Well, here it is. Nobody wanted it, and I didn’t plan on writing this post at all, but this is the second part of my original ramble which was posted a little over three months ago. This “sequel” of sorts came about in the light of my recent observations as well as encouragement from Rhythm Zaveri, a member of the admin panel of the Asian Cinema Enthusiastic group and a true passionate of Asian movies (you can check out the abundance of his reviews right here). Originally, I wanted to make this post directly on the facebook group, but I thought it would be too general in view of the guidelines, so I am sharing this text on the blog.
Contrary to the first part of my editorial, where I talked about the challenges of writing, I would like to focus in the herein piece on the follies of film criticism. It all stemmed from a loose conversation I had at work when I was chatting with a fellow teacher and the conversation turned to foreign languages. She said that in order to use the foreign language one has to continuously repeat the grammar and vocab over and over again, so as not to forget all that jazz. I disagreed and replied that the usage of foreign language is not about mindless repetition, but active practice. Then, I provided the example of my blog which I run in English, even though I am not a native speaker of that language. However, writing in English allows me to actively engage with the language on a nearly daily basis.
The fellow teacher nodded trying to process what I said to her and all of a sudden blurted out, “You write reviews, so you’re like a movie critic, right?”
Contrary to the first part of my editorial, where I talked about the challenges of writing, I would like to focus in the herein piece on the follies of film criticism. It all stemmed from a loose conversation I had at work when I was chatting with a fellow teacher and the conversation turned to foreign languages. She said that in order to use the foreign language one has to continuously repeat the grammar and vocab over and over again, so as not to forget all that jazz. I disagreed and replied that the usage of foreign language is not about mindless repetition, but active practice. Then, I provided the example of my blog which I run in English, even though I am not a native speaker of that language. However, writing in English allows me to actively engage with the language on a nearly daily basis.
The fellow teacher nodded trying to process what I said to her and all of a sudden blurted out, “You write reviews, so you’re like a movie critic, right?”
What does it mean to be a film critic, anyway? We live in the times when film criticism is already a branch of academia with its rich toolkit of deconstructive approaches (formalism, structuralism, psychoanalysis, etc.). Back in the old days, in the era of VHS, I was under the impression that a film critic is basically a journalist who works for a magazine, writes reviews, and even provides a recommendation tagline that is used on the front cover of a film. In fact, this is how the job originated in the United States, but throughout the decades it has gained a more refined connotation. The conventional critic stopped perceiving himself (or herself) as an ordinary writer and transformed into a self-proclaimed voice that defines the cultural taste of the masses. In my opinion, this transformation took centerstage in the 1990s with the increasing availability of movie magazines outside of the United States and the advent of special talk shows featuring either movie experts (see Alex Cox) or movie critics (see Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel).
If you want to become a professional film critic, you need to be well-versed in film studies and film history in general. You need to go deeper, beyond the iceberg of Julia Kristeva’s intertextuality, straight down the rabbit hole of the language of film. It is a very hard thing to do but not impossible. Most importantly, the real film critic is not a nitpicker, but a person who tries to view the film objectively as a work of art in spite of the fact that the very act of providing your opinion is subjective indeed. The best examples of film critics in my book who fulfil the abovementioned criteria are Mark Kermode, Tomasz Raczek, and Peter Travers.
Such an individual followed me out of the blue on social media some time ago. I just shook my head in pity and made a look like The Third World Skeptical Kid when I flicked through that person’s profile. The person in question is roughly the same age as I am, got their PhD in culture studies (mine was in literary studies), appeared on a podcast (same as me), runs a SNS page with reviews (I run my blog), but he desperately stylises himself to be a film critic by advertising himself as team member of a festival event and by writing pompous, and slightly pretentious stuff on Asian movies.
I hope that I managed to get my message across. If not, then I invite you to read the conclusion of the first past of my editorial which gives you the whole thing in a nutshell. We are all on our personal cinema journeys, and I wish you best of luck with yours. Thank you for reading.
As Tears Go By (1988),
The Naked Director (2019),
Fireworks (1997),
Beloved (2022),
Tokusatsu Gagaga (2019),
A Confucian Confusion (1994),
As Tears Go By (1988),
«Enjoyed this post? Never miss out on future posts by following us»
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment moderation is switched on due to recent spam postings.