On Film Criticism.

I know I've been gone for a while but in truth the Japanese left arm theory is turning into a whole freaking book and has more to do with culture shock on a global level and I wasn't really prepared for that.

I want to talk about film criticism today. Not just the men and women who "critique" movies for your local paper/news broadcast/radio shows, but actual film criticism. Most of you probably aren't aware that while there are quite a few people out there who have made a career out of deeming a film "good" or "bad" or presenting it with a number of gold stars, much the same way my second grade teacher kept discipline, there are also people who take the time not only to watch a film, but to comment on it with more than a blurb explaining who's in it and why it happens to get the rating it does. This isn't new.

I went to the University of Nevada Las Vegas (HOLY SHIT I'M NAME DROPPING) and while I was there I took a film criticism class. At the time I couldn't properly quantify how hot the fires of my hatred burned for that class. Later, after re-reading the class text, doing research, and more reading on my own, I realized this was due in large part to the person who was "teaching" the class. So, I had to ask myself, what is film criticism? I mean, doesn't anyone who views a movie in some way decide whether their time was well spent and come up with at least rudimentary reasons as to their decision? The short answer is: Yes. But "Josh Duhamel is teh hot!" isn't film criticism, and don't let any air time hogging yutz with a gimmick try and sell you on their "credibility" as a critic if they have nothing more to say than: "they had good chemistry" or "the character's motivations didn't make any sense" or happens to be this kid

Reviewing a film is a completely different monster than critiquing it. A review doesn't add anything to the experience of watching the film. You get a cliff note of the screen time and that’s it. A critique adds to the experience of sitting down with a movie and really breaking into it. Some critiques pick a cultural mind set or an angle of exploration and discovery based on a set of theories or hypothesis laid out by quite a long history of film critics. So you ask: What are the general schools of thought within film criticism?

So glad you asked... (just a heads up in the name of full disclosure, my room is a mess and I cannot find my stupid film theory book, which is actually a really good book. So I'm getting this info off Wikipedia. DO NOT just accept my word as law. Educate yourself. Get information from as many sources as possible. I play a gnome Mage in World of Warcraft for god’s sake! I'm no expert.)

Wikipedia is for lazy people who don't want to clean their room.

I am going to go in depth into any of them except for “Auteur Theory” because honestly let’s face it, cinema is too much for any one person to be the sole driving creative force. Yes, one man on a carriage controls the reins of many horses, but without the horses, he is a guy sitting on a wooden box going nowhere. Yes, the Director can very often come through in the work they helm, but the general idea is like reality television: what used to be true has gotten blown so out of shape and proportion by an uncountable number of self important blowhards that it’s difficult to discern actual directors who can be properly dissected with this school of thought from those directors who just get hard or wet calling themselves "auteurs" with a shitty fake French accent. I can call myself a Smurf when I wear a blue shirt, but it doesn't make that shit true.

Check these things out. There are many more schools of thought than presented in the Wiki article and most likely, with the invention of the internet, there are more and more people presenting their views on a daily basis.

My favorite form of film theory/criticism happens about ten seconds after the film ends and the group of people I am with start pulling it apart. This can go on for a few minutes or all night. The first time I saw District 9 the group I went with ended up talking about the film for about four and a half hours. We made mental taffy out of that film. I'm not saying this school of thought and reflection will produce intellectual revelations you can cement forever as a well thought out discourse on the nature of film, but for most folks it’s a much more honest and raw way of dealing with what we experience. And I suppose you could try and force a discourse but I think the discussions that happen naturally are a clearer indicator of not only the quality of a film but the types of people you see it with.

If you’re interested in sort of a homework assignment, see ”Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps”, and “The Social Network”. These are both stories about massive, incalculable levels of power, and how they are gained and used. Pay attention to how the writers and directors emphasize wardrobe, setting, and lighting to present similar themes.

Both films deal with characters that desperately want to be admitted to circles of power. They deal with acts of betrayal, alienation, disconnection from peer groups, and paranoia. Both films use major turning points in the last ten years to take a look at two completely different generations and, most likely completely by accident, you get a rather interesting picture of the major elements causing strife between those trying to stay in power and those who are coming into it as they grow up. And yet both stories begin and end on roughly the same emotional notes. Characters who have found themselves on the receiving end of an ass kicking make their way to a place where they realize that personal connection is a defining characteristic that they understand the least but desire the most.