I have noticed a lot of tough criticism of films on the forum lately, not really reviews, more like "if you did this instead...", and I was wondering where you draw the line between criticizing and accepting something as that director's artistic choice. To me film is art. If I watch a film with a lot of wide shots, that director had a reason for doing that. I'm not going to tell him he should have had more close-ups. I may say I did not like all the wide shots, but I won't try to tell him what he should have done instead (unless he is asking). But that's just me. I see a lot of "film instructor" type reviews lately. Some filmmakers are not looking for tips, they are posting a finished product. They must cringe when they read what others think they should change, instead of reviewing the film as a finished product. What is your take?

Indie, I expect that most people who post movies here realize what they're getting themselves into. After all, asking a bunch of filmmakers to critique a film YOU made -- its almost unavoidable that the reviewer will want to put their own spin on it...and tell you how HE/SHE would have done it differently. Fortunately, our members tend not to be mean-spirited in their reviews. Their suggestions, however you read them, are usually meant to be helpful.

I agree with you though that perhaps we should remember the differences in artistic choices when offering comments, and not consider someone's efforts 'wrong' just because they don't match your own ideal of 'right.' We'd miss out on a lot of interesting cinema if everyone were encouraged to follow a standard template for moviemaking.

I agree 100%. When a painter paints a portrait, do you go up to them and say, "Geez, nice picture Buddy, but I think you used too much blue." You might say that it's not your cup of tea, or you might even say, "I like the red.", but you allow the artist the latitude to paint it their way.

Of course filmmaking is different than that, but really not by much. I know some people may be better than others at filmmaking, and some criticism is great and very helpful. But it's a thin line between positive criticism and negative criticism. I prefer to be overly positive on someones finished product, rather than tell them what I consider to be mistakes, with a few generalized you might consider, or did you think of doing?

But that's just me.

Chris

P.S. Except when it relates to that Pink Guy...the more criticism the better!!:)

I agree.

Film is art. However, art is subjective (Picasso or Maplethorpe, anyone?).

I've noticed that a lot of IndieTalk users who don't like a specific film is because they say "I would have done this" or "They should have done that." Stop over-analyzing!

Filmmakers make the best and worst reviewers.

Personally, I take everything at face value. The filmmaker created their art this specific way for a reason.

However, Uwe Boll has screwed over film so bad in the past... :angry: Oops, I should stop now while I'm ahead.

I don't mind a tough review, it's the film instructor type reviews that bug me. Unless you're Lucas, you're not going back to redo it :lol:

I also undertand that when you post your film on a forum you have to be ready for anything!

I have noticed a lot of tough criticism of films on the forum lately, not really reviews, more like "if you did this instead...", and I was wondering where you draw the line between criticizing and accepting something as that director's artistic choice. To me film is art. If I watch a film with a lot of wide shots, that director had a reason for doing that. I'm not going to tell him he should have had more close-ups. I may say I did not like all the wide shots, but I won't try to tell him what he should have done instead (unless he is asking).


I agree with you here....

I think that it isn't really on me to be telling the artist what his vision should be. Maybe he likes wideshots. The most I should really do is tell you whether or not it worked for me...and maybe I didn't care for the wideshots or whatever....

...one of the things I will try to start doing again is reading the scripts that are sometimes here for critiques and the main thing I do is tell the writer if it works for me. There are plenty of writers here who know and can talk story structure and all that. What do I know about story structure outside what I write for myself?

If someone has a quirky, experimentally weird film/script, the only thing I can do or will try to do is tell the filmmaker/writer if it worked for me, if I understood it, if it made sense, or if I could at least understand why it didn't make sense. I defy anyone to come out of "Pi" without being at least a little disoriented. Can you imagine reading the script for that?

Ultimately, the person who goes into a theater to see the film is not going to comment on structure or film technique. Your average person just wants to enjoy the movie. If it doesn't work for them, it doesn't work...I think this is the double-edged sword of being an artist: you can do whatever you want, but people don't necessarily have to like it....

-- spinner :cool:

I don't mind a tough review, it's the film instructor type reviews that bug me. Unless you're Lucas, you're not going back to redo it :lol:

I also understand that when you post your film on a forum you have to be ready for anything!

I second your entire post!!

Hell, I'm the first to admit that my movies suck, but I'm proud of them nonetheless.

George Lucas called, he said that for $50,000 he can 'fix' your film by adding Jar Jar Binks into it. :rofl:

I've been lurking here for over a year now, but I only started actively participating once I finally decided to give my movie making a green light. When first asked what I thought of someone's work, I pussy-footed around the whole "it's art; who am I to judge" persona. That first response came before I had run any footage at all through my XL1s. This same person asked me recently about a project, and I ripped it to shreds: "do this, do that, script it this way, this would be funnier, etc." I went from one extreme to the other. Hey, he asked me to be brutal, so I was. I even took the liberty of writing half a script page using his material illustrating how I would have done a sequence differently.

This is my take. If I wanted sugar coated feedback, I'd ask mom or Carrie Fisher. If I want to grow and learn, I'll throw it in the middle of a group of individuals who are also making films and let them Poke it, talk Loud, put their spinner on it, whack it with a Spatula or what have you in the hopes that one day I may also be knighted. This is a forum of filmmakers, after all, not a group of film critics. I'd expect to hear how others would do something because that's really the only way to know whether or not I'm on the right track to developing my own unique style, voice and vision.

I'm not talking about sugar coating, no one wants that. I'm talking about artistic choices... like the jump cut. If I choose to use the jump cut all over that's my choice. If you want to tell me me it made you dizzy, great. That's honest and not sugar coating. But to go into detail about the right way to edit as if the filmmaker has no clue... that's what I'm talking about.

I like this post, but if I had started it, it would have had more mention of the color "blorange".

I don't mind hearing other people's "takes" on my stuff. You can usually know right away whether to store that information in the memory, or junk it, based on what they are ACTUALLY saying. So it could be useful, as in, exposure to other styles or ways of doing it. You just have to pick through the garbage. Because people who watch my movies are garbage. Dirty, smelly garbage. Yes, that means you- stupid. No, not you, the other you. Yeah- you.

PS.
We have a great group of members here and I don't believe anyone ever dogs anyone's film on purpose. If there is criticism is it constructive. I just don't see the point in the film instructor type reviews for a finished film that is not a work-in-progress. Interesting topic.

We are:


Filmmakers
They are:

Leonard Maltin
Michael Medved
Rex Reed (ooh he's creepy)
Richard Roeper
Gene Shalit
Joel Siegel
Peter Travers

They're on another website...

I guess that's why ;)
You'd think I would have figured that out :lol:

...I don't think the problem is so much the criticism, the problem, if we choose to call it a 'problem' is to say: you should do it like this. In a way doesn't it invalidate the artists' vision? Its possible to be critical without calling a person's vision into play. Is anyone going to criticize a David Lynch film? Either it works or it doesn't, and it works for a lot of people. So, to say that he shouldn't 'edit' the way he does, would probably compromise what he is thinking and to that end, it would no longer be a Lynch film.

I remember when 'Homicide' was on the air. The jump cuts were all over the place, the camera moved all the time, I would think that initially people had a problem with that. Of course, when the show began to work, the camera work and editing became what is now called 'stylized'.

It's like who can make the best 'sprocket'. Everyone is going to have thier own way of making it.


...and uh, Spatula, if you had started this thread, I don't think you should have mentioned the color 'blorange' at all, I mean really!

-- spinner :cool:

...I don't think the problem is so much the criticism, the problem, if we choose to call it a 'problem' is to say: you should do it like this. In a way doesn't it invalidate the artists' vision?
Yes, that is what I mean by "film instructor" criticism.

As the lead post on the most recent screening thread ( http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=11086 ), I think this is targeted at my critique of the piece. I re-read the original post and find that the request was to "enjoy" not to critique. I come from a long line of teachers and have instructed people on a daily basis for the past 10 years in my career. I'm also currently digging into my filmmaking and working to get better by critiquing both what works and what doesn't in what we do. My head is really just in that space currently. Having done research and learning in this field for tha past 6 years, I may just be a little too eager to share the knowledge I've gleaned. I will try to read the intent of the poster better next time.

In my defense, not that I'm actually being attacked. I don't believe my criticism was harsh, rather constructive in nature. And the suggestions I gave were from my perspective as "film as entertainment" rather than "film as art". I would also argue that it's a site of filmmakers who've committed to helping each other improve (and spat and pinky who should just be committed ;) ). Anything posted here and anything we see at all is a learning experience, as is everything we read, hear and do.

If I caused distress, I apologize. If I led others to cause distress, I apologize for that as well.

knightly, I was not targeting anyone. I think what led to me posting this was, I have been thinking lately about adding film reviewers (reviewers who will get DVDs in the mail and post reviews), and it made me think... are these reviewers going to review the films, or are they going to tell the filmmakers what they would have done instead? So that is something to look forward too. Hopefully I will be able to launch this soon. I will be looking for those who have written reviews of films before that have been published. Knightly, if I had a problem with you I'd have the respect to PM you and discuss :) This was just a light discussion.

Yes, that is what I mean by "film instructor" criticism.

What if the filmmaker had no idea what s/he was doing in the first place? I mean, I see some modern art where it looks as though a monkey had wild sex with a pipe wrench and a bucket of paint on canvas. Some call it "art". I call it a mess. To me, filmmaking is a craft. To be an artist at film, you first need to know your tools. I am actively studying and learning the tools of my "craft" of filmmaking just like I did when getting into electronic engineering. Only then will I be able to effectively create art. If everyone who picked up a camera could be considered a brilliant artistic filmmaker, then everyone who sings a note at the American Idol auditions is also an artist and they are underappreciated. :)

Filmmaking is a communication medium. This is just my opinion, but if you fail to communicate your message, whatever the message or whatever the method of delivery, the project "doesn't work". And if it were me receiving the critisicm, I would want to know every gory, technical detail about why it didn't work and what that person would have done differently. On the same note, I would not look at someone's work and say "Brilliant! Wow! What an achievement! You are a true artist! Blah, blah..." if I fell asleep half way through it or started counting ceiling tiles or contemplating my navel during crucial plot exposition.

This forum has a very diverse group, so not everyone will like everything. I would expect to get good and bad criticism from here even if I were Spielberg. Yes, even he has made mistakes at times, things that "didn't work" for me. But that's the beauty of opinion and diversity. I wouldn't change a thing.

Don't get me started on modern art, lol. Paint splatters on the wall is not art to me... and I'm not gonna stand there for two hours with my hand on my chin trying to figure it out. But my point was, I'm not going to tell the painter how he/she can do it better. It's his/her art.

I don't have the slightest idea what in particular was being referred to in the initial post. However, one of the things that I like about this site is that I have always felt that people are genuinely trying to help.

I agree with Spatula as well. You have to at least try to take everything in and then take away what your instinct tells you. Not to mention developing a thicker skin. I think you can do that here and still feel as though people are pulling for you.

...that's always been my impression of IndieTalk anyway...

-- spinner :cool:

No one should take offense to this post or think I was targetting anyone, I just wanted to know where people draw the line between criticizing and accepting something as that director's artistic choice. I don't see any problems on the forum. It's interesting to see everyone's take.

More Blorange, people.

I tend to think when people are making suggestions, they are talking about the "form" aspects, as opposed to the "art" parts. And (for me anyway) it's hard to get people to actually sit down and tell you what DIDN'T work in the video period without a lot of dancing egos and spared feelings. But ultimately it depends on whats being said/ If it's "Well, I would've done at least one cut-away of the main actor so hide that jump cut", then that's cool. I can use that. But if it's "Your composition is wrong. You needed to be at f2.4 and turn off your auto focus, dumb-dumb. I would have done that far superior to yours... except I didn't", well then, that's just kind of digging in with the spurs.

If authority must always be questioned, why can't art then? Question it, and pick it apart, you vultures... and the maker of said film will EVOLVE based on your pickings, until he comes out with something that is "critic proof".

There are very few 'critic-proof' films out there, but I recognize them.

Film is still an art, technically in the same vein as modern art (Yes, Indie, I'm going there). While one can look at a room-sized painting of paint splatter and see the universe, others will say the see a tranquil garden. Then there's the weirdos who will see flying vaginas.

Film is much more as the director, if s/he did their jobs properly, will properly allow the viewer to see specifically what's going on so there's no mistaking the great battle scene of Akira Kurosawa's Ran to Andy Warhol's Blood for Dracula.

Again, art, in any form, is subjective. Everyone has different tastes.

Personally, I'll never say anyone's film "sucked, blew chunks, should DIAF" or anything like that, I accept it for what it is.

Maybe film reviewers (most of the young, inexperienced ones) should look a bit deeper into the subject from different angles to understand the piece before giving it a positive or negative review. Most of reviews I read say things like "Who does this (director) think he is? I didn't enjoy this." THAT is the problem. Too many people allowing their own personal tastes to spoil the broth. Very unprofessional. My question to them is "But what did you like?"

...

Again, art, in any form, is subjective. Everyone has different tastes.

...


But there is a big difference between art produced by classically trained artists and art created by those who had little to no training, i.e. "folk art". Folk art generally has a limited audience. If your goal is commercial success and mass appeal, then the execution of your message and methods should lean more towards mainstream. If your goal is nothing more than film festivals and coffee house cinema, create whatever the heck you want however you want. And with commercial success comes more acceptance of those films or any art you create that is "out there". Your name and reputation would gather the audience, and then you'd have those who would spend hours contemplating your ECU shots of man boobs wondering, "What is the hidden meaning here?"

Hopefully a critic will note the distinction and critique accordingly, i.e. don't judge a folk art film by the same criteria you'd use on, say, Transformers.

I'll admit, the Blair Witch ad campaign had me hook, line and sinker. They got my box office money. While in the darkened theater (a Cafe Cinema, which that should've clued me in right there), I saw right through it and felt duped. As such, did I rush to see Blair 2? Nope. After the fact, I reflected on Blair Witch and grew to appreciate it for what it was. Even though the filmmakers failed to suspend my disbelief the film has artistic merit. Every film I've watched on here has artistic merit, even the Cat Antics 101 series. If every film is art and every independent filmmaker an artist no matter how much training and education he/she may have, then how do you critique it?

If reviews are relegated to:

Circle one
(A) Worked for me
(B) Didn't work

Then I'd sooner watch paint peel than read the review. I agree that personal opinion needs to stay out of it, though.

As for the Freudian ink blot reference, you can achieve the same effect watching clouds shift and spare putting pubic hair in the paint. :)

Knightly, if I had a problem with you I'd have the respect to PM you and discuss :) This was just a light discussion.

I have no doubt in my mind that you would have PM'd me. Light discussion - From a critic, thumbs up, thumbs down with reasons...as an indietalk critique from peers, I like to have different technique and perspectives (even your spat...which is sadly, not terribly different from my perspective, I just have a better shutup filter). It helps me stretch the craft into an art by learning different ways of doing things. I put these in a storytelling toolbox and pull out the tools I need when I need them. Right now, my tools are limited, but with the addition of dolly shots and crane shots, my tool box expanded on the last shoot. Next one will expand more. If I wanted "Sux or doesn't" criticism, I'd post them on youtube ;) (of course they all come back..."SUX")

(even your spat...which is sadly, not terribly different from my perspective, I just have a better shutup filter)

I can tell that you hate me because deep inside you love and yearn for me. It's ok. Just let it happen. :D

I think that the whole issue is that really most criticism is based upon the critics personal tastes. Very few issues in a film are solely objective. And I think that the critic who admits that is the better critic. I've had criticism of shorts that have praised and criticized the same event or issue. That's the whole point. I don't like criticism that says you should have done. I can live with, I didn't like though. I can't stand, you screwed up when, but I can live with I would have done differently.

But like criticism, the criticism of criticism is also subject to criticism. My likes are my likes, your likes might be different, but does someone always have to be right?

Chris

And with commercial success comes more acceptance of those films or any art you create that is "out there". Your name and reputation would gather the audience, and then you'd have those who would spend hours contemplating your ECU shots of man boobs wondering, "What is the hidden meaning here?"

:rofl:


I'll admit, the Blair Witch ad campaign had me hook, line and sinker. They got my box office money. While in the darkened theater (a Cafe Cinema, which that should've clued me in right there), I saw right through it and felt duped. As such, did I rush to see Blair 2? Nope. After the fact, I reflected on Blair Witch and grew to appreciate it for what it was. Even though the filmmakers failed to suspend my disbelief the film has artistic merit.

The Blair Witch Project has been talked about alot here. Just as a sidebar, If you didn't like the original movie, part 2 made the original look like Citizen Kane...:D But I understand that the original people weren't involved with the second film.

...and that was an opinion, not a critique...:)

-- spinner :cool:

I can tell that you hate me because deep inside you love and yearn for me. It's ok. Just let it happen. :D

erk...um...sniffle?

But there is a big difference between art produced by classically trained artists and art created by those who had little to no trainingNot really, it's still all 'art.'

There's a million artists out there with a million different styles. It's difficult to compare wildly differing styles like Stanley Kubrick to Michael Mann. Total opposites. Orson Welles, John Ford, Kurosawa, Godard... the list is endless.

But they're all still artists. :D While I may relate to some and not to others, it doesn't necessarily mean that their films are bad...

Ok, let's all look at 'styles' for a minute.

I have a top ten list of favorite films, I'm sure you have one in the back of your head too. These are the 'comfort' movies we watch when we're depressed to cheer us up, or they're the films we watch because we just can't get enough of them... 20 years after their release.

While some of these films were Oscar winners, some were not. Does that make them bad? Hell no!

For an example, I'm going to list my top ten list here (In no particular order). Notice the Oscar winners... and losers.


Seven Samurai
The Legend of Billie Jean
Ran
Goodfellas
The Godfather
The Adventures of Ford Fairlane
Pink Floyd The Wall
Return of the Living Dead Part 2
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me
Knightriders
No matter what critics may think about some of the films listed above, these are still my favorites. I don't care who says what about this list. Like 'em or hate 'em, they mean something special to me.

Art. (giggling) :lol:

Not really, it's still all 'art.'

There's a million artists out there with a million different styles. It's difficult to compare wildly differing styles like Stanley Kubrick to Michael Mann. Total opposites. Orson Welles, John Ford, Kurosawa, Godard... the list is endless.

But they're all still artists. :D While I may relate to some and not to others, it doesn't necessarily mean that their films are bad...

I think you may be missing my point. Every one you just mentioned knew the rules and the tools, they just chose to effectively break the rules. It's like poker, specifically Texas Hold'em; if you don't know the rules, the statistics and the techniques, you rely purely on luck. If you don't know anything about writing or storytelling or camera techniques, etc., or can't lead a crew through the muck and mire of making a film, you're lucky if you entertain someone outside your immediate friends and family with the end result. You may as well toss a cat dipped in paint against a canvas (rinse and repeat) and let someone else interpret what you were trying to say. Just make sure you film it! Would that be considered a modern art cat-astrophie? :lol:

I have way more than 10 films in my list, but I grew up watching the summer blockbusters and to this day look forward to the high-budget special effects laden movies. Transformers opens on my birthday, and I will be there. I do enjoy watching all sorts of film, good and bad (for learning experiences), but I won't watch them over and over unless there is something specific I want to learn about, like the long takes in Children of Men.

In no particular order, these are the films I can watch again and again for pure, relaxing entertainment and escape:

1) Poltergeist
2) Star Wars (all six of them)
3) Lord of the Rings (the extended editions)
4) Harry Potter
5) E.T.
6) Back to the Future #1 and #3 (#2 was horrible)
7) #1 and #3 of the Indianna Jones trilogy (yes, I'm thrilled they're filming a fourth - Spielberg missed the mark with #2, IMO)
8) A few of the Star Trek movies
9) Titanic
10) Bladerunner (Director's cut)

Honorable mentions:

Alien and Aliens (after that, they went downhill)
Empire of the Sun
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
12 Monkeys
Saw
The Sixth Sense

I could go on, but we're digressing. Needless to say, we have very different tastes is movies, although Goodfellas and The Godfather (very well done) are in my library, they're just not among my favorites.

There's a difference between art and bad filmmaking. Is that what you're trying to say VP? To me, I don't expect reviews when I post any film or sketch on here -- I expect critiques. I also know what to expect from my fellow IndieTalkers. I know knightly’s gonna give me a good technical critique. I know LOC’s gonna tell me what he liked most. I know VP, John, and others will give tips on things that I might have overlooked. And I know Spat’s gonna make a sex joke. I welcome it all. Why?

Because this is a community of filmmakers and I personally believe our goal should be to help each other grow.

As I look back over my years on this forum I think about how far I’ve come as a filmmaker. I attribute about 60% of that growth to criticism I’ve received from folks here and other places. If one member wasn’t so tough on a screenplay I wrote, I might never have known as much about story structure and dialogue as I do today (which isn’t much, but far more than two years ago). If some folks hadn’t criticized my “available lighting” comments in an old thread about DV, I might never have sought out ways to make my lighting more interesting.

The only way we grow is by realizing what we did wrong and correcting it next time. But sometimes it takes another person pointing out our wrongs.

That being said, I usually try to stick to the mantra – “If you don’t have something nice to type, don’t type anything at all.”

But back to my original sentence:

There's a difference between art and bad filmmaking.

Like VP said, you gotta know the rules before you break ‘em. I see a lot of films posted here that aren’t shot wide or crooked because of an artistic choice – they’re shot that way because the filmmaker just doesn’t know any better. I met a guy a few years back that showed me a short film he made – It was BAD! I was nice, but I told him everything I thought he did wrong. He took what I said to heart and has become quite a filmmaker. His name was Steven Spielberg – his name would be Brett Ratner if he hadn’t listened to me.

I know LOC’s gonna tell me what he liked most.You're darn right.

Personally, I don't believe in being negative. It's counter-productive. Someone pours their heart and soul into a project for everyone's enjoyment (or education), not to be ripped to shreds by someone who didn't understand it.

As an example, the only one bad review/post/comment I've ever received was from this guy who didn't understand BC3. The post is here (http://www.indietalk.com/showpost.php?p=30968&postcount=15). Okay, maybe this guy didn't like it. So what? There's NO SUCH THING as a 100% satisfied audience. Some people will like you movies, some will not. That's life.

Getting back to my original comment... I believe in being positive. I will always point out my favorite parts of a film and explain why. There's NO reason to be negative, it's just an emotional downer. I don't want to be responsible for depressing someone to the point of them considering leaving filmmaking. That's a waste of talent.

I've been watching Pink Guy's new series and laughing my ass off. If I found something truly horrific or offensive in them, I wouldn't post a whiny complaint all over the board. At least I'd have the common courtesy to ask why he chose to do something in his film in a PM.

"No, nothing wrong here." - From the film Cujo

There's a difference between art and bad filmmaking. Is that what you're trying to say VP?

...

I just get tired of poor execution in any creative category getting defended as "art". But even those poorly executed projects have a devout following. You know what, though, LOC is also right because even the untrained filmmaker creates art, just folk art. My only point was that a critic should take a piece at face value, and that means getting to know the filmmaker and his/her background and intent. Even in film school you wouldn't necessarily measure a Freshman handycam project against a thesis film project.

I plan to some day (hopefully) make money from these endeavors, so I would expect and invite any example of my work to get torn apart technically. But there's another dynamic at work here, and that's personal preference. I may not like something because it hits a little too close to home despite how well executed it is. For instance, I really didn't like Upside of Anger because I had close relatives who were like that. My reaction to the film was emotional, not technical, and on that level it succeeded. To critique something like that, I'd first have to take a large step back and try to look at it objectively. Another example, I shot a 30 minute documentary aimed at a very specific audience so for someone outside that audience to give it a good critique is asking a lot. They're not close enough to the material to understand the subtext and inside humor nor appreciate how much work it was getting some of the participants in front of the camera to begin with. As such, the critic is left to break it apart technically and not aesthetically.

I coined this phrase a long time ago, and it also weighs heavily on one's viewpoint. I will most likely use this as my signature:

"When in a certain frame of mind, all the enters the mind is filtered through this frame."

A critic should approach any project with the right frame of reference and mind or else the execution of the review may fail.

A side note, any critic that gives away crucial plot points or movie endings should be strung up by their pinky toes, covered in honey and left to the bears, bees and squirrels. Either that or I have a nice knife trick to share with them. :D

I have a nice knife trick to share with them. :DNo, Pink Guy has a HORRIFIC knife trick to share with them. :lol:

No, Pink Guy has a HORRIFIC knife trick to share with them. :lol:

...whatever happened to that razor-bladey-chain-saw-thingey Liz from Florida made a while back? Now that's a knife...:D


-- spinner :cool:

I just get tired of poor execution in any creative category getting defended as "art".

I think that maybe we are talking about 2 different things.

One is Art vs. Bad Filmmaking technique wise, the other is giving a critique where you are telling someone what they should have done.

If you take a movie like....Pi:

What I understood us to be saying was:
"You shouldn't light it that way, you should light it this way." I think this is a critique we try to avoid in terms of telling the filmmaker what to do. At the same time, we should be open to suggestions to make the project better. If the lighting is bad, we need to take the critique for what it is. Sometimes that doesn't happen. (In the case of Pi, it doesn't apply.)

Now if Pi was badly lit, no amount of "its art" bs would cover up the bad filmmaking aspect.


Another example, and this is not from anyone's film:

I've seen lots of film shorts where: yes the subjects eyes are about 1/3 of the way down the screen/shot. That is fine, but why is the subject so small that you can't really make out features? That is a critique. Yes, its a head and shoulder shot but why is there so much room on one side and on the other his face is almost touching the side of your screen? That's a critique.

So when I say: does it work? I mean that there has to be some reason, some point to why its being done that way. Because, IMO, anyone who pays money to see it will know that something is off, they just won't know what it is. And if it is badly done, what people will know is that they don't like it.

If you shoot it in a way where it makes sense that the shot is that way, that's art. Just calling it "art" doesn't cover up bad technique.

does that make sense?

-- spinner :cool:

What is your take?

This is a very tough line. There are criticisms and there are preferences and the line in between is very blurry. I think you can give constructive criticism, including advice on other options, but they can also just be preferences.

In the example you gave, of an entire movie with master shots, I would not find it offensive or even preferential to make the suggestion to get more close ups, as long as you explain WHY they need close ups, or how it might enhance the story they were trying to tell. It still comes down to preference, but these are ideas and concepts for the basic grammar of cinema.


If someone says, "I wish the story would have been more about X..." then I agree, that's more of a preference situation. It's all very difficult. Maybe it's up to the person submitting, but sooner or later all of our movies are going to get reviewed and we won't like what is said about them.

I have no idea if IndieTalk should or shouldn't allow it.

If you shoot it in a way where it makes sense that the shot is that way, that's art. Just calling it "art" doesn't cover up bad technique.

does that make sense?


Yes it does make sense. It still opens the door for someone to claim they were pioneering a new style, though. "It's not bad! It's my style!"

I haven't seen Pi yet, so I can't comment there. I'll go rent it and see what that's all about.

pi is also known as "Faith in Chaos". I enjoyed it ;) and Jacob's Ladder too, but I'd been drinking while watching them :D

Yes it does make sense. It still opens the door for someone to claim they were pioneering a new style, though. "It's not bad! It's my style!"

:lol:
How DARE you question me!!! I'm an artiste!!! My style is art!! I suppose everyone feels that way to some extent. Your film is your baby...:yes:


I haven't seen Pi yet, so I can't comment there. I'll go rent it and see what that's all about.

Its a strange film by Darren Aronofsky, same guy who did Requiem For A Dream. Very disorienting, but still cool in weird kind of way


-- spinner :cool:

pi is also known as "Faith in Chaos". I enjoyed it ;) and Jacob's Ladder too, but I'd been drinking while watching them :D

...you were drinkin' when you watched those films? You are brave...:D

-- spinner :cool:

Pi rules. I bought that DVD with Requiem (directors cut).

Pi was sweet. Requiem is classic, must-see. And the Fountain is the most brilliant abstract commercial art film ever to be made. Aronofsky is a king. He's got an uber-European feel in his flicks, with the complexities of North American storytelling turned into complex visual palettes for the eyes to behold. That's a lot of sexy adjectives to accompany one's nouns, if you know what I'm saying.

Jacob's Ladder is great too. Great imagery, and of course, Tim Robbins.

If someone says, "I wish the story would have been more about X..." then I agree, that's more of a preference situation. It's all very difficult. Maybe it's up to the person submitting, but sooner or later all of our movies are going to get reviewed and we won't like what is said about them.

I have no idea if IndieTalk should or shouldn't allow it.

Boo's done it again.

But the point is, we're talking about "criticisms" being laced with opinions, but both of them are still the person's "thoughts". And isn't that why we make films?
We have a thought and then act on that thought; and the reaction to that action is for the audience who sees the realization of that thought and it causes them to now have thoughts. But imagine now, if those thoughts that conjure in the audience's heads could be fed back to you (the mind that conceived the original thought)... well, it's going to set off other thoughts up in your own brain. And those thoughts will manifest too. It's something that's more prevalent in live theatre, methinks. An audience reaction is one of the tastiest rewards in this business.

But all I'm really trying to say is that when it comes down to critiques, I'd rather get a person's honest thoughts than a cookie cutter technical, emotionless, unbiased, judicial-style critique. Because the honest reaction, WHATEVER it is, would be more beneficial to me than a toned down, or watered down reaction.

Even if they think I suck balls, and should be banned from picking up a camera. Even that would conjure up thoughts in my brain. Thoughts about murder, revenge, suicide, murder-suicide, revenge-murder-suicide, killing, stabbing, frowning, frolicking, and possibly writing an ill-tempered email to my local political representative.

Pi was sweet. Requiem is classic, must-see. And the Fountain is the most brilliant abstract commercial art film ever to be made. Aronofsky is a king. He's got an uber-European feel in his flicks, with the complexities of North American storytelling turned into complex visual palettes for the eyes to behold. That's a lot of sexy adjectives to accompany one's nouns, if you know what I'm saying.

Jacob's Ladder is great too. Great imagery, and of course, Tim Robbins.

...



This just cinched it. I really enjoyed The Fountain. I haven't seen Requiem, either. Now I will be sure to watch both.

Yes, Jacob's Ladder was a good film. I enjoyed that one, too.

If you haven't watched Pan's Labyrinth do so immediately. You would enjoy it, too. Very well done, IMO.

If you haven't watched Pan's Labyrinth do so immediately.I bought this DVD the day it was released... but haven't watched it yet. :D

I bought this DVD the day it was released... but haven't watched it yet. :D

So did I, but I was sure to watch it soon afterwards. I don't speak Spanish so I will have to watch it enough where I don't have to read the subtitles as much where I can better appreciate the cinematography and visuals.

I rented Pi last night, and you were right. This is an excellent example of pioneering style (first use of a body mounted camera, I believe) and carefully considered artistic choices. I probably connected with it and enjoyed it more than many because I've spent my life and 16 years of my career in technology, specifically computers. And it's clear Aronofsky inspired others because the movie Phenomenon with John Travolta had echoes of this film embedded. Despite what critics may say, Pi is 100% defensible as "art".

Requiem was only available on VHS so I didn't pick it up. I retired my VCR a long time ago. I am one component away from HD DVD or BluRay (I'm waiting for the format war and prices to settle), so I'll have a tough time going back to a mere 260 lines of resolution on a 73" screen. :lol:

73", holy crap! Movie night at Veep's house!

....I don't think he was the first to use an 'actor mounted camera', I seem to remember Spike Lee doing this sort of thing for a long time. But I get your point, Aronofsky used the technique brilliantly...


-- spinner :cool:

73", holy crap! Movie night at Veep's house!

I think it would cheaper for you to just drive to your local theater, but you're welcome anytime. :)

....I don't think he was the first to use an 'actor mounted camera', I seem to remember Spike Lee doing this sort of thing for a long time. But I get your point, Aronofsky used the technique brilliantly...


-- spinner :cool:

I don't recall seeing an actor mounted camera technique like that until the early 2000's. I haven't seen too many Spike Lee movies, not since Malcom X. I did watch his series on New Orleans, though.

I think it would cheaper for you to just drive to your local theater, but you're welcome anytime. :)

Not by much :(

Hey, VP. I'm only about 140 miles from you. I'll be there around 5:00 PM.

Hey, VP. I'm only about 140 miles from you. I'll be there around 5:00 PM.

Bring pizza. :lol:

I don't recall seeing an actor mounted camera technique like that until the early 2000's. I haven't seen too many Spike Lee movies, not since Malcom X. I did watch his series on New Orleans, though.

...I think I remember seeing it in Do The Right Thing....


-- spinner :cool: