Haven't seen this in years!
Monday, 12 April 2010
What is the actual greatest thing of all time?
The answer is, of course, the opening credits of BAYWATCH.
Haven't seen this in years!
Haven't seen this in years!
Sunday, 11 April 2010
Film Critics Suck.
Film critics suck. I think the least qualified person to review a film is a film critic. Some grumpy, middle aged man who sits probably somewhere around two thirds back in the cinema and close to the isle. When I pick up the newspapers I see devastation, depression and the feeling that life is no longer worth living - and this is from the film reviews section alone. At that point, I normally go to the front page for some lighter disasters.
Films are an art, a source of entertainment. They either make you feel fulfilled, or they don't. I think it's great that people have opinions, and share them - but the authoritative tone of most 'professional' reviews is ridiculous. There has been a lot of talk recently about the future of film criticism, for example this New York Times article and this article in the UK's Guardian, the latter article being full of intellectual pretension, which is exactly the problem. Maybe it's time for a revolution. My idea for the revolution is this: no more film critics.
An interesting fact: When you are making a film; say you're making a two minute short film about bacon; and you're filming it in your house. As soon as you finish it - there'll be some friend, or a neighbour, or some guy called bill_horny86 from Toronto, who will tell you it sucks. And they'll do it in such an expertly authoritative way, you'll believe them. You'll feel crap about your work. All because somebody who can't do what you do shit all over it. Well, this begins in grassroots, zero-budget filmmaking and it carries on up. A bunch of people put $200million together to make a movie, and one guy who writes for The Daily Mail is deemed suitable to tell a lot of readers (or not, with The Daily Mail) that it is terrible and not worth seeing.
A lot of my favorite films are the obvious ones, like Shawshank Redemption. But there are also films I love that have been trashed by the press - The Moguls, Duets, Meet Dave, Hollywood Ending, etc. Sure, you may think they suck - but that's the whole point, who is to say? Films are an art form - different people respond to different things. I think 'Beautiful Girls' is a work of art, true genius, my Brother thinks it's awful. Who is right? Who knows. Certainly, it'd be wrong for my Brother to write a review for a big publication saying "This is awful - avoid!"
It's different with blogs. With blogs - you know the writer's agenda. For example, if I was to write "Clash Of The Titans is terrible, don't watch it!" you will know it's coming from the point of view of a Billy Wilder obsessive; someone who values Chaplin smiling awkwardly at a girl more than a military plane smashing into a robot, or whatever. But with the big film critics - they talk in this God-like tone to the masses, and I think it's ridiculous.
The moment a film really gets you is when a character reacts in a way you didn't expect, and you relate in the moment to it, or it's about when a perfectly written line comes out of the mouth of a perfectly cast actor who by sheer luck was able to nail it perfectly; it's about that feeling you get when the musical score elevates you to the point where you feel you may actually be hovering. No critic can ever know when you or I are going to get those moments. And if we miss one of them because a critic said, "the film is average, give it a miss," then something is very wrong. And that's the whole point - whether a film is technically proficient or "cohesive" or whatever a writer says -- nobody can ever know when or how or where you'll respond personally to a film. Film reviews have very little use.
IDEA: I am going to start a new magazine called REVIEW REVIEW. We will review film reviews. See how they like it. We'll let you know whether a review is worth reading, or whether you should wait for the tweet.
Films are an art, a source of entertainment. They either make you feel fulfilled, or they don't. I think it's great that people have opinions, and share them - but the authoritative tone of most 'professional' reviews is ridiculous. There has been a lot of talk recently about the future of film criticism, for example this New York Times article and this article in the UK's Guardian, the latter article being full of intellectual pretension, which is exactly the problem. Maybe it's time for a revolution. My idea for the revolution is this: no more film critics.
An interesting fact: When you are making a film; say you're making a two minute short film about bacon; and you're filming it in your house. As soon as you finish it - there'll be some friend, or a neighbour, or some guy called bill_horny86 from Toronto, who will tell you it sucks. And they'll do it in such an expertly authoritative way, you'll believe them. You'll feel crap about your work. All because somebody who can't do what you do shit all over it. Well, this begins in grassroots, zero-budget filmmaking and it carries on up. A bunch of people put $200million together to make a movie, and one guy who writes for The Daily Mail is deemed suitable to tell a lot of readers (or not, with The Daily Mail) that it is terrible and not worth seeing.
A lot of my favorite films are the obvious ones, like Shawshank Redemption. But there are also films I love that have been trashed by the press - The Moguls, Duets, Meet Dave, Hollywood Ending, etc. Sure, you may think they suck - but that's the whole point, who is to say? Films are an art form - different people respond to different things. I think 'Beautiful Girls' is a work of art, true genius, my Brother thinks it's awful. Who is right? Who knows. Certainly, it'd be wrong for my Brother to write a review for a big publication saying "This is awful - avoid!"
It's different with blogs. With blogs - you know the writer's agenda. For example, if I was to write "Clash Of The Titans is terrible, don't watch it!" you will know it's coming from the point of view of a Billy Wilder obsessive; someone who values Chaplin smiling awkwardly at a girl more than a military plane smashing into a robot, or whatever. But with the big film critics - they talk in this God-like tone to the masses, and I think it's ridiculous.
The moment a film really gets you is when a character reacts in a way you didn't expect, and you relate in the moment to it, or it's about when a perfectly written line comes out of the mouth of a perfectly cast actor who by sheer luck was able to nail it perfectly; it's about that feeling you get when the musical score elevates you to the point where you feel you may actually be hovering. No critic can ever know when you or I are going to get those moments. And if we miss one of them because a critic said, "the film is average, give it a miss," then something is very wrong. And that's the whole point - whether a film is technically proficient or "cohesive" or whatever a writer says -- nobody can ever know when or how or where you'll respond personally to a film. Film reviews have very little use.
IDEA: I am going to start a new magazine called REVIEW REVIEW. We will review film reviews. See how they like it. We'll let you know whether a review is worth reading, or whether you should wait for the tweet.
Saturday, 10 April 2010
That Woman.
That woman, you know the one, the one who arrives 14 minutes into a film, sits down -- and then begins to whisper to the person next to her. Although, it's not a whisper, it's drowning out the dialogue. And you hear that horrible creepy sound of her lips from the row behind you - it's like she's trying to slurp and juice up saliva and lick her lips as she talks drivel to the friend next to her. It's anything but quiet, and it's fu*cking annoying.
Should these types of cinemagoers be dealt with by:
a) Extermination.
b) A $5000 fine.
c) Extermination and a $5000 fine.
Let me know.
Should these types of cinemagoers be dealt with by:
a) Extermination.
b) A $5000 fine.
c) Extermination and a $5000 fine.
Let me know.
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Theodore Roosevelt Quote.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
-Theodore Roosevelt.
Monday, 5 April 2010
Focusing On Writer/Directors.
I'm going to slow down posting here for the next couple of months. Rather than the usual smattering of film related articles - I am going to focus on the eight writer/director's who have influenced me the most, and write about each of them one by one.
My aim is to look closer -- why are they so great? Why does their work resonate with me so profoundly? My hope is that I'll learn a lot more about their works but also -- I'll learn a lot more about me. I'm setting a deadline - 5th June 2010, that's two months from today. Before those two months are out I will have gone back and re-discovered the back catalogues of those eight writer/director's, and have written about each of them.
The films I gravitate towards tend to be those directed by the person who wrote them. It's not an absolute rule; and originally it was always by coincidence -- but I remember many years ago looking at my favorite films and realizing they were, more often than not, by writer/director's. And then of course, it eventually began to dawn on me that it wasn't coincidence at all: I love films that have a singular voice shining through them; when one person has an idea, a vision, and is able to express it in a personal and meaningful way. Occasionally, you get a writer like Charlie Kaufmann who manages to have this influence by being a screenwriter alone - but, by and large, it's the writer/director's who are able to do something more personal, and more profound. So I want to look closer at that. Precisely, I want to look closer at the ones I love - and explore the reasons why.
My aim is to look closer -- why are they so great? Why does their work resonate with me so profoundly? My hope is that I'll learn a lot more about their works but also -- I'll learn a lot more about me. I'm setting a deadline - 5th June 2010, that's two months from today. Before those two months are out I will have gone back and re-discovered the back catalogues of those eight writer/director's, and have written about each of them.
The films I gravitate towards tend to be those directed by the person who wrote them. It's not an absolute rule; and originally it was always by coincidence -- but I remember many years ago looking at my favorite films and realizing they were, more often than not, by writer/director's. And then of course, it eventually began to dawn on me that it wasn't coincidence at all: I love films that have a singular voice shining through them; when one person has an idea, a vision, and is able to express it in a personal and meaningful way. Occasionally, you get a writer like Charlie Kaufmann who manages to have this influence by being a screenwriter alone - but, by and large, it's the writer/director's who are able to do something more personal, and more profound. So I want to look closer at that. Precisely, I want to look closer at the ones I love - and explore the reasons why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)