Being Your Own Film Critic
How does film criticism differ from just having an opinion of a movie?
Film criticism differs from having just an opinion about a movie because you're looking for specific things. You're looking at the technical aspects of the movie. You're looking at the cinematography as a film critic. You're looking at the editing. You're looking at how this movie is an aesthetic, cohesive experience that resonates on a deeper level in your average moviegoer who might just want to be entertained. You're noticing a script and a screenplay as a film critic. Is there practical dialogue? Does the movie move the action forward? Does it have unexpected twists? It doesn't have to adhere to the same three-act structure all the time, but it has to be a satisfying movie. I think a film critic is somebody who really knows their trade, and who is really looking at a movie with a fine-tooth comb in a way an audience member isn't.
What does a critic look for when he is reviewing a film?
A film critic is looking for a move that's not like every other movie. If there are 3 comic book movies, they're looking for one that stands out: one that speaks to society's outcasts, one that has a witty sense of humor, one that has a different take. They're not going to just unequivocally love all genre movies. They're looking for the movie in that genre that stands out.
How does a film critic evaluate plot and story?
The way a film critic evaluates plot in a movie is, in things like if they can predict everything that's going to happen, then they are going to have a problem with the movie. I think some filmmakers have really taken that into consideration. You think of a movie like "Usual Suspects," and of a movie like "Momento," which kind of flips the plot on it's head, and does things you don't see coming. Those are good examples of movies that satisfy critics. But by and large, often a movies tries to do a "switch-a-roo" and it really backfires. So I think film critics are looking for a plot with some unexpected twists, some unexpected dimensions and something that's not so predictable. They have to see a lot of movies.
How does a film critic evaluate character?
I think a film critic evaluates character by the way an audience does. A really good movie character is somebody that is flawed and real and interesting and has dimension. I think about James L. Brooks' movies, for instance: he always has a given character in his movies like "Broadcast News" or "Terms of Endearment," where a character contradicts themselves, where a character is a person and they're not infallible: they're like everybody. That character could be Spiderman, or that could be the character that Shirley MacLaine plays in "Terms of Endearment" - they're characters that keep film critics guessing; characters with some duality.
How does a film critic evaluate a film's directing?
It's hard to say what makes for good direction in a movie. You know, there are certain famous film makers like, for instance: John Cassavetes, where the camera is almost invisible. It's really long takes of people in grueling situations, but he's a good director because he observes the minutiae of human nature. Then there's a director like a Martin Scorcese who has such technical virtuosity, who can do a 5 minute single take steady cam shot of Ray Liotta going through the back door of an Italian restaurant in Goodfellas, and it's a wonderful, wonderful scene, because it doesn't detract from the movie. Yes it's stylish, yes it seems like a bit of a stunt, but it's perfect for that movie, for the flash and the grandeur of that movie. So there's different ways to notice good direction. Sometimes a good director is really unobtrusive, and sometimes they have a really epic framing, it just depends on the director. But with a good director it should be seamless; even if that sequence stands apart, it really reflects what's good about the movie as a whole.
How does a film critic evaluate a film's acting?
It's hard to say how a film critic evaluates acting in a move. Film acting is very different to stage acting. Film acting is a lot more subtle: it's really close up and film critics are looking for people who are acting without trying. You're not looking for impersonation, you're looking for somebody who really embodies a character. In a movie like 'Ray', for instance, you see Jamie Foxx inhabit Ray Charles. That's not mimicry, that's like a note-perfect performance. That's a really good example, actually, where people play someone famous, and they do it so incredibly well so that it almost shifts so the real person and who they're playing on film are imperceptible. Helen Mirren in The Queen is another example of good film acting. There isn't a false note there. It's not like I've spent time with the Queen; I wouldn't know what she's really like, but you get a sense from this performance, this less-is-more style that you're watching acting greatness. Film actors are intuitive in front of a camera. I think it's a unique skill set.
How does a film critic evaluate a film's cinematography?
A film critic evaluates a film's cinematography similar to how a filmmaker would evaluate any aspect of a movie. Cinematography really differs in different movies. Sometimes it's incredibly unobtrusive, sometimes there's a technical quality that's just mesmerizing. I think the most famous cinematographer that we have is probably Terrence Malick who directs and does his own cinematography. His movies look like Andrew Wyeth paintings. If you've ever seen Days of Heaven if you've ever seen Bad Lands or The New World. His movies are painterly; they're gorgeous, they're like brushstrokes. And that sets him apart. There's a wonderful film about cinematography called Visions of Light that gets into the aspects of cinematography.
How does a film critic evaluate a film's editing?
Editing is a particularly hard thing to evaluate. Editing is often invisible. A great example of editing is 'The Godfather'. The cross-cutting between the big execution style machine-gunning with the birth of Michael Corleone's baby, for example. I think that's what it was. That's a great example of editing: a really good cross-cutting for tension. I think a lot of movies are criticized today for being too edited, too choppy. You can't tell what the hell is going on. Again, the editing should be seamless; it should be an integral part of the movie, and not something too showy.
What's the secret to sounding knowledgeable when talking about film?
The secret to sounding knowledgeable when talking about film is having a sense of film history. It's having read film critics; it's having seen films. Sounding knowledgeable about films is also having a sense of the world and history and what you're writing about. You have to know your subject.
