Are you in on any filmmaking branches, or thinking any up right now?

Yeah, so as a law student and film lover, what fascinates me is the line between harsh criticism and defamation - at what point does criticism no longer fit the description of 'fair comment' and instead fall under the banner of malicious?

In general, however, I find film criticism extremely important to the art. It is the equivalent of peer reviews of a science journal, it is the intelligentsia sharing opinions and thoughts, which can only further the art, setting a benchmark for what is 'great'.

Chriss, do you have any examples of defaming reviews kicking about? And, pardon my ignorance, but would a review need to be libelous to make a case, or could mal-intent be enough?

Hi Zack,

No examples, I'm afraid! We were discussing it today in class for the first time, and it really got me thinking. To answer your question, in the UK, there need only be malice. The example my lecturer gave in passing, so without the case law, was of a reviewer slamming a young actress for being too thin, having a terrible singing voice, no ability to act on stage (saying she should have remained on television), and that she had a fat arse, haha. My lecturer said the reviewer was found to have no defence of fair comment, because on the balance of probability, she seemed motivated by malicious intent.

If I can find any case law on this, and the offending review, I'll be sure to post it.

Here's Lord Nicholls' view in Albert Cheng v Tse Wai Chun (2000) setting precedent on this, if you're interested:

ipsofactoj.com

A lot of legal jargon, but basically just making the point that to be covered under the defence of 'Fair Comment' one must not be proven to harbour ulterior motives or be actuated by malice. A fair comment defence will fail if doubt can be cast on the honesty or reasonableness of the comment.

This conversation reminded me of a reviewer I found on Rotten Tomatoes, whose name I just now remembered: rottentomatoes.com

Armond White. Even his Wikipedia page lists him as contrarian at best. (He was one of three reviewers who didn't like Toy Story 3, for instance.) I've gone back and forth, wondering if these are really his opinions, or if he's just generating clicks. But maybe that's a branch for another day.

Interesting link, Chríss.

The one instance I can think of that got some press (at least among the NYC film critic set) back in 2010 was when J. Hoberman exhumed Armond White's 1998 review of Noah Baumbach's "Mr. Jealousy." In it, White suggested "retroactive abortion" of the director to spare viewers the film. Here's Hoberman's article:

blogs.villagevoice.com

This was a "thing" back then. White got elevated from "that cranky critic" to "the crankiest of all."

It's interesting though, I never even thought of it as any kind of libel or malice or hate speech or anything, just a critic being a jerk. But, you know, if filmmakers choose to live by film criticism then shouldn't they be able to die (or be hurt) by it as well?

Tyler,

How funny we both got to Armond at the same time through different routes!

He may be frustrating to read, but I think he's definitely worthy of respect. The RT crowd ganged up on him over Toy Story 3, but that affair was ridiculous. What does one say about a community that prefers homogeneity and attacks differing opinions? I'm not saying White is a hero for having an unpopular opinion every now and then, but I'll be damned if I would discourage him from doing so.

Jonathan,

Crazy! He's a prevalent character to be sure.

You make an excellent point. I think that in my case, it's that my opinions are so far removed from his in most cases, that I can't bring myself to accept the opinions he poses and the logical jumps that he takes to make them. But you were absolutely right in your previous post-- if filmmakers choose to live by criticism they agree with, they should at least put in the effort to hear the stuff they don't.

Thanks guys. Re defamation: in any civil case for damages, one must have suffered a loss due to the defender's culpa (damnum injuria datum), in this case damage to one's reputation, so hate speech and the like would not be applicable here exactly.

But re harsh critics - I think the reason people become so incensed when a critic really bucks the trend is simply down to the human condition. I think we like it when a trend develops, when we can create an objective reality out of something as subjective as opinion. So when we have a sort of consensus on a film, for one to run in and stamp all over it riles us. I do like independent critics though.

For the record, I didn't like Toy Story 3, but White… That guy seems to love feeding the trolls. I would stand for his legal right to do so, though. Different opinions can make for beautiful films, and different criticisms bring out the potential for different takes. Plus, even the dregs of society need something to consume together, eh?

This has me thinking about one of my favorite types of reviews: the defense of a project that's widely and heavily criticized. I'm not talking about the equivalent of Amazon.com reviews of the three wolf moon shirt. amazon.com I mean getting nitpicky about diamonds in the rough. This take on John Carter comes to mind. salon.com

Zack,

Mm, I see what you're saying. Reviews that particularly annoyed me lately were those of Yimou Zhang's 'Flowers of War'. I couldn't help but think that there was an inherent bias against the film for perhaps being a bit too 'Chinese' with a mainstream Western actor. I think we like our foreign films to keep away from our culture, as if to give the impression of going through the looking glass when we see another society's films. So to have Bale in the film was to force people to consider Chinese politics a little more, particularly with the film's subject matter. I don't think this did the critique of the movie any favours, unfairly. Lot of criticism regarding it's 'propaganda'.

It's interesting how foreign films need a certain 'international' quality about them to get put in front of wider audiences. If that quality turns out to be the involvement of a brand name star, but not themes, perhaps we're taken aback by a culture we thought we knew so well.

I'm looking for someone with a copy of Flowers of War right now so I can see what's going on. Cheers!

In regards to foreign films, I have to say, I prefer a them much more than films from the West. There is a nicer quality and richness to films produced in Asia and Europe in my opinion, and the fact that the characters aren't always well-known actors to a Western audience, and that there isn't always a huge demand for 'perfect' looking actors gives the films so much more depth.

For example, recently I watched Ip Man, which is one of my favourite films from Hong Kong, and enjoyed every bit of it, it had heart to it, a strong story, likeable characters, humour, and believable martial arts (compared to martial arts and fight scenes depicted in Western films).

And Hero, now <em>that</em> is a film, not to mention House of the Flying Daggers.

@Louis
I don't know if I would automatically say that there's always a nicer quality and richness to foreign films that those we make here in the west, but certainly the things that make it here and filter through into popularity are incredibly high caliber. Ip Man is actually how I discovered Danny Yen (the lead actor), who has quickly become one of my favorite actors anywhere (seriously, watch any of his films).

@Tyler, I must apologise, my view on the world is very black and white, same with my wording of things (See Asperger's Syndrome).

Donnie Yen is definitely one of my favourites.

@Louis
No, that's totally legit! I was just expanding on what you had to say. You made a really relatable point. Do you think foreign films just seem nicer because we're so jaded to what American audiences buy (either through our education or sheer stubbornness), or is there a definitely "better" method used overseas? Because there are plenty of American films that really SHOULD be touted with the same kind of respect I think you and I generally hold a large majority of Asian/European films in.

This might be more of a question for Zack and the others who do film reviewing a bit more seriously: On the whole, is there a difference in quality between films of Western and Eastern origins, either objectively or in the opinions of reviewers?

Ah, good!

I am talking more about the fact that foreign films are unlike films from the West because they are not so wrapped up with the West, and the Western world's culture. And also, the storylines and plots aren't so predictable (at least that's my experience), where it's not always the hero gets the girl and defeats the bad guy, there's always an interesting twist or something extraordinary, thus the 'richness' or 'quality' in the storytelling, foreign films appear to go beyond the expected American film. That said I do enjoy films from the West, just not the predictable, clichéd, over-the-top ones. And yes, there are numerous American films that deserve more appreciation and respect for their unique and groundbreaking storytelling.

I think it can be said that in general there are certain hallmarks of a region's films. Japan's eccentricity, France's sentimentality, Hollywood's action, Britain's grittiness, Sweden's moroseness, etc. But of course not ever film released in these country's will conform to that stereotype. I think what these stereotypes tell us is really what sort of film that country or region seem to make better than any other region.
But re West v East, I think Infernal Affairs juxtaposed with The Departed is a great examination of the differences in approach. The East is not so caught up in character's being overly emotional, the West is more inclined to simplify the narration, etc. I think The Departed and Infernal Affairs are both brilliant though

It seems like the trend is to lean into anything non-Hollywood when it comes to film, and while I agree I think that the factors behind that are quite interesting.

Indies and foreign films are certainly different. Different can be refreshing: it's lovely to have different and real fight choreography, or different interpretations of whatever aspect of life is being explored. Endings where the bad guy wins are fantastic, and much more common abroad. Realistic (read: believable) approaches to relationships as well.

It seems that this happens because Hollywood has backed itself (as an industry entity) into a corner: the necessity of mass appeal. It's the tragedy of success. Non-blockbusters can be more complex and they can make statements that aren't so widely accepted. The case of Infernal Affairs is a perfect example - it cost a little over $5million to make, whereas The Departed cost $90million. EVERYBODY had to love The Departed for it to make its money back, where as Infernal Affairs could pique the interests of a few dedicated folks.

My understanding has always been that most countries other than the US heavily subsidize the arts. If the government isn't directly producing films it has built infrastructure that filmmakers can take advantage of, or has invested in universities.

When I was in college friends of mine were on the jury for an international student film fest we ran at the school, and the European filmmakers always shot on film and had gorgeous looking movies. The Americans' films were invariably DV, and usually documentaries. It's better to stay cheap here.

Put another way, the US has a free-market creative economy, and Hollywood's creative capital is running like Wall Street in 2008, i.e. the 1% is playing fast and loose with our artistic future.

Jonathan, I actually just attending a talk by an EU media policy expert talking particularly about film. While some countries like Germany, the UK and France have a huge budget for subsidizing filmmakers and bringing up the next generation, other countries have less groundwork and money to spend.

Funding from the Union itself hasn't attempted to even this out, so the big three are staying big. Smaller countries have quite meager budgets - or so the talk said - and are better situated to set up connections and mentorships than anything else.

I actually raised this question after the talk - about films on film and the visual quality of even small projects there. The answer I got was actually quite lovely: a reverence for old technology.