FSM # 21: Are we too critical?
- This topic has 20 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 3 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’ve been inside academia for more than half a decade now. One of the greatest paroles that I’ve been taught, and one of which we are constantly reminded, is the parole of CRITICISM. “Always be critical to every text you encounter (wide definition of “texts”, encompassing TV, film etc.)!” is a frequent saying within these circles.
One would think, then, that I would be a pretty narrowminded fellow by now, preferring the intricate arthouse films over shallow Hollywood schmalz. One would think that my “expanded” horizons would result in an overt critism against everyone and everything.
This is not the case. Quite the contrary, I find myself enjoying MORE genres and styles than earlier, and not less (I’m sure people here have noticed that I – like Jeron of mm.com – DEFEND almost all scores and composers, at least 90% of the time, and only rarely get the chance to ATTACK something). I can find qualities in ARMAGEDDON as I can find qualities in Tarkovsky’s STALKER. Why is this? Does it mean that my taste has deteriorated?
No, I think academia has inadvertantly provided me with the necessary means to defend almost everything, as long as I defend that “everything” with solid arguments. I could go on a limb and mention qualities with the aforementioned ARMAGEDDON, but I won’t here.
The core of the matter is to enjoy/analyze – in our case films and film music – on their OWN terms, i.e. ARMAGEDDON as popcorn, STALKER as russian caviar or whatever. It won’t get you anywhere to use the same artistic criteria for both movies.
Yes, I think we (referring not only to you messageboarders, but the public in general) ARE being too hard on several (recent) films and scores. Remember, no one sets out to make a bad film or a bad score. They only set out with different goals of achievement in mind (Woody Allen wants to paint situations, Spielberg wants to tell a story, Jan de Bont wants to visually dazzle) , and we should take that into account when we senselessly bash someone or something. A text should be made to speak for itself and judged thereafter, I agree. But the text is in all cases coloured by the intention of the creator.
What do you think?
He, he. This is from a lifetime ago. I think if you look beyond some of the prose in that 26-year-old post above, the gist of it still remains – do you evaluate things on their own terms?
I think I agree with my 22-year-old self a bit here.
Yes, I think that art should be evaluated on its own terms, of course. I don’t gage a low-budget horror movie of a first time director against Lawrence of Arabia. I take things for what they are.
It should be noted though that the term “critical” in Academia, the way you mentioned it (“always be critical to every text you encounter”) does not mean or imply to be critical of something, two very different things. In the context of “be critical to every text”), “critical” means basically just to actively analyze and evaluate information, books, art, movies etc. yourself, rather than just passively accepting it or accepting what someone else wrote or thought or said about it.To add to your point, Thor, in my view, when I express my dislike on something it wouldn’t necessarily To be taken as criticism.
There is a difference between saying, “I totally dislike that movie” or “This movie is bad”. The second sentence is criticism, the first one just a personal reaction to the work.
I also think, a work of media should be evaluated on its own terms. But I am well aware that usually my ideas of the creator’s intentions are insinuations on my side. I am not interviewing those people.
But I can fully believe, the creator (composer/director) completely managed to fulfill his ambitions and meet his or her own objectives, still I strongly dislike the work.One of the first things you learn in art schools and academies is that it is impossible to please everyone. Often artist are their own hardest critics and consider older works unperfect and only steps on the way. Prominent example is/was Williams blocking some releases in the past. A common saying is that the current work is always the favorite because it is the current state of the artist.
Of course mainstream movie making is often more business than actual art so it may be that even the director is not satisfied with his work. Alan Smithee does exist for a reason :-). And how many actors said they played in some of their movies because they payed the bills, too.
But to the inital question I probably tend to be too forgiving often 😉
I’m pretty sure that the original topic was created because I witnessed a lot of criticism that was NOT taken on its own terms. And it’s something I see today as well. People evaluating Hans Zimmer scores by the criteria of classical orchestral music, for example. Which would be akin to evaluating Bob Dylan by how he well he writes techno music. Or somehow conflating criteria used to evaluate a Hollywood action adventure blockbuster with ones you use for European arthouse films.
I see it all the time, all these years later (on messageboards like FSM and JWFAN, for example), so the frustration of that original post is very much relevant still.
People evaluating Hans Zimmer scores by the criteria of classical orchestral music, for example.
Nah. By my experience it is rather the other way around. Rarely I experience Zimmer fans praising how he creatively uses the symphony orchestra as another sound design tool besides his computers. More often enough he gets praised by them as a new Mozart or Beethoven or John Williams. And such statements hurt my soul.
And besides, why use a symphony orchestra in the first place? It is a little like knocking in nails with a Stradivari. Yes, that might work. But the one group might claim, rather stick to the hammer, and others might respond to those claiming that this was the best violin performance since Paganini, that some have more conservative ideas of using that instrument.
Nah. By my experience it is rather the other way around. Rarely I experience Zimmer fans praising how he creatively uses the symphony orchestra as another sound design tool besides his computers. More often enough he gets praised by them as a new Mozart or Beethoven or John Williams. And such statements hurt my soul.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen that in my 30+ years online, so our experience differs radically. Most of the criticism I’ve seen comes from reactionary, orchestra-biased people who can’t see that Zimmer does things differently. Most of the time, when he uses orchestra, he uses it as colourization, not as an end to itself. There are exceptions, but that’s the gist of it. But for some reason, critics evaluate it with the same criteria one uses for John Williams. It’s ridiculous.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen that in my 30+ years online, so our experience differs radically.
You find those painful comments often in Facebook film music fan groups.
But for some reason, critics evaluate it with the same criteria one uses for John Williams. It’s ridiculous.
Maybe the same reason why there are these The Music World of John Williams and Hans Zimmer concerts.
You find those painful comments often in Facebook film music fan groups.
Ah, explains why I haven’t seen it. I don’t discuss on Facebook.
Maybe the same reason why there are these The Music World of John Williams and Hans Zimmer concerts.
Yeah, those “versus” concerts are silly.
I guess film composer fans are not that much different than teenage pop star fans who file every critism of their heros as direct personal insult.
Yeah, those “versus” concerts are silly.
These concert are usually “and” concert advertised at least over here and just use (exploit) the general popularity of both film composers in one go.
Which would be akin to evaluating Bob Dylan by how he well he writes techno music.
Someone “writes” techno music? 😉 Seriously I get what you mean.
A second point of that old post was to embrace film (and film music) as an artform, no matter which form it takes. I’ve never understood those who who only operate within a limited frame of reference. The world would be so much poorer if we didn’t have Hollywood blockbusters. It would also be poorer if we didn’t have independent cinema. I love the richness of it all — one day be absorbed in the world of Cameron’s AVATAR, the second day be absorbed in the world of Angelopoulos’ ETERNITY AND A DAY. I wouldn’t be without either of them.
Same for film music. To one day be swept away by Huppertz’ silent film score classic METROPOLIS, then go all deconstructionist in Dudamel’s jazzy PIERROT LE FOU, then pump up the adrenaline in Zimmer’s THE ROCK etc. etc.
A critic would respond to this by saying “Oh, so you like everything, eh? You have no discerning taste?”. No, I don’t think this openness to the artform necessarily means that you lose your critical sense. It can easily be employed to discern quality within each artistic expression.
It’s more about attitude, really.
A critic would respond to this by saying “Oh, so you like everything, eh? You have no discerning taste?”. No, I don’t think this openness to the artform necessarily means that you lose your critical sense. It can easily be employed to discern quality within each artistic expression.
It’s more about attitude, really.
But, I mean you are a professional critic, Thor. And I as an amateur would think, being a critic should not be so much about taste. Of course a critic can state his or her opinion. But opinioniest reviews are usually rather boring and not very informative. In that sense I am on your side. A review should tell me more than if a movie a score or a book fits the critic’s brillant taste or not.
Totally agreed, and that’s my goal as a critic as well. Provide context, but also have opinions. It’s an exercise in balance.
People evaluating Hans Zimmer scores by the criteria of classical orchestral music, for example. Which would be akin to evaluating Bob Dylan by how he well he writes techno music.
Not quite… I mean, both Hans Zimmer and Miklós Rózsa compose(d) film scores, so is perfectly legitimate to compare the two in that function. Obviously, film music does not have to be “classical orchestral” music, it can be jazz or rock or pop, but you can compare how effective you find one or the other approach for a certain movie.
A review should tell me more than if a movie a score or a book fits the critic’s brillant taste or not.
Very true. It’s ridiculous how many people seemingly feel called to write a review about a movie they have seen (on Streaming/Letterbox/Internet… etc.), but don’t go beyond “I didn’t like it” or “great” or “it sucked” or “not bad”.
It’s really not interesting that a certain reviewer likes or dislikes something, but why. A good reviewer enables me to find out whether I might like something, regardless of whether I agree with the review. I always thought Siskel & Ebert were excellent reviewers, after they discussed a movie, I had a pretty good idea whether it might be worth for me to spend my dollars and go see it, regardless of whether I agree with them. Same with Dave Hurwitz and Alex Ross, I consider both of these excellent reviewers of classical music, regardless of whether I agree with them.A good reviewer should have:
1. A real and deep general passion for the subject
There’s no point if the reviewer has not connection to what it is that he (or she of course) is reviewing. So a film critic should have a broad and wide understanding and love for movies, a classical music critic a broad and wide love for classical music, etc…2. A broad knowledge of the subject
That’s the next thing: experience. You can’t really be taken seriously as a reviewer unless you really know your subject. You should be able to position what it is that you review int the context of its broader field.3. The ability to communicate well
It must be clear what it is that you say. So experience and knowledge alone isn’t enough, you must also be able to get your point across. A good reviewer is “understood”. A good reviewer communicates in an entertaining way (good reviews should be enjoyable to read/watch/listen to etc.), but is also precise.So if a reviewer has these three, I tend to consider the reviewer good.
There’s a bonus point when I consider a reviewer “great”, but that one is subjective, so it gets an extra section. That is
4. Do I agree with the reviewer
I don’t mean always, all the time, on everything. Obviously not. But sure, I can relate better to a reviewer if I at least by and large consider many of his or her reviews valid myself in some way. What good does it do if a reviewer may fit all what I list from 1-3, yet if I almost always disagree with the reviews themselves, it probably means the reviewer and I lack some common ground elsewhere.
On the other hand, when I do think I share a lot the reviewer’s opinion, it can then be interesting to find the reviews where one differs, and perhaps see why the perspective is different here. A great reviewer may make me reconsider an opinion I have, enlighten me in some way so I might give something another shot. (Or vice versa, theoretically.)Yes, those are definitely things to consider. And you don’t really have to be a professional critic either. I think everyone who evaluates art, on any level, should keep those things in mind. Also the criteria we talked about in this thread. It’s all part of the tool box required to evaluate anything meaningfully.
An interesting thing I’ve noticed as I’ve grown older, and in my profession as a film critic, is that I feel less and less for writing slaughters of films (that used to be fun!), and less and less mediocre films. At this stage in my life, I feel more like writing about things I really like. So whatever feelings I had when I first posted this topic, 26 years ago, is even stronger now. Anyone else feel the same way? It’s more fun lauding than slaughtering?
Well, I became more and more forgiving about styles in music in general. Accepting more things I never liked before and in the early days accepting that some scores can be good without always re-inventing the wheel in an earth changing way.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.