Can I Do Film Criticism?

Hey! The numbers in the date are the same forwards and backwards!

I am getting random body aches sometimes, which is worrisome. Other than that, though, I’m doing okay. Presently reading Breath of the Dragon by Shannon Lee and Fonda Lee (who are not related, I don’t think), and almost done with season one of The Recruit. I am trying to clean out the Frostback Basin in Dragon Age: Inquisition, and then I should be able to race towards the endgame.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade might be coming back to theaters for Father’s Day? Look out for that.

Can I Do Film Criticism?

Earlier this month, I talked about how I went down some Star Wars fandom rabbit holes in regards to the Discourse on the Prequel Trilogy. One point of discussion I saw come up in one of the videos I came across was that a lot of the bad faith criticism of the Prequels is by people who, despite claiming themselves to be movie buffs on YouTube, don’t actually know anything about film. 

For instance, there’s a clip of one YouTube movie reviewer who complains about how the podrace scene in Phantom Menace is so repetitive because almost all of the shots show the podracers zooming from left to right, missing entirely that this is how the 180-degree rule works–keep movement across the screen consistent between shots to help the audience keep track of things. And maybe you didn’t know that rule, or were even aware of it, but if you stopped and thought about it, you would understand why a racing scene would work that way. The famous chariot race in Ben-Hur follows the same rule.

There were also numerous instances of pointing out visual homages to different movies in the Prequel Trilogy, or how the symbolism of a scene worked–such as the factory scene of Attack of the Clones shows Anakin going into a machine world in a disastrous attempt to save Padme, while also foreshadowing the loss of his hand. Most of them are things I did not catch ever watching the movies. At a few examples in this video, I will admit that my first thought was, “That’s BS!” but look, George Lucas is a film buff, especially when it comes to certain genres, like Westerns. I think it’s fair to say that it’s intentional.

And I do sort of get it; look, once again, Ambition =/= Achievement, so what was meant to be conveyed doesn’t excuse what is conveyed. For a personal example, it really bothered me that a lot of the criticism around Wonder Woman 1984 missed that so much of it, including Diana having to decide between her powers and happiness with someone she loves, is a purposeful homage to Superman II. That doesn’t make WW1984 as good as that movie, though, or excuse it from criticism.

The point that the man making this Prequel criticism video was explaining was that a lot of people who criticize the Prequels, and really populate film criticism spheres on YouTube, don’t actually know much about filmmaking or movie history while they pose as people who are deeply literate in the medium. I sat there thinking then, “Wait, if all of this is obvious to someone who understands film history, do I have anything worthwhile to contribute to this? Can I talk about film at all, since I definitely don’t know that much about film history and the industry?”

Well, probably not. I mean, I’m pretty useless for most things and my opinion counts for very little in the scheme of life. Aside from that, though…

Yeah, kind of? Look, you cannot expect everyone who watches Star Wars to have a degree in filmmaking, right? And Lucas knew this. The idea that these are movies made for kids is brought up in this guy’s video, too, so he knows this. Whether you liked a movie or not shouldn’t be dependent on whether or not you understood every reference that the director was trying to make in filming it. A piece of art can be heavily referential and still be really good or bad on its own merits, sometimes because of those references.

Imagine, if you will, that you said you like John Williams’s score to A New Hope, and the person you’re talking to insists that you don’t know what you’re talking about because you haven’t acknowledged his overt references to Holst’s The Planets.

The point of a reviewer is not to know everything about a movie. I get that it’s annoying when you know something a critic does not, and you think it would affect the review of the film. That said, the point of a reviewer is to look at a piece of art and say, “Do I think this is well-made? Did I enjoy my experience with this art?” 

And that is what I try to do when I review or talk about movies. That doesn’t mean that I’m good at it–I’m bad at most things, really–but I am not trying to explain the history of film when I review movies, nor do I try to do the same with any other medium. If something doesn’t work for me, it doesn’t matter whether I understand what it’s trying to do or reference.  What matters is if I enjoyed it, and if I think it’s worth telling other people if I enjoyed it or not. Which is fairly simple and straightforward, but there you go. You don’t need a degree to be a reviewer.

Now, yes, if you want to do in-depth analysis, then you should probably be equipped to deal with that, especially if you’re going to attempt to establish yourself as an authority on a topic. Just expressing if you think something is good or not, though? No, just do your thing. Talk about it. It’s fine.

—