It's always annoying when I read reviews from critics who very very clearly didn't get a certain movie. What bothers me is that they act like it's a sin to not "get" a movie. If you don't get it, write about WHY you don't get it, and what that says about you and your lived experience. Let the movie take you wherever it takes you, and embrace the fact that it might be an unconventional direction.
Or, y'know, be funny. I can't square the idea of someone writing about a comedy when they themselves aren't at all funny. That just doesn't make sense to me.
Big agree, and that all comes from the misguided phenomenon of modern film criticism being about taste and expressing oneself, which is fine for cutting one's teeth on the craft (that's what I did), but there comes a point where you actually have to become valuable to the criticism zeitgeist if you're serious about the medium.
There's like a bifurcation of problematic criticism and I'd say the first one is anyone from professional columnists to amateur bloggers who feel the responsibility is to respond to EVERY moving picture above a certain budget and audience market, regardless that not only are some of them just plain bad, but others that are fine are just that -- fine, nothing more to say about them; and the Letterboxd/social media infinite mirror of hot take manufacturing, so that when an event like Sinners OR The Electric State comes out, users feel they must watch them (and sooner rather than later) in order to get their witticism into the mix.
I checked out of that game ages ago. Pretty much only talk about movies that give me something to talk about.
Exactly. When the criticism is in service to the relevance of the author instead of the betterment of the film and the culture surrounding/created by it, what are we even doing?
Not only is Back to the Future II my favorite of the three, it is the movie that convinced me I waned to make movies. I was thrilled by the idea of going back into the original film, and dazzled by hoverboards to such an extent that I removed the wheels from my skateboard and carried around the board.
I'd say I personally love the original film and Part II about the same, since they each have so much for me to chew on as a viewer and a critic, while both trafficking in entirely different yet symbiotic ideas and narratives.
Haha, I imagine Zemeckis and his hoverboard hoax-pushing thanked you for that last bit!
You're our film critic savior!!! Looking forward to what you have in store for us x
It's always annoying when I read reviews from critics who very very clearly didn't get a certain movie. What bothers me is that they act like it's a sin to not "get" a movie. If you don't get it, write about WHY you don't get it, and what that says about you and your lived experience. Let the movie take you wherever it takes you, and embrace the fact that it might be an unconventional direction.
Or, y'know, be funny. I can't square the idea of someone writing about a comedy when they themselves aren't at all funny. That just doesn't make sense to me.
Fromtheyardtothearthouse.substack.com
Big agree, and that all comes from the misguided phenomenon of modern film criticism being about taste and expressing oneself, which is fine for cutting one's teeth on the craft (that's what I did), but there comes a point where you actually have to become valuable to the criticism zeitgeist if you're serious about the medium.
Personally? I blame Roger Ebert 🤷♀️
There's like a bifurcation of problematic criticism and I'd say the first one is anyone from professional columnists to amateur bloggers who feel the responsibility is to respond to EVERY moving picture above a certain budget and audience market, regardless that not only are some of them just plain bad, but others that are fine are just that -- fine, nothing more to say about them; and the Letterboxd/social media infinite mirror of hot take manufacturing, so that when an event like Sinners OR The Electric State comes out, users feel they must watch them (and sooner rather than later) in order to get their witticism into the mix.
I checked out of that game ages ago. Pretty much only talk about movies that give me something to talk about.
Exactly. When the criticism is in service to the relevance of the author instead of the betterment of the film and the culture surrounding/created by it, what are we even doing?
Not only is Back to the Future II my favorite of the three, it is the movie that convinced me I waned to make movies. I was thrilled by the idea of going back into the original film, and dazzled by hoverboards to such an extent that I removed the wheels from my skateboard and carried around the board.
I'd say I personally love the original film and Part II about the same, since they each have so much for me to chew on as a viewer and a critic, while both trafficking in entirely different yet symbiotic ideas and narratives.
Haha, I imagine Zemeckis and his hoverboard hoax-pushing thanked you for that last bit!