Cracking the Art of the Critic
To most individuals the words film and critic should never be uttered in the same sentence. Whenever a friend asks me what I have heard about a certain film and I say the critics have blasted it, I usually get an ear full about how you cannot believe everything those old hacks write.A bit of an extreme reaction? Yes. But there is some truth behind it. I am sure everyone has had occasions where they saw a film based on positive word of mouth and hated it, or saw a critical bomb and loved it. Movies, like all art, are viewed with subjective eyes. One person witnesses a masterpiece, while another is bored out of their mind. It all depends on what film you are seeing, and what you are looking to get out of the experience. Are you interested in checking your brain at the door? Do you want to be challenged? Or do you want a bit of everything rolled into one? I myself, want it all. I want to be taken out of my world and put into one that challenges my emotions, my intellect, and my spirituality; yet also looks incredible on the screen. I admire ambition and originality in film making, and the more movies I watch, the harder I am to please.
The problem with viewing a great film, is that when you are done, your quality bar rises a little higher than it was before. In turn, this could be why critics despise so many mainstream films. It is not that they are more intelligent than the viewer, it is that they are more versed in the ways of great films. For example, I met a girl a few years ago who told me her favorite film was Wicker Park (a question I ask every girl on a first date, and if the response is something along the lines of How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, there definitely won't be a second date, haha). I thought this was a very odd choice. Not because it is a bad movie, but because it is a bad movie that tries to be good. Wicker Park is not your typical Hollywood cookie cutter; instead it is a flawed remake of the French film L'Appartement. She explained to me that she liked it because it was different than anything she had ever seen before, and that it made her think. I thought to myself: "Good answer, she must actually want to take something from the films she watches." Every part of me knows though, that if she would have seen the original version of the film, or Hitchcock's brilliant, Vertigo (a film that shares many similar themes) she could not possibly call Wicker Park her favorite film, and she would understand why so many critics thought it was a waste of time.
The most important part of following film reviews though, is that you have to be familiar with the critic. I do not mean that you have to personally sit down with the man or woman, but you have to be acquainted with their film taste, and their style of writing. I am sure this will disappoint some of you; as I am aware you are disgusted with the monumental geek I have become, but I have read every film review that Roger Ebert has written since I was 17 years old. Only half of the time do I agree with his ratings, but I read every one because the man has an amazing talent for writing, and I understand what he wants, and what he likes in a film. If someone tells me John Smith from Time magazine says David Lynch's new film is a piece of trash, that means nothing to me. I need to know what kind of films he thinks are worthwhile, what ones he thinks are terrible, what he thought about Lynch's past work, and I want to know exactly why the film in question did not work for him. Otherwise, it is all just hear say.
Film critics, reviewers, analysts, or whatever you want to call them, live in a world where movies are everything. They go to the art houses, the multiplexes, the festivals, and the private screenings. You may not agree with their opinions, but you have to at least respect that they might know what they are talking about...
******************************************************
Alright, if anyone is still with me, I would like to highlight some of the films that I have been closely monitoring at this years Cannes Film Festival. Toronto is arguably the most important festival, but Cannes is a close second. The coveted Palmes d'Or is still sought after by the worlds greatest filmmakers, and this years event has a slew of heavyweights with films in contention. The three I have been keeping a close eye on are: AntiChrist (Lars von Triers), Inglorious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino), and Thirst (Park Chan Wook).
I am particulalry interested in how Thirst is sitting with critics because I am fairly certain that I am going to write my graduate school thesis on the work of Park Chan Wook. So far reviews have been mixed, with none describing it as his best film. I am a little disappointed, but hopefully its true potential comes out after repeat viewings.
From a personal standpoint, Inglorious Basterds is the picture I am most intrigued about. A couple of critics have slammed Tarantino for not being himself, while some have said the script is too talky (kind of conflicting arguments if you ask me). Others have hailed it as another triumph for Quentin. I love it when critics are divided because it shows that QT went for it, and did not try to please everyone.
Antichrist has actually been the most talked about film at the festival so far. Reviews have been mixed to say the least. Damon Wise from Empire Magazine declared that: "What Lars is driving at is something completely bizarre, massively uncommercial and strangely perfect. On the other hand, Todd McCarthy from Variety was not as kind: "Lars von Trier cuts a big fat art-film fart with "Antichrist." As if deliberately courting critical abuse...". Either way, I am pumped to see this one.




