Chris, can you explain what your take on informed means?
Sure.
In other words, just like Winnie-the-Pooh: “Smarter than the average bear.”
If someone studies film, or, even better, actually works in and with film, they’re usually going to know and understand a little more of what’s going on and what directors and performers and editors are actually doing, what the net results of effects are, if anything is lifted (and something almost always is), and if the whole thing works. Further, they’ll probably know on how many levels does it work.
The making of films is a very difficult and extraordinarily collaborative process. A writer’s first vision is only the first step, and only a very limited handful of directors over the decades had final cut powers. Further, even the most self-absorbed filmmakers want to make some profit from their works, if only to pay back the costs. So everybody always has to be thinking, A)where will this play? — Everywhere? Only the Western Hemisphere? Peoria?; and, B) How well will it play? Remember what I once told you all about Ingmar Bergman — he wanted Everybody to see his films and make their own judgments.
So, when faced with a wonderful and complex and smart script like a Chinatown or a Godfather II or a Memento or an L.A. Confidential , all scripts where the plot is very heavy and ones where those moviegoers of even average intelligence are going to have trouble “getting it,” as a movie maker don’t you want to have somebody with a more sophisticated intelligence and a working knowledge of cinema history to point out where and why the films work with relations to Noir and 30s gangster dramas of the Warner Bros. ilk and U.S. history and politics of the 1970s and land use theory … etc. As Schoolhouse Rocky used to always tell us, “Knowledge Is Power!”
That is also where criticism itself becomes quite good, and elevates itself from a mere, “I liked that movie,” or worse, “Two Thumbs Up.”
No, I don’t see how it could ever be.
So Chris,what you’re saying is that whoever is dealing with,is involved actively in the occurrence of cinema or any other artistic medium,he/she is more capable to engage in objectivity?by being “operatively” informative??
Actually,the whole concept is wrong by itself!I may never become a theatrical lecturer but at least i want to discover more about Japanese puppetry or Commedia Dell’Arte…I may never become a screenwriter or assistance editor but I will have the pleasure to explore the distances of Taiwanese New Wave or Czech Spring…and I may not fulfill my dream of becoming a philosophical researcher yet I will have learned of Averroes’ skills and Pizan’s feminist liberations..
So in the end,it’s the willingness,not the outcome of it…and look it at this way…I felt by watching L.A. Confidential a deliberate effectiveness,the movie surely showcases a supreme venture but personally,it’s not on par to other classics of the genre..on the other hand..I feel Sweet Movie is a terrific film in spite of the disgust I felt after watching it!
It’s all relative and they CAN become objective statements.
No, film criticism cannot be objective. Come on. What is going on here?
Adriana,
I agree with what you say. I can tell that a movie is well made and recommend it to others even if I didnt personally like it. However, in order for me to call a film “great” I think that I would have to have personally enjoyed it. So essentially no, I dont think I could ever be completely objective
christopher sepesy
Here’s the simple, short answer:
No criticism can ever be objective, but it can be informed.