My Issue With Film Critics Today
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 06. 2024
- Website: www.deepfocuslens.com
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/deepfocuslens...
Follow me on instagram: / deepfocuslens
Follow me on twitter: / deepfocuslens
Like my Facebook page: / deepfocuslens
Email me: deepfocuslens@gmail.com - Krátké a kreslené filmy
The main thing I've learned from you is that I no longer care about whether somebody likes something or not; I'm now looking for skill in *articulating* and dissecting their own personal emotional response to the film. It's a rare skill, but if somebody can do that, then there's high chance I will learn something no matter what the actual opinion happens to be. Thank you.
I recently discovered this channel (LOVE) and agree with you 100% - well put.
One thing that really pisses me off is in this post-metoo era, if a film is dealing with sexual assault there will be articles written about them before they come out talking about how that's controversial and immoral. Like the new Ridley Scott film "The Last Duel" received backlash before it was even released... as if we now cannot tackle tough subjects in art anymore. What is the point of art if we can't do that?
100%
It's cool.
There's a lot of pressure on professional critics to 'prove' their progressive credentials given how the likes of MeToo, BLM, etc., have successfully politicised culture enforced by the omniscient threat of being cancelled. Also background by the hysteria over the Trump presidency. This is especially true given that many critics are "pale, male, and stale", i.e., in the most precarious (and therefore scorned) identity category according to intersectionality. Often these 'shows of alliance' takes the form of being extremely charitable to poor films that nevertheless deploy Diversity of some form or other because... must stand against racism or sexism. The logic would be that because some distasteful reactionaries hate on this or that film we must go out of our way to praise (or say nothing bad) this or that film. A good example is the Disney Star Wars trilogy. I won't mention his name but a critic I hitherto often listened to went down this road (I assume) given the Diverse casting and 'strong and powerful' female lead. These are really poor films but the critic was notably charitable despite not pulling punches with many films. This is probably also connected to the issue of access media, which I think affects youtube critics more than your traditional professional critic; the former are so desperate to retain access that they often become toxically positive often presenting themselves as superfans.
The way in which that scene was filmed hammered home it's point, it is supposed to be hard to watch. It was well done in terms of cinematography and editing. I get scoffs and head shakes when I point that out.
I like to hear others opinions of films but at the end of the day, I generally go with my own. Some folks get it twisted and let their fandom of someone else's opinion blur their own.
I couldn’t agree more! I ain’t never gon’ change my opinion of art just to fit in.
Over the past couple years that I have followed ur uploads, I have often found myself disagreeing with your views, but I think what makes a criticism valuable is not what side it takes (well kinda obvious but really not irl), but the approaches you take to reach a conclusion/opinion and insights you bring to other movie-goers. For that reason, I actually always come by to get your thoughts on movies I have watched recently. It's the relatively more methodical analysis, solid foundation knowledge on history and literature of films, and self-awareness with your bias that make me take your videos more seriously than many others. And ofc keep up the good work!
I think viewers & readers ideas of what a reviewer does has fallen out of touch, to the same extent media reviews have …. It’s best to find reviewers who are trustworthy sources, not content creators who you will always end up agreeing with, which can be rare. But the ones that are open with their bias and background and properly state the reasons for their opinion. It’s a lot better to be challenged for what you like than for people to say they like things with no meaning explanation as to why they liked it.
@@briane596able Absolutely agree!
Totally agree with your point about critics being hesitant to call out condescending tones. When you hammer the audience over the head with subtext, it is no longer subtext. There’s no artistry in that.
As far as CZcams critics go, you and RLM are the only ones I watch anymore. Thanks for having integrity all these years.
I think to add to your point CZcams has become less about individuality and more about corporations and trends. It’s called “You”Tube and yet 90% of channels in any specific genre feel the same. If we just look at the film critics on this site then we’ll see that most of them are reminiscent of Chris Stuckman, Jeremy Jahns and John Flickinger and it’s because people saw a format that worked for someone else and incorporated it into their own “borrowed success” with fake enthusiasm to boot. I think that’s one of the reasons why I enjoy your channel, because you are simply you, a unique individual who has genuine enthusiasm for this topic that I love and an articulate thought process on each film you dissect. CZcams is a copycat game and I doubt anyone can touch your content because it’s near flawless if not flawless.
What really is obnoxious is when they bombard you with promotion for their stuff. Like, can we get back to the internet being a zone of sincere expression and NOT being like traditional media where things are cynical and shallow?
I've just come across your site and it's so refreshing to hear your integrity holding out against just playing safe and agreeing with the current acquiescing crowd. If you don't believe in yourself your beliefs about other things - particularly art - are hopelessly compromised.
Hold on to your own authenticity! Will watch you again.
I think this dynamic is why I think Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo are some of my favorite film critics at the moment. I find myself agreeing with Kermode on a lot of things and I think his sensibilities are solid, but I also appreciate Simon Mayo's ability to speak his mind and isn't afraid of calling a movie pretentious and annoying when he feels that way
Agreed. Kermode is awesome and pretty fair in his critiques. He’s one of the few critics I will listen to before watching a movie.
Agreed ,Kermode easily the best and most informed critic out there.
He knows his subject, knows the technical side of film.
It's only MY opinion and I'm not talking about anyone although I like some of the content on here as it's more than a chat about story plus a grade, ,But most CZcams film reviewers are not really critics more people who chat about film. Hardly any will mention detail ,ie cinematography etc.
I'm often amazed at CZcamsrs having 200K etc and they obviously have never studied film, know nothing about sound, cinematography or wardrobe and set design etc, really most just give you a run down on what the film was about and a grade. 👍
I have to disagree about Kermode, I've been listening to his reviews since the late 90's and although he is mostly fair he gives films and actors an easy time if he is likely to meet or know them. As the UK's most popular critic he has lots of opportunities to shine a light on lesser known films but doesn't and instead brings up the Exorcist even when its irrelevant to the subject matter. The more I learned about film the less I fou d value in his reviews. But then again its wittertainment rather than solid film criticism to an educated audience.
@@mrbrianoblivion The whole " exorcist " thing has been over played.
It's only because MK made a documentary about it and is also kinda Freind's with Blatty and William Friedkin.
He has a certain humour that's maybe not for everyone but he's educated and unlike " CZcams " movie fans " ( because they are not critics just people with an opinion, anyway He knows his cinematographers and Directors , which is more than most YT do.
It's personal as is everything but they have good guests and a certain sarcastic banter between him and Mayo.
Maybe we watch different shows but I'm always hearing him go on about " independent film & world cinema", certainly doesn't seem to be a massive MCU or Michael Bay Fanboy!🙄
@@rikaardyyz3039 As I said in my previous post I've been listening to him since the late 90's when he was on Radio 1 with Mark and lard but stopped about 5-6 years ago because I got bored of all the other stuff on the current show that isn't film related. I know their style and have also enjoyed his angry rants, I enjoyed his recent rant about Leto in House of Gucci. I've also seen all the documentaries he has made. Let me give you an example of what I was referring to: after being blown away by First Reformed I sought out his opinion and instead of introducing his audience to the films that influenced it, films by Bresson or Dreyer, he banged on about exorcist dominion for the first 5 minutes. I think he is an interesting critic but I don't let critics decide what films I choose to view. Was the CZcams film fan aimed at myself because I've been a fan of film long before CZcams even existed, have studied film and been involved in the production of a handful too.
I miss Roger Ebert.
He was an expert when it came to films, but he had the ability to look at a film the way the average person might. Of course, he and Siskel together were classics.
He contributed to the problem of modern film critics
He disliked most Lynch movies, I don't trust the guy
@@sebm3029 why's that? It's just a simple way to convey whether they liked it or not? If you read the reviews he wrote he usually explains why he came to the conclusion he came to.
@@marcsoren7 Siskel called him out on it and told him Lynch just rubbed him the wrong way. Ebert reluctantly agreed.
In Wild at Heart, Ebert called out Lynch for “cheating” by showing a violent scene and then punctuating the next seconds with humor. Yet Scorcese did it all the time and Ebert loved Scorcese.
In Wild at Heart, Nicolas Cage kills a black man and Ebert called the scene racist. Siskel rightly said there was nothing racist about it because there was no racial context in the scene. Could have been a white guy killed and story would have been the same.
Anyway, for the record, I liked Ebert but he was wrong on Lynch. He was also wrong on disliking Clockwork Orange for showing Alex’s POV. He was wrong on liking Godfather III more than Godfather II (don’t get me started)
A few CZcams channels have been uploading the old Siskel and Ebert shows. Even when you disagreed with them their criticims were always entertaining and intelligent.
It figures that film criticism would not be immune to widespread distrust in institutions. _The Last Jedi_ was probably the clearest sign of how two entirely different constituencies - fandom and academia - could take entirely different things away from the same property they consume, yet not realise how out of sync they were with each other’s experiences until it was exposed 40 years later.
40 years later?
@@mabusestestament
Did I miscount? 1977-2017?
@PurushaDesa
If you mean the time from the original (1977) to The Last Jedi, then no 🙂 I misunderstood 🍻
@@mabusestestament
👍🏽 🥂
That movie was the cinematic equivalent to being eyeraped.
I've only recently found your channel I like your vibe and the fact that you shoot most everything from the floor adds to that relaxed discussion amongst friends feel
A few years ago, a retired film critic complained that while he was still writing, part of his review was being manipulated. It was because of the introduction of the star rating. Often the newspaper owner had hidden links with film distributors, and told the reviewer that he could write his own review, but the star rating would be decided by the editor. This is important, because star rating is now used extensively in movie publicity, and many times, it seems, the casual filmgoer will not read a review, just glance at the star rating. Is this still common practice?
Interesting topic, did you found out if they still do? I reckon they do.
Without a doubt the worst trend with modern film critisisim is the influx of dudes who can't seem to understand that their opinion is not an objective measure. Literal pre-schoolers can tell the difference between opinion and fact, and yet so many critics get the two conflated so often.
@@moonchild3130 Omg exactly my experience. That word has gone the same way as the infamous "literally" where it's been used incorrectly on such a massive scale that hearing it at all now just makes me wince.
I feel like most everyone thinks their opinion is fact.
What is an objective measure then?
@@greytoeimp It's not an opinion. You need me to tell you that?
@@anthonymartensen3164 Not in my experience.
This is the best CZcams Movie Review Channel I've ever found and I agree with everything you say here. You're a gift to the film criticism community.
Sometimes when I watch your channel I feel like I'm looking in the mirror and it's so great to see that someone out there understands film from the same perspective as I do. Its really more awesome than you can believe. Very few critics connect with me beyond the 40-60% zone. You're way up there. Like 80% or higher. So awesome to see.
I agree with you completely on all of your points. As a lifelong liberal I can't help but find all the insertion of identity politics and "wokism" as something that really distorts films - I'm interested in art not propaganda. And sure "message" films can be great art, but they should never be praised just because of the message they're pushing no matter the quality of the film. This just further dumbs down our culture and promotes groupthink, which is the death of art. If there's a film I'm interested in seeing I never read a review until after I've seen it - so many reviews are just running down the plot with a very superficial take. I appreciate the depth you go into with your reviews, whether I agree with them or not, because of your honesty. Basically, what you describe has been happening for years but now it's reached a critical (no pun intended) mass. Keep up the good work.
What would you class as “wokism”? And what are your thoughts when the shoe is on the other food, for example the God’s Not Dead films?
@@RosieOleanderDallinger I don't like propaganda from whatever direction its coming - whether from the right or the left - at least when it comes to movies. I don't like cardboard characters and strawman arguments masking itself as art, whether it be virtue signaling ("I want my Oscar") or extreme cases from the past like the Nazi's "Eternal Jew" film. Speaking of the Nazis, there is the example of "Triumph of the Will" which was pure propaganda but also managed to be a work of art - but there's very few examples like that. And, having said that, humanity would probably have been better off if that film had never been made, although film as an art form would have suffered a loss. If a film is coming from the soul and dealing with social issues it will be authentic rather than heavy-handed and merely ideological.
Oh man, the amount of times I heard “well, the message is important, so it shouldn’t have to be subtle” makes my head want to explode. I heard a lot of complaints about The Menu for not being explicit enough about its message, as if subtlety and nuance is something to frown upon.
@@randomguy6679 We're being dumbed-down - and the critics are part of it.
@@92ninersboy Fanboys and fan girls aren’t helping much either, let’s not just blame the critics for it
I love that line “no one ever said art had to be moral” and I remember you saying that in response to my question in the past about separating the art from the artist. Fantastic video as always!
Becoming a broadcaster, like becoming a politician, makes you feel you have to please your audience, so a lot of broadcasters gradually turn into clichéd versions of their original selves.
✅
Thank you for this video. I'm currently in school studying English and Film Studies, with the hope of becoming a professional film critic. And these issues you bring up are often on my mind when I think of the state of criticism today and how I'm approaching the way I watch and review something. No matter what, I think a sense of integrity and honesty is what matters most. And that's something I definitely admire about you and your videos, Maggie. There aren't many critics I follow anymore now that Roger Ebert is gone, but you're one of them.
Well spoken Maggie. I think when propaganda comes before a genuine understanding of works of art, as too often it does now, then we suffer for it. I'm old enough to remember reading Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris (who famously disagreed with her on almost everything) as their reviews came out. It was an exciting time for film analysis and scholarship. Today we are left alone more often than not to do it for ourselves. I think a good critic, as you said, has to have a bit of distance. Even Kael got too close to the industry by the end. The critics main intention should be to both guide one's readers (watchers) toward worthy work and to give the artists a possible way to wrestle with their vision. Many have pointed out that film criticism really began to suffer once television 'critics' gave box office statistics. Today critics are often compromised by their collusion with woke politics, or their fixated aversion to same. Propaganda flowing in any direction makes for bad criticism. What I appreciate about your work is NOT that agree with you all the time, sometimes when you mention psychedelia I just say to myself, 'There she goes again'. But I also know that this is coming from your own experience, which is vastly different than mine. And you are honestly trying to collate what you see and know with the film you are discussing. You are honest, informed, and obviously care about films. And so I simply take it all together. Both Sarris and Kael used irked me occasionally. But that didn't mean they weren't worth listening to. So thanks for being there. Stay honest, as I know you will!
Great vid Magggie spoken with honesty. The corporate side is the most blatent to me and plenty of channels fall into that trap because they won't get invited to early reviews so the likes of Disney have a disprportianate amount of power to make people tow the line. The reality is most of the really big channels have backing they just won't admit to it in public. The end of the day people want to be entertained but if you start from the position of ticking boxes or lecturing people on how bad they are then storytelling suffers. I read a lot and watch a lot of films and have done this over several decades so I understand mechanics and structures of storytelling what's come out over the last 20 years has been progressively getting worse. It's like children are literraly writing big blockbusters that cost £200 million. The principle being if you throw constant set pieces at the audience every ten minutes they will not notice the glaring holes in the plot.
I'm new to your channel and I'm so happy I found it. You'r critique and thoughts on these subjects are a tonic.
Different light, different type of video. So valuable, too. The most adult - by which I mean, grown-up - movie channel on CZcams. Why doesn't Maggie have a million subs? Too smart? Probably. Whatever. Whatever the case, great discussion!
The lighting made me think this was an older video
Because she'd rather be genuine than cater to the algorithm for views.
I like Mark Kermode, he isn't beholden to anybody and some of his rants are legendary plus he is a very good journalist and interviewer and his knowledge of movie history and the film industry is very impressive.
Totally agree with all of this. I forget how I stumbled on your videos but they're very refreshing. I'm glad you mentioned how honesty is your highest value when it comes to talking about film because art is all about your personal subjective experience and you can't unpack that unless you're honest. The value comes through in your work. Thanks for this and many other videos.
Great video. I just discovered your channel very recently and I'm really enjoying it. Very refreshing and a very different feel to the usual.
This is beautifully said in so many ways. Critics are not calling out pretension and the smell has become unavoidable over the years. Thank you! You were such an inspiration in me starting my own channel.
That's what I love so much about this channel. Sometimes there I things I agree about but the thoughts are grounded and genuine. I hate how other critics either promote mainstream and safe picks or either jump on bandwagons and are afraid to stand out for what they think or the lack for research. Kudos for putting this video out!
Thank you so much for your integrity. So many people filter their own voice for, like you said, access or clout, brilliant. So glad I found this channel
Over the last twenty years , critics often seem way to predisposed to like or dislike a film & this reflects adversely on them over time as their checkered past is exposed.
I just stumbled upon your channel and your authenticity is a breath of fresh air. I was actually looking to see if anyone else had noticed critics shilling for objectively bad movies more and more lately---the political thing is super obvious to the point it almost goes without saying, but I've noticed even non-political, laughably bad movies are getting 98% on rotten tomatoes and even mid-sized CZcams critics are praising them. Like am I going insane? What's happening here? Are the filmmakers actually going to the trouble to pay this many people to boost their movie?
your honesty shown through in this video and thanks fr pointing out how success on youtube can provoke an over flattering view of movies that are at best mediocre - i try to precis plots which many sayare plot spoilers but my view the story is just the foundations - one needs to watch the movie to experience thetrue impact - i do consider your analysis as very balanced and professional - you are one of the best critics around alongside kermode and stickman
Love your opinions on "important films" vs good films. Some critics clearly support, or don't support, a film based on its political message. Very lame.
Unfortunately with some CZcams movie critics they're not outsiders anymore (even if this was once the case), with larger audiences comes status and access to business opportunities that once weren't there, this could be attending movie premieres, interviews with the actors at media events, in essence, they're now in the club even if its on the fringe. Other reasons critics seemingly critique in a somewhat echo-chamber could be a fear of being canceled and losing their job or maybe they just don't want to rock the boat in any way and are fine with being compliant. With some critics, maybe their opinion genuinely has changed along with society norms and therefore they've become corporate friendly.
You and RLM are the only genuine critics out there I can trust.
Even after their Afterlife review?
@@fredleggett923 what was wrong with that
Rarely do I comment on a video. But I have to say, I agree with this so much.
We NEED people with integrity in the world so badly. Your voice is necessary and know that it is sincerely appreciated.
I call this the human factor. We all fall victim to
It. As a film critic, i Can imagine things are expected of you and those expectations can get in the way. The same way a director or actor’s past work influences an opinion.
Also, on a personal note, I have seen thousands of movies (I’m in my 60s) and today I get bored with many films so easily. It feels like I’ve seen it all and it gets harder to please me. This is why I cater back to some of the old films, or stick to drama more than action. Everything feels formulaic and static. So I end up holding out for the big director films or critically “acclaimed” word of mouth.
CZcams decided to introduce your channel to me today, and I'm glad! I also review movies/shows on here and just watching this video made me want to subscribe.
Completely accurate and absolutely one of the most important videos you've ever posted. Well done.
This was amazingly grounded and humble and glad I've been watching you for a few years.
Grace Randolph is the best example of a biased film critic. rather than talking about its merit, she inserts identity politics and will defend her favorite producer Feige even when its obvious that his decisions and the film is trash or done badly. She is not objective. She also changes her mind. There are others, who are extreme anti woke and those who are extreme woke, pro feminism. We need to here accurate analysis of why a film is not good or good. WANT SOME GREAT analysis of classic films? Go to Critirion collection channel. And BTW, I agree with young miss, about what you said in your video. Its hard to find honest non biased critics like Ebert and Siskel, god rest their souls.
One of my favourite videos that I've seen from you honestly. While I've disagreed with you on certain films you've covered I always respect your opinion. You and redlettermedia are my go to film channels since when you feel a certain way about a film you don't bullshit and try to find positives even in things you personally disliked. Your comments about people changing reminded me of Chris Stuckmann who I know removed his scoring after getting more into actual film making and exclusively covers films he likes now. Got nothing against him and enjoyed a fair amount of his content but agree with your point that people shouldn't let relationships with people taint their genuine opinion on that persons work or be afraid to critique things negatively. Apologies for the long comment in any case keep up the great work.
yeah, that comment went on for too long, and I'm sure she frowns on that!
@@dkazmer2 I can taste the sarcasm lmao. I wanna my summation skills so cool it lol
Agreed on many points. There's an ever increasing feedback loop at play between mass media and popular culture. As culture disintegrates, media reports on it in a variety of ways, some insightfully, some in an openly exploitative, glorified manner. It's axiomatic that people like to have their fears confirmed---it's comforting, even if by having their fears confirmed and affirmed, machinery is incrementally put in place to turn what is essentially a creative abstraction into a reality. The ouroboros dynamic is established which leads to value spirals, desensitization, meaninglessness, etc. I guess it's a kind of postmodern paradigm, wherein eventually the simulacrum becomes the operant core and from there, well, things get messy.
It is so refreshing to see a measured approach to review in comparison to others.
Correct, its never been this bad - at least not in the past 25 years I've followed them. Theyve pretty much driven themselves to irrelevance by oversaturation (everyone's a critic) & condescension ('if you don't agree with what I'm saying, you're this or that'). A few beacons of light tho - thanks for what you do.
"No one said that Art should be moral"...more like moralistic in their case,I think what we see today is the de-facto return to the Hays code era in American filmmaking after the enchanted parenthesis of 1968-1991,the only difference now is that we have traded the concerned Bible-Belt Christian mom of the Hays era with the triggered West coast feminist of the Love Conquers All era,two opposite sides of the same coin.
Man, after thinking about this for a while, I feel like I really agree with the notion that film criticism is overvalued, but it also may be something different entirely, especially in the last 10-15 years. The problem for me is that, critics of great art, like critics of the 1800s and so on are not the same as critics nowadays, at all(Though they both share the poison pen). Because nowadays, what they are reviewing has potentially lowered artistic emphasis, and err on the side of being a product and a business investment. So the result of that sort of modernism is that critics in turn are the same way, where you have this bizarre combination of trying to review and critique the cool/clever artistic aspects of something while also reviewing a product that you go buy and get base enjoyment out of, even if only for a little while. And these 2 things get muddied up and even mistaken for each other, so often, and it kind of fuels the content-y, trendy reviewing machine. But can you even fully blame them? Like if movies, games, and other AAA project artistic mediums are going to be largely adverse to creative risk and more errs on the side of making big profits with safe ideas, the trendy, not-so-fine-art reviewing critics of this era are just the ripples in the water of the AAA entertainment industry stone that was thrown into the lake. Regardless though, I think it's *very* important for every critic to practice some kind of art on their own to stay grounded, and hopefully most of them do (wishful thinking). I much enjoy your reviews and videos. Cheers
Whenever I talk about or review a movie I think about that scene in Ratatouille, where the food critic says that no matter what he writes in his criticisms, his words are less meaningful than any meal someone could cook... and I feel that’s pretty applicable to film. The courage and effort it takes to create something and put it out there for others to experience is far braver than any stance or criticism a person could have for it. That’s why it feels dull to keep tearing marvel and other blockbusters apart. Like yeah, some of them are cash grabs, but if a single person can feel something from their experience then it did more than every critic who gave it a poor review. It doesn’t mean you can’t be honest with your opinion, but a lot of critics avoid talking about their emotional/gut response to the movie and instead get into really vague and pretentious statements that offer no insight on the actual movie. Roger Ebert was so great at revealing his emotional responses to movies as well as discussing technical merits, and I think a lot of critics could learn from him. Also Mark Kermode is still fantastic luckily, he’s my go to. There’s also a really small channel called Caleb Watches Movies and he’s always enjoyable to listen to.
"The courage and effort it takes to create something"
I think many of us see cowardice and conformity in many recent films.
"if a single person can feel something from their experience then it did more than every critic who gave it a poor review"
'Great' criticism is creative and is art, too. And, watching a 'great' critic dissect a film is a joy.
And, no, giving one person a good experience does not outweigh the 'damage' that a 'bad' film does to thousands of other viewers/consumers.
I try to be as honest as I can in my viewpoints regarding the films I review. Some I love, some I hate. This is a very good topic!
I disagree that film criticism is so irrelevant or a luxury. I think that analyzing a novel or movie, communicated in the right way, can help demonstrate to the average person how to analyze texts. In our propaganda and media saturated world deciphering the nuances of texts is really useful. Otherwise we are more likely to fall for the tricks of the marketing and PR industries and our politicians. Of course, it's only one drop in the bucket but it's still a drop, I think.
Unlike most people who despise film critics, I like them a lot. I remember in the 90s when I read every movie review Pauline Kael reviewed and it was how I remember learning how to write in English (English being my second language.). I would read one review over and over. And since I was in a country where we didn't have the New Yorker, I would go to the library to read her reviews. Not contented, I would go to obscure book shops to look for New Yorker and her books, her collection of movie reviews. It was how I learned to love movies and not just Hollywood movies. I would also read reviews by John Simon, Anthony Kauffman, Andrew Sarris and Andre Bazin, even Francois Truffaut's film criticism before he became a filmmaker himself. Later in the 2000s, I would read Terrence Rafferty and Anthony Lane.
I didn't agree with them all the time but I liked that they had strong opinions. I like someone with strong opinions even if they run counter to my views, especially if they have different views. Over the years, I haven't met anyone who likes film critics. Count me as an outlier or weird. I like film critics. I still like a few today; never hated them for their differing opinion. And I listen to podcasts of them reviewing -- or critiquing -- movies. Perhaps it's because I learned English from film critics that I cannot truly despise them. Besides, I don't know them personally to hate them.
Maggie, you mentioned that there are certain reviews that you wish you could take back.
I think it would be really interesting to see you revisit some of those films and reviews, and give a new review, contrasting your thoughts from the first time, with how you feel about those films, now, after having had more time to think about them and reflecting back on those reviews.
I've got to believe I'm definitely not the only person who thinks those would be some very interesting videos and reviews to watch.
I couldn't agree with you any more. Stay pure, stay real, we need that more than ever. As a critic I imagine the hardest thing to do is to stay genuine and stick to your opinions regardless of backlash yet you do it time and time again. Stay honest. Love your channel
Great Analysis I feel the same way. I’m 23 and movies don’t feel the same way they used to feel when I was younger. I look at Pixar in the early 2000s and the Disney Renaissance. Something about those movies compared to animation today feels a bit more inspired and soulful.
There were so many great points made during this video and I'm glad to know there are still people willing to see through the bs
A lot of CZcams reviewers speak colloquially, use fuzzy language ("This movie is kind of funny"), and often give pedestrian opinions. I'd much prefer reading written reviews that have more thoughts put in, use more precise and literate language (provided the writer has the skills), thus present a much better picture of what the writer thinks. Has it occurred to any of you that a critic you don't like may simply be a lousy writer or speaker who can't express his views efficiently? Before you take someone's views seriously, check out his command of English first. And Maggie, I would love to see you do some written reviews.
I liked this video a lot. This is a question I have been thinking a lot about too because its easy to go too far in one direction or another. On the political question I agree, art can definitely reflect politics and culture from the time. Sometimes that even makes it particularly salient (Dirty Harry leaps to mind as an example: the original film; Rosemary's Baby would be another that gets into cultural and political themes relevant to the time, Platoon is very political but also feels like it is more than just a political movie). I think it is about the priority and whether the political element adds anything important to the movie. I also like your point about critics not focusing as much on that initial emotional or gut reaction. I think with art, for me at least, much of the goal is to be moved in some way by it. If you are moved by a movie then you are more interested in following up with deeper thought and analysis of it. I am no film critic (just do some movie podcast discussions), and didn't go to film school (I was a history major) but I like thinking about movies after I see them (and the best movies keep me thinking for years). The other side of it is propaganda. Which I think is the darker side, even if its for a good cause, of how film can be used to manipulate (I remember having to read an essay called Writing History with Lighting when I was a history student about Woodrow Wilson's rumored reaction to a screening of Birth of a Nation, and that always stuck with me as a counterbalance when I feel like a movie is moving me too much or being manipulative. I think there is also a kind of sneering at audiences that some critics do, which I find a little off putting (audiences watch a lot of movies too, and think and talk about movies a lot too, but they aren't as focused on the academic discourse around it).
I think you're absolutely right 🎯 about keeping your distance from the industry in order to remain more objective. If I were a movie critic, I'd go out of my way to rarely, if ever, rub shoulders with them.
I'll just say whatever when I was just thinking, you really are so beautiful and damn intelligent and you think a lot more deeply than your average person out there. And I love that your favorite comedian is Norm Macdonald.
I never look to critics - even Siskel and Ebert - for a rating to judge whether to watch. I watch/read in order to learn what the movie has. If the movie premise appeals to me, I’ll try it anyway. I also check critics to learn about filmmaking techniques.
Any premise can be made into a good or bad film.
Topic suggestion: do you think that Blockbusters have gotten worse over the past few years? I sometimes do, comparing Marvel and Disney movies to movies like Casino Royal, LotR, 80s Star Wars, Gangs of New York etc.
Spot on.
You are one of the few out there genuinely sharing a intelligent, nuanced, and informed perspective- thank you for that!
Great video, your point of view is one that needs to be amplified. Movies are allowed to have a cultural or political message but they are also allowed to not have one. Lately a lot of reviews I’ve read focus on how a movie fails to address issues in the current cultural climate (in the way that the omniscient critic prescribes) instead of focusing on the entertainment value, performance quality, or technical merits.
Well said. Especially the humility in being aware that it is indeed a luxury. An important one in my opinion, but still. So many critics these days are more about themselves and "larger issues" than the work itself. They've lost...focus, if you'll forgive that terrible pun. Keep doing what you're doing. I always look forward to your content.
I'm glad you stayed you Maggie, but at the same time you always surprise me with a new take or new insight.
I totally agree with you on your point about film criticism is a luxury, and I'd go further and say the same of films as well. One of the reasons I think filmmakers and actors, in particular, feel the need to promote these social messages is they kind of realise their job is essentially meaningless and is becoming less impactful on the world, as other media rises to grab are attention. That's not to say the social messages they want to put in their films are always meaningless, I just think the impetus for putting in those messages is a lack of meaning and recognition for what they do; especially compared to 20 years ago.
So cinema has to justify its importance as its under threat and actors who are stereotypically neurotic messes who need attention, have to justify their importance. And how do you give meaning to something? You struggle against something or for something, doesn't matter if its real or not. I would also add though, there is enough room at the table of film for all perspectives and even if "propaganda" is in a film, that's fine as long as one can recognise when someone is trying to do something meaningful for the sake of the experience/art rather than for the sake of some other goal.
very unbiased view of film critics and i feel you are one of the best for film analysis on youtube alongside kermode and stickman
Couldn’t agree more. Been a big fan of your channel for probably a decade now, keep up the great work!
oh the light in this is really nice.. remember early morning and sunsetting afternoon is golden hour
I remember seeing a CZcams creator give a review of the Tim Burton film "Miss Peregrine's Home For Peculiar Children", and the critic repeated the ENTIRE title every time she mentioned it! I would have simply said "Miss Peregrine" instead, and I wonder if perhaps she was required to recite the title from beginning to end as a condition of her privilege to screen the films from that distributor prior to their release. I gather that you do not have any kind of professional relationship to any film distributors, but pay to see them like any member of the moviegoing public. That's why I trust you and other reviews in similar circumstances.
You are so right about the poisoning of current criticism by identity politics... I was unable to find a single review of "Dune" where Villeneuve's version was seriously compared with Lynch's one. While the new version has merits it also falls short when compared with many things that Lynch managed to do right. Comparing the two efforts should be the movie critic's dream, but since Villeneuve's movie ticks all the current buzzwords (Kyet Lines is race and gender swapped for no cinematic reason at all, except for giving "diversity" and "inclusivity" to the movie) it is automatically great.
Honestly, in the "critics vs. public" clash of today I'm with the public. You were right to mention Dave Chappelle. In his specials he always manages to offend everybody with the result of being flogged by the critics. But if "Stick & Stones" gets 99% public approval on "Rotten Tomatoes", with tens of thousands of votes, this means that he offended exactly nobody. When films with strong female leads flop at the box office (like "Terminator: Dark Fate") the blame is given to "those males that cannot accept a strong female character" - this while "Resident Evil" is the most successful horror franchise ever.
And then there is the creation of problems where there were no problems at all. "Everybody agrees that one of the problems in Peter Jackson's 'Lord of the Rings' was the lack of diversity..." NO ONE ever lamented about that. "The movies lacked strong female characters..." The movies,, in the real World, had Arwen, Eowyn and Galadriel creating some of the most iconic scenes. Why so blatantly lie about that? To pimp the new "inclusive and diverse LotR series" that Amazon is producing - something that is being twisted out of recognition, with "multi racial hobbits" (including Maori it would seem!) and other crimes towards Tolkien's writings.
We live in dark times indeed, with identity politics creating an echo-chamber between creatives and the intellectual elites. Even more worrying is that when the resulting products bomb no one seems to notice.. Star Wars paid a very heavy price for following "the trend" and then accusing the dissenting fans of racism and misogyny . No one in the industry learned. I guess that we will se something moving in the right direction once enough money has been wasted.
This is why you're my favourite critic. Some critics fill me with impotent rage when they berate/praise a movie I love/hate in predictable ways, especially when the latest bandwagon rolls into town, but you always give solid arguments for your reasoning. I've found some true gems through this channel, so thanks.
like what you said about "...keeping your distance from the industry..." so that you can be objective.
Many critics seem to try to speak for other people in their reviews, if it is that person doing the review it should be based only on their opinion and feeling about it. We see many white critics say this film is offensive to black people or some straight critics say this is offensive to gay people. They seem to be more worried that someone will criticize them rather than just saying how they personally feel about it.
It also seems that film critics have disappeared from TV and newspapers. They only appear to be online. You, deepfocuslens, are the only critic I watch on CZcams. I have tried a few others but they are either loud, unfunny jokesters or uptight activists.
You always appear to be thoughtful, intelligent and honest.
09:27 exactly, most of film criticism now feels like more of a mechanical process than a genuine and human response to art, it feels really cold and repetitive, many don't really explain why they had a connection to a movie they love they just state what other people say about it in an "objective" way, same goes for movies people hate, I have seen value in unpopular opinions, they made me apriciate movies I didn't like before and people trying to be objective saying you cant/should like something because the majority hates it or the majority loves it is just sad to hear
The state of film criticism today is pretty easy to explain ... somebody who does film criticism these days doesn't care about film, likely hates film, and is maybe hoping that a sports gig will open up for them.
The real film critics are gone ... Gene Shalit, Pauline Kael, Gene Siskel, Roger Ebert, Vincent Canby actually knew something and cared about film. They cared about performances, the story, the quality of direction, and they cared about the important jobs that everyone does in the making of a film. These days, the garden variety film critic is a hack, dedicated to serving the industry, in the hope that they get some sweet swag.
We disagree on a few films that I hold in high regard......which it makes it so much more interesting to hear your critiques on the ones we both love.
can you recommend any books that can help someone who didn’t study film criticism understand how to analyze film, and maybe other forms of media and art?
Yeah as a progressive liberal myself I’ve found myself quite bothered by the amount of group think and the unwillingness to show criticism of anything that seems to tow the party line. I’ve seen a lot of critics heap tons of praise on movies that are frankly just shallow and poorly phoned in attempts to cash in on a progressive movie going audience. As a progressive liberal myself I support MOST of the messages being espoused but for the love of god it actually hurts the message if we are going to praise sloppy, poorly produced work. And on the other side yes there are a lot of things that have been canceled that I’ve agreed need to be heavily criticized for many aspects but are not allowed anywhere near their full complexity of expression. Film is an art medium and like any artistic medium is totally 100% the right place to deliver powerful political messages and social critiques, it’s honestly a large part of what art is for. But as critics it really should be their job to critique if they feel it’s actually good art.
Nicely put I agree with all your points.
You're right. The people who are employed as film critics do not always care about journalistic integrity. "We're All Journalists Now," said Gant. Only a critic who is without debt to interests can speak without censor. It's also important to understand the technical aspects of film making so we can speak better as to why something is great or not as great. I love IMDB because anyone can go there and see not only the actors' bios, but also the screenwriters, cinematographers, directors, producers.
I love movies so I find value in anything that isn't simply unwatchable. I always try to watch a movie through, because I know how much energy went into its construction. I also think that if someone pays 20 dollars to watch a movie at home, like C'mon for example. That movie needs to deliver. My friend was really disappointed with C'mon. She saw it was rated highly, paid her money fair and square, but wasn't satisfied. It didn't feel like the experience she paid to enjoy. I thought it was great. It's subjective to a point. A critic needs to remember that it's the obligation to speak honestly to both film makers and viewers.
Before I watch the video, I think the biggest problem with critics is politics and agendas. I remember watching reviews for Captain Marvel, Black Panther for a couple of examples and It seemed like most people were scared to criticize them or god forbid dislike them. Several critics that did give those movies a bad review, Made a follow up video saying I'm not sexist or racist for disliking Captain Marvel and Black Panther. On the flip side, I read some bad reviews for Cry Macho which is fine but Some reviewers felt the need to bash Clint Eastwood for being a Republican and I can't respect someone that goes in with their minds made up.
Movie criticism in magazines and mainstream media has reached a point where not only do I not care about it anymore, I will even actively avoid it. As pointed out in the video, the perspective of an academic might differ vastly from the casual amateur which of itself is not a bad thing. However, if a movie critic recommends three movies that I don't like, I will not follow him anymore, thus widening the gap between the critics and the general audience. A "new" thing unfortunately is that certain big studios have discovered the Internet as well and try to "infiltrate" it, hyping their products by leaving false reviews and ratings. A few have been caught redhanded when reviews were posted before the movie was even out but I'm pretty sure that it has not stopped. In fact, there is one show on Netflix that I strongly suspect bought streams.
As for CZcamsrs... I'm definitely one of those people who just want to know if a movie is good or not. However, I'd also love essays and more in depth analysis' that explore the the theme, lighting, pacing and photography of a movie. There are however very few channels who actually do this and most YT reviewers, or at least the ones I follow, look at the movie from the perspective of a writer.
I'm not really sure of where I was going with my reaction other than I watch the trailer and hope for the best nowadays because in the era of big data, information is hard to find.
I remember in terms of personal reaction with lack of any critical ability to describe it a review of No Country For Old Men by The Coen Brothers one critic said, "I just don't like it." Sometimes all you can do is shrug for lack of words and say that because yes it's technically great and yes, it did get the Oscar, but you can still just walk away going, "I didn't like that." I remember also The New Yorker going on a blitzkrieg against the movie drafting article after article on why it wasn't the greatest movie ever. And it was a lot of fun reading those whether or not I disagreed!
Now my complaint is that critics praise stuff too much based on politics as you say- they'll overpraise anything that toes the line, they'll overpraise anything for the sake of access journalism- it's just access journalism in critical form, and they'll overpraise anything seemingly just to get people to go to the movies in general! I saw the same thing happening with books a while ago. You might see a book review section in People magazine (or any other grocery front pub) and NONE of the reviews will go under 3 stars out of four!
I worked as an intern or goombah for some 'zine or something and they gave me a book to review and I excoriated it. They told me they'd published the guy before and didn't want to publish my review because of it. I was let go a while later. That was an early taste of, "We won't condemn anything." And it's like, "Why? How can anyone expect to be informed by you if you won't be honest?"
I pine- PINE for the 90's when critics especially the true greats Siskel and Ebert would just DESTROY everything. You like this movie? Haha! Siskel and Ebert gave it two thumbs down- just to get that look of dismay on your face? You like the movie North with Elijah Wood? Yeah? Ebert gave it ZERO stars and for reasons almost unknown rained fire and brimstone on it. I loved that review! I don't think I hated North then and if I re-watched it I'm not sure I would hate it now but Ebert sure did. Another favorite of mine is when he gave Speed 2: Cruise Control 3 out of 4 stars breaking Rottentomatoes from giving it the 0% tomatometer score it so richly deserves. Open up his review and read it and he's trolling! Hahaha!
If being a critic were ever an artform it was when Siskel and Ebert were at the movies. They were so clear and concise as to why they thought what they did and they just lit up the screen with their enthusiasm for movies- good or bad. My mom particularly loved going after them for giving good reviews to any and all Natasha Kinski movies because they had the hots for her. Hey, Matt and Trey had the hots for Natasha Henstrich from that one movie about the hottie who's an alien. I forgot the title. Anyways, all this is to write that I just want to see good writing and good reviews again! Give it to me!
Mr.Wayne won his Oscar up against Hoffman and voight from midnight cowboy.all three were great performances!
Great video ..i would live to hear more from you on
This. Ty.
😊🙏
Whether I agree or disagree with your takes on films is kind of beside the point--what I like about your angle on cinema is that it comes from a genuinely unique place that understands the importance of artistic expression (unsurprising since you're an artist yourself). Movie Review Channels on here either fawn over the latest offering from the Disney Content Factory *or* view movies through a purely political lens ("this movie has something problematic in it, therefore it is bad"). But what I dig about your perspective is that you always seem to be looking for that transcendent and ecstatic experience that a work of art can offer someone, irrespective of the film's alleged politics or whether or not it furthers the overarching plot of the Franchise Universe. We are in a soulless era of algorithm-generated Content™ and corporate-approved political messaging (i.e., propaganda) meant to manipulate us into fattening shareholders' pockets and that ineffable, unquantifiable *experience* that art can give us is increasingly rare. It's like you and maybe Red Letter Media who are fighting the good fight, so thank you.
I really like your perspective.
Super articulate and insightful video.
I've long felt that critics ought to be as subjective as possible, however they ought to disclose their own subjectivity, not project it onto the film. If I can calibrate where the critic is coming from, I can understand whether I would like the film in relation to understanding the critic. I'd have a much easier time deciding if I want to see a film if I know the critic had heartburn, or got into a late screening of an action film (does the pacing still hold up?). The problem arises when critics confuse their evaluation of a film with objectivity, validated by film theory or some other objective or stylistic measure. If I like someone's writing or at least understand a critic, I can then reference their evaluation if they are forthright about themselves, even if we are consistently favoring different films.
Ever seen Runaway Train? I liked it and the ending brought me to tears but film critics Jeffrey Lyons and Michael Medved trashed it back when it was first out. I wonder if they're still alive (off to Wikipedia).
I like the lighting!
Great video! I agree with a few of your points!
Alas, Critics today seem to lean more toward quantity than quality!
I actually LOVE people who disagree with me on films, and the more drastic this disagreement the MORE I love that person - especially when they have a totally different opinion from me and the majority. It shows to me that this person is thinking differently from me and has guts to stands up to their opinion and when talking to me doesn't want to "please" or "be amiable", but simply be themselves and true.
I am new to this channel. But I am--so far--enjoying your insights on these matters.
Out of curiosity, have you ever read a 90's book called TELELITERACY? I only ask because the author made a good point about how there are 2 types of film critics ... those who think film is superior to all other mediums & those who do not.
Thanks a lot for your thought. - Wondering if you notice that your audio is clipping quite a lot. Maybe a technical issue in recording?
Redlettermedia is my favorite critic channel, they have been around a long time and they have not changed their mode of operation. But I completely agree media has gotten terrible and is promoted by purchased critics.
A movie critic's job is to provide insight, tell the viewer about a movie in such a way that they can assess if they might like it (whether the critic did or not), and explore and analyse their own response to the movie.
It's interesting hearing you talk about the divide between critics and audience because yeah I definitely fall somewhere in the middle which I think a lot of people do. I'll go for a movie like Sin City whereas all the Marvel movies kinda disgust me. I'm almost certain a critic somewhere has published an article titled "We Need to Talk About the Hypermasculinity of Sin City" or something like that, you know? Like there's that level of cultural critique that im just not that interested in (of course i would say that, being a white male hetero).
I definitely love a lot of films that might generally be considered 'Oscar bait'. I loved The Artist, Selma, The Limits of Control, There Will Be Blood, Drive and all those 'important' or edgy films. I was also deeply affected by Last Days even though it felt arduously long (despite only running for an hour and a half) because barely anything 'happens' in a cinematic sense, up to and including the suicide. I do have some appreciation for the sense that when you stop doing so much on camera, it gives the audience space to reflect or pay attention to smaller details.
I haven't seen a good movie at the cinema in yonkers. I really do find it hard to embrace superhero flicks. I remember I saw one such movie with a group and one of the guys in the group was like "well that had everything I wanted to see", which is just baffling to me. Like, people really go to a movie with a checklist of things they want out of it? But then I think maybe I have that same checklist, but subconsciously. Like I want to be moved and affected, I just don't have a preconceived idea of *how* I want to be affected. And I can't say that my way of enjoying movies is any better to that guy, but I do feel kind of alienated by the current market which as far as I can see is geared towards three groups/types:
1) MCU/DC stuff
2) kids/family
3) retirees (we have ageing populations in the west so that shouldn't surprise)
What all these three groups seem to have in common is that most of them expect a specific KIND of experience from the movies they see. I've realised though in writing this that I also expect a certain kind of experience from movies, it's just that my expectation is looser. I know this because there are lot of REALLY edgy, arthouse flicks that I don't enjoy. 'Enjoy' is an odd word because I don't go to movies expecting to enjoy myself. But yeah I still have expectations even if they are not in a checklist form. But also 'edgy' doesn't really apply to so-called arthouse films because like with Last Days or The Limits of Control for instance they have an edge to them but compared to a mainstream film the contrast of watching them is very much muted, intentionally quiet and undramatic. It's still edgy because it is subverting your expectations, but doing it by being almost uneventful in comparison to mainstream cinema.
A big problem is films like there will be blood being labelled as oscar bait.
I the Rotten Tomatoes audience score versus critic scores on politically charged films, such as "Fauci," is an indicator of how audience score can be manipulated by those with an agenda. Is the film really *that* bad? But citing this as proof of critics group think, etc, does not seem to take into account the possibility of audience score manipulation.
Both audiences AND critics can get manipulated. Critics are to be trusted less because the way the system works it's easier to just abide to the prevailing mainstream discourse as to secure access and payment.
@@R0CKDRIG0 I disagree in this case. Have you looked at the user reviews for "Fauci"? Many have only reviewed one movie, "Fauci." Others give five star reviews to movies that correlate to a political view point (e.g. "2000 Mules") and one stars to things they don't like politically (e.g. "Fauci"). Such reviews are almost certainly not criticism of the film, but are intended to express a political opinion.
So is the suggestion that people who surround themselves in a media ecosystem where Dr. Fauci is an enemy of the people will have an opinion of a film about him that is not manipulated by the media environment they exist in? To me, the answer is no. And I think it is highly unlikely that many of them even watched the film at all.
On the other hand, the community of critics may have some incentives, in some cases, to review movies a certain way. Certainly, the movie studios would gladly pay for good reviews, but I would be quite surprised if the majority of critics do this. Others may "want clicks" and will therefore give good reviews to movies that are "hot" or use a review as a way to message that the views the movie espouses are "good" so the movie is too
But do you honestly think when hundreds or thousands of users pile onto a film like "Fauci" with one star reviews in Rotten Tomatoes--especially a movie with strong political themes--can be trusted more than the critics score?
I am not saying that the user scores have no validity nor am I saying that they are, in all cases, inferior to the critic scores. But for politically charged films, you can at least bet that the critics watched the movie and that, in itself, makes the critics score less prone to manipulation.
Well articulated video and great points
I found a similar thing with deconstructing music. If I hear a song that has something magical and I learn to break apart chords, rhythm, melody and bass then put it back together, I understand the song better but often after that the magic is gone.