Jazz, do you feel that critics aren’t currently fulfilling those functions you mentioned? (Just talking about good critics, not those who award tomatoes or such nonsense.)
The masses do a lot better though over a long period of time than they do immediately. The Monkees outsold The Beatles in the 60s. How’s that been going lately?
There is a difference between good art and bad art, but those differences aren’t on a checklist, and people who truly appreciate art don’t need to be ‘put on a path’, they figure out the differences as they go along.
I might even say the biggest difference between good art and bad art is: Bad art has an expiration date.
All a critic has to do is point people toward art that they will like. In doing this, they often expose great art.
If that’s what they’re pretending, they are certainly demonstrating the difference between good and bad critics.
Lol
Jazz, do you feel that critics aren’t currently fulfilling those functions you mentioned? (Just talking about good critics, not those who award tomatoes or such nonsense.)
Not really—but keep in mind that my experience of critics is largely limited to movie reviews in newspapers and magazines. Still, finding the type of interpretations that I mentioned above is still way too hard, especially on the internet. I mean, if I see a film, say, Tree of Life and I not only don’t like it, but I don’t understand it; yet, many critics seem to love this film. It shouldn’t be so difficult to find a clear and cogent explanation for why the film is so good and what it all means. I would also think that a film forum like this should solve that problem, and I’m surprised and a bit disappointed that it doesn’t.
Jazz, I’m curious, in the entire threads devoted to Tree Of Life, you didn’t find a single satisfactory explanation as to why people liked it? I think we saw a lot of very detailed explanations on both sides.
tHaT ^
If that’s what they’re pretending, they are certainly demonstrating the difference between good and bad critics.
Lol
Jazz, do you feel that critics aren’t currently fulfilling those functions you mentioned? (Just talking about good critics, not those who award tomatoes or such nonsense.)
Not really—but keep in mind that my experience of critics is largely limited to movie reviews in newspapers and magazines. Still, finding the type of interpretations that I mentioned above is still way too hard, especially on the internet. I mean, if I see a film, say, Tree of Life and I not only don’t like it, but I don’t understand it; yet, many critics seem to love this film. It shouldn’t be so difficult to find a clear and cogent explanation for why the film is so good and what it all means. I would also think that a film forum like this should solve that problem, and I’m surprised and a bit disappointed that it doesn’t.
@Jirin
_The masses do a lot better though over a long period of time than they do immediately. The Monkees outsold The Beatles in the 60s. How’s that been going lately?
I don’t think that’s a great example because the Beatles were quite popular in their time. There are some great works of art that are quite accessible—that the masses will gravitate towards and find. But some great art aren’t like that.
There is a difference between good art and bad art, but those differences aren’t on a checklist, and people who truly appreciate art don’t need to be ‘put on a path’, they figure out the differences as they go along.
This isn’t about a checklist, but the notion that some people are more knowledge, passionate and able to identify great art and help others find it.
Well, I think many (if not all) people have the potential for appreciating art. Those who already have a deep appreciation may not need critics (although, even for them, critics can serve a valuable role), but there are others who haven’t cultivated a taste for art—not straying far beyond mainstream entertainment. Most of the people I know in real life are like that. They’re not interested in foraging for good art. They primarily seek out lite entertainment. That doesn’t mean great art wouldn’t be interesting and fulfilling for them—but they do need some assistance, otherwise they won’t experience this type of art. That’s my opinion anyway.
" It shouldn’t be so difficult to find a clear and cogent explanation for why the film is so good and what it all means."
Yes it should, because there’s not a single explanation and no one else is going to have had the same experience as you had.
There shouldn’t be any mystery as to why critics like “The Tree of Life”. It was made for them. And plus Malick is a critical darling. That being said there were plenty of reviews against the film that were well-written and explanatory.
“It is the capacity for making good or bad art a personal matter that makes a man a critic.” – Shaw
“Criticism, to begin with, should be a branch of literature. It is a work of art in itself, hanging by its own tail or standing on its own legs.” – Sickert
Aren’t you, then, defining greatness subjectively? I think a lot of ‘easy’ art is just as good and culturally significant as more difficult art, so what are you basing its superiority on other than your own preference? Your argument doesn’t seem very intersubjective to me, it sounds just plain subjective: Art that appeals to intellectuals and academics is superior art.
For me what distinguishes popular from great is the popularity of great art increases over time.
Yes it should, because there’s not a single explanation and no one else is going to have had the same experience as you had.
I’m not saying that I have to agree with the explanation—but I at least have to find it compelling and plausible. It should attempt to address the points in the film that are critical and likely confusing. Remember that Sonatine review you linked a while back? The critic made some allusion to the deeper meaning of the film, but then never really explained what he meant or made a case for it. That’s what I’m talking about. I might not have agreed, but that’s the type of explanation that should be offered—especially for a films that aren’t so straightforward. What I’m looking for is an explanation of what the film is really about—a case for this reading as well as an argument for or against the film.
Now if film critics can’t provide this type of explanation (and it’s pretty difficult in a newspaper review), I would think movie forum could. If someone says, “Oh, I hated Safe. What the heck was that about anyway?” I would think the chances would be great that a person could find an in-depth response. Again that person may not agree, but at least a substantive attempt. At the same time, given the amount of people the internet, I would think that the person could find one satisfying explanation. I imagine that each one use has at least one or two films we feel like we understand really well. If someone asked us what those films were about, we could explain it to them. Now since the internet has thousands, millions of people, wouldn’t the odds of finding an explanation be pretty great?
@Bobby
There shouldn’t be any mystery as to why critics like “The Tree of Life”. It was made for them. And plus Malick is a critical darling.
Well, these aren’t reasons that are going to make me appreciate the film.
That being said there were plenty of reviews against the film that were well-written and explanatory.
For me, I think a good review has to either implicitly or explicitly address what the film is really about and what it’s really going for. So many reviews I read don’t even attempt to understand or communicate this understanding. But without this component, I don’t think you can make a compelling case for or against a film. Obviously, you can’t help someone really understand a film without addressing these issues, either.
@Jirin
Aren’t you, then, defining greatness subjectively? I think a lot of ‘easy’ art is just as good and culturally significant as more difficult art, so what are you basing its superiority on other than your own preference? Your argument doesn’t seem very intersubjective to me, it sounds just plain subjective: Art that appeals to intellectuals and academics is superior art.
Wait, I’m not saying that more accessible are is inferior to less accessible art. I’m saying that the masses won’t necessarily experience less accessible art; ergo, critics play an important role in helping people experience and understand these types of art.
“Well, these aren’t reasons that are going to make me appreciate the film.”
Now you’ve hit the nail on the head. A review doesn’t need to make you appreciate a film any more than a film needs to make you appreciate it. Reviews don’t have to be lessons, or games to be won or lost. They just need to communicate some sort of aesthetic experience. Perhaps the review itself is the aesthetic experience in some cases.
@Bobby
Now you’ve hit the nail on the head. A review doesn’t need to make you appreciate a film any more than a film needs to make you appreciate it.
Here’s where I’m coming from, Bobby. There are many films that I don’t quite get—I might not have a good understanding of the film, I might not understand why critics value the film or both. In such cases, I’d people with the knowledge and skill to understand and communicate movies can really be helpful in this regard. This help doesn’t have to come in the form of a “lesson” or a matter of winning a game. This is about understanding movies both in general and specific sense.
Now, if a critic values a film simply because the filmmaker is a critical darling or the film caters to critics, well, that, by itself, is pretty meaningless to me—i.e., it doesn’t help me understand the film or understand why the film is either good or bad. To me, helping viewers understand a film, pointing them to deserving films or helping them avoid bad ones—with thoughtful, substantive explanations—is the primary value of critics—at least for me.
The only people who care what critics think are people who already appreciate art.
I can’t think of any better reason that promoting high art is more important than championing popular art than ‘I like high art better’.
I learned way more about high art from Mubi than I did from film critics.
And I don’t understand what you’re saying about people being unable to explain why they like Tree Of Life. Several people on Mubi have given their reasons in detail. Is it that you just don’t accept the reasons they give?
“critic made some allusion to the deeper meaning of the film, but then never really explained what he meant or made a case for it. That’s what I’m talking about.”
Not everything is paraphrasable, though—fact of art.
“unable to explain why they like Tree Of Life”
Ah, but he didn’t say he didn’t understand why they liked it, he said he didn’t find a clear explanation of what it meant and what made it good. These are not synonymous terms in Jazz’s schema.
@Jirin
The only people who care what critics think are people who already appreciate art.
That’s becoming truer every day I suspect, but I don’t think it was always the case. Look at Siskel and Ebert. Was their popularity come from only those who really appreciated art? I don’t think so. Also, I don’t think newspapers would pay critics if what you said was true.
I can’t think of any better reason that promoting high art is more important than championing popular art than ‘I like high art better.
First of all, I want to be clear that I believe great art can come out of popular artforms. OK? With that said, some art needs champions because it isn’t as accessible or immediately attractive to the masses. Hitchcock may be a great filmmaker, and he doesn’t necessarily need champions—in terms to gaining a wide audience, (On the other hand, he seemed to need champions in order to receive greater status and appreciation as a serious artist—another valuable role critics can play.), but someone like Tarkovsky would. A lot of people would need help, not only making the effort to see the his films, but appreciating them as well.
Matt said, Ah, but he didn’t say he didn’t understand why they liked it, he said he didn’t find a clear explanation of what it meant and what made it good. These are not synonymous terms in Jazz’s schema.
Yeah, he’s right. To be honest, my memory of the posts on the film aren’t entirely clear. I know Matt and others did try to get at what the film was about and why it was good or not in relation to that, so maybe that’s not the best example. But, yes, I don’t think telling why you liked or disliked a film—no matter how detailed—is necessarily the same thing as getting at what the film is really about and making a case for why it succeeded or failed in reaching its objectives.
@Matt
Not everything is paraphrasable, though—fact of art.
I agree—and I tried to acknowledge that the review format isn’t conducive to the explanation I’m looking for. But an internet forum doesn’t have the same limitations. I also think that critics can and should find other formats to offer this type of explanation. To me, it’s a big problem. When critics praise a foreign or independent film that mainstream viewers wouldn’t normally see or have trouble appreciating, if they take the time to see the film, but still don’t understand it, there should be some clear and compelling case for the film. This makes the critics more valuable and credible and maybe cause mainstream viewers to rethink the way they see and understand films. Without these types of explanations, I fear that they will not only remain indifferent, but they might feel a bit cynical towards these movies.
If you want to have an intersubjective discussion of Tree Of Life, start a thread for it and I’ll post. ;)
But I hold to the position that such a process is just replacing one subjective criteria for another more sneaky one.
Critics can influence people, but only people who wish to be influenced. I guess I think promoting movies you think are great falls more under the category of a profession than a holy mission to protect art.
“there should be some clear and compelling case for the film.”
What . . . like Cliffs Notes? This is getting way OT, but . . .
See, regardless of what you want to call your interpretive process, you still sound very objective there to me, like there’s a single correct reading the can be gotten at directly.
An old mentor of my used to say that for him, writing started with something that could not be said, and what you did during the writing process was try to come as close to saying what can’t be said. He wasn’t talking about describing works of art, but to me a similar thing is going on when you do write about art.
Here’s the thing though, you can borrow tools, you can buy tools, you can steal tools, you can use tools you have to make new, better tools, but at the end of the day, when it comes to interpretations, you still have to build your own with whatever’s in the toolbox. Otherwise you’re never going to find prefab interpretations that “feel” right, because they’re not going to be based of the same fundamental ontological encounter (you vs. artwork, mano-a-mano).
An old mentor of my used to say that for him, writing started with something that could not be said, and what you did during the writing process was try to come as close to saying what can’t be said.
This really sounds like a creative exercise, much in the way that an artist tries to grasp something they perceive and/or feel and articulate it, even though it is difficult to articulate… and uses the tools available to them to do so.
@Jirin
Here’s the thread (starting on page 9). The conversation sprawls all over the place, but I think we do try to get at what the film is about and whether it succeeds at this. (Look for Matt’s comments about the transhistorical quality of the film.)
Critics can influence people, but only people who wish to be influenced. I guess I think promoting movies you think are great falls more under the category of a profession than a holy mission to protect art.
Well, I think there’s quite a bit of people (read: not just cinephiles or art lovers) that are curious and willing to learn.
I also don’t think the critic’s job is simply to promote great movies.
@Matt
What . . . like Cliffs Notes?
Well, I can’t remember how deeply Cliff Notes goes into the novel, but I just want an explanation of what the film was really about and why it was good or not. I’m not thinking of more straightforward films like Raiders of the Lost Ark (although explanations of these films are fine, too), but I’m mostly thinking of films that demand that readers interpret them—films like Cronenberg’s Crash, Movern Callar, Werckmeister Harmonies, The Flight of the Red Balloon, etc. I can understand if people come of these films confused and dismiss them as nonsense. Here’s where critics who think these films are really need to come in and assist. And if they can clearly show how these films are meaningful and good works of art, maybe people will have a higher regard for critics as well rethink their understanding and approach to films.
See, regardless of what you want to call your interpretive process, you still sound very objective there to me, like there’s a single correct reading the can be gotten at directly.
I don’t mean it that way. Do you remember when you argued about what Se7en was about? We both had very different readings of the film. I strongly disagreed with your reading, but I certainly didn’t feel like there is a single “correct” reading. The thing is, I felt like I really understood the film—or at least I found a reading that really fit—so I felt pretty confident and passionate about my reading. I’m pretty sure almost everyone here has at least one or two films like that. When they offer their interpretation, they may feel so confident that it sounds like they believe their reading is the correct one. But that’s not necessarily the case. Their reading isn’t necessarily the “correct” one, but if they really do understand the film well, they can build a strong case for what the film is about and why it worked or not. Again, I may not agree, but this is what I’m looking for.
An old mentor of my used to say that for him, writing started with something that could not be said, and what you did during the writing process was try to come as close to saying what can’t be said. He wasn’t talking about describing works of art, but to me a similar thing is going on when you do write about art.
To be clear, I don’t think the type of interpretation I’m talking about can fully capture the work. Identifying what a film is about and whether it succeeds at this aren’t the total experience of the film. I think of it as the key that unlocks the treasure chest. The treasure is what the person experiences from the film, and the interpretation helps the person get to that experience.
Here’s the thing though, you can borrow tools, you can buy tools, you can steal tools, you can use tools you have to make new, better tools, but at the end of the day, when it comes to interpretations, you still have to build your own with whatever’s in the toolbox.
I can agree with that. But surely you’re not saying that other people’s interpretations can’t be really helpful; that other people can’t point out the tools that are available and help you use them effectively, right?
Cliff Notes don’t get deeply into anything, Jazz. It’s what students use when they don’t read they work for their class, to give basic plot outlines, etc. It isn’t a substitute for the work, just a way to “fake it” under the gun. :)
the work
Damn this inability to edit one’s post…
No matter how intersubjective you try to get though, you’re still applying a prescriptive view of films, because you’re requiring a concept of ‘aboutness’ which in movies like Tree Of Life is harder to define and less important.
Most films are what I might call ‘Extraverted’, they project an idea out to the audience. Tree Of Life is more of an introverted film, it invites the audience in. That makes it hard to talk about ‘aboutness’ because the aboutness is supplied by the viewer, and that makes it resist your paradigm of intersubjective discussion.
I think I just filled out somebody’s Mubi bingo card.
@Odi
It’s what students use when they don’t read they work for their class, to give basic plot outlines, etc.
Oh, I was one of them. But I just don’t remember how deep they were.
@Jirin
No matter how intersubjective you try to get though, you’re still applying a prescriptive view of films, because you’re requiring a concept of ‘aboutness’ which in movies like Tree Of Life is harder to define and less important.
Are you objecting to using “aboutness” as a prescriptively or that using this approach on some films are too difficult? Or both?
Tree Of Life is more of an introverted film, it invites the audience in. That makes it hard to talk about ‘aboutness’ because the aboutness is supplied by the viewer, and that makes it resist your paradigm of intersubjective discussion.
The viewer has to construct an interpretation of the film’s aboutness, but the primary materials for this are the film itself. The more examples from the film, the better. Also, the way the viewer uses and “builds” her interpretation matters. If the interpretation of the film’s aboutness uses a lot of examples from the film and uses them in a reasonable and logical way, then that interpretation can fit in the intersubjective paradigm.
Jazz — for shame! lol
“this is what I’m looking for.”
Gotcha.
“To be clear, I don’t think the type of interpretation I’m talking about can fully capture the work. Identifying what a film is about and whether it succeeds at this aren’t the total experience of the film. I think of it as the key that unlocks the treasure chest. The treasure is what the person experiences from the film, and the interpretation helps the person get to that experience.”
Right . . .OK. So, I’m sort of lost as to what question this line of discussion was leading from. Is the question why don’t people offer more full-fledged (meaning whole-film inclusive, coherent to others) readings of films here?
In my opinion, one of the major goals of Tree Of Life is to disorient you. Images come at the screen too fast to logically process so all you can do is interpret them emotionally. The images are sensory-rich, inviting, and evoke emotions of smallness and helplessness. In this regard I think the film was extremely successful.
_ Jazz — for shame! lol_
Haha. Well, I’ve tried to make up for this after high school. Hopefully, this will be adequate penance. :)
@Matt
Is the question why don’t people offer more full-fledged (meaning whole-film inclusive, coherent to others) readings of films here?
Yeah, in a way. I don’t mean that someone has to write a five page reading of a film, but I would think a full-fledged reading of the film should come out of a discussion. It’s like if I saw you in person and said, “Hey, I don’t understand The House is Black or why people think it’s so great.” And then you begin to explain the film to me. See what I mean? I’m a little surprised that this type of discussion isn’t more common or easier to find (on the net).
Now, if critics could provide this type of service, in some format, I think that would be great.
I think I just filled out somebody’s Mubi bingo card.
LOL!! The funniest comment of the week…
Anyway, I’m just gonna rephrase what other people have said and that’s that art is always a subjective experience. I feel like it would be pretty annoying if critics were always saying what the meaning of a film is. For one, that’s kind of presumptuous, and I feel like it might discourage people from bringing their own interpretations to a film! I think that the way it is now, where critics talk about what they thought of a film and whether they thought it was successful or not is pretty good. They don’t give point-by-point descriptions of what the film’s “meaning” is, but I think that they do give an interpretation of the film by describing their emotional reactions to it. Plus, there’s the fact that they don’t want to give away any spoilers, so that would make it pretty hard for any film critic to give any kind of super in-depth analysis.
But, I don’t really see why you don’t think that Mubi is a good place to get “meanings” of films. Yeah, even here you can’t really get a point-by-point summary of a film’s meaning either, but I love being able to read a variety of people’s reactions to it, and I think that’s where the meaning is!
I don’t read many critics, but I do read their wikipedia articles! This is from Ray Carney’s “He feels that symbolism is a ‘high school’ understanding of art, and that this kind of decoder ring approach is in place because it’s easier to grasp and makes those that teach feel more important and esoteric.” And I agree with that. There’s nothing I hate more than when I see a film I really like and go online to see people dissecting it and saying “oh, well this means that, and that represents this, and he’s trying to say that!” That kind of approach ruins the whole subjective, personal experience of watching a film, and, IMO, demeans the artist’s accomplishment. Great art shouldn’t be “interpreted…” just enjoyed.
Brad S.
>>At the very least, they shouldn’t pretend that differences between good art and bad art don’t exist.<<
If that’s what they’re pretending, they are certainly demonstrating the difference between good and bad critics.
>>critics can offer interpretations of difficult films—interpretations that both help viewers understand the film and understand why it’s so great.<<
Spot on! This is what I seek more than anything else from critics.