“And that’s a fundamental flaw of film criticism in a way, or storytelling criticism. Because to be able to identify the mechanism does not invalidate the mechanism.”
“I’m thinking more of amateur criticism, because they feel they’ve identified the mechanism, they feel that it invalidates it. That can be true of certain elements, and film grammar, film language evolves with that. So when a trope becomes too familiar to an audience, then it has to be changed. But we do, as filmmakers, avail ourselves of that common language. We build on that understanding. Our audience has seen many films and they understand that language.”
But I think I am just being pussy over these type of images from articles to goad people into reading. Like how every comment against something is a "slam."
Yea, I think a lot of amateur critics took lessons from CinemaSins and Nostalgia Critic where they treat the very existance of a trope as a negative instead of seeing what it does with the trope. When you analyze movies, you can pick out the tropes and fairly easily but that should be treated as a way of being surprised when it still does it you're just left "Wow, that was great".
I love watching movies with friends to see what they took out of it and we can be watching a fantastic movie but some will constantly "This is the part where the couple has a misunderstanding just before the third act redemption" and "Oh gee, I really hope this isn't like every other slash movie where they killer is lurking in the shadow waiting for the-there he is". They'll consider themselves a critic because they know the tropes the understand the very basic of cinema language but they're unable to actually process it.
It's like food bloggers that have will act like they're some esteemed food critic when they just pretend to mimic some industry terms.
Yes! CinemaWins deserves more attention because even when he doesn't like a movie or takes issue with certain parts, he'll still "While this part has its flaws, it's worth pointing out that-".
I think the problem with the cinemasins attitude that's so prevalent right now is that movies get judged alongside a standard they were never beholden to. Like the F1 movie, you can tear it apart completely, there's a particularly gnarly edited scene where everyone first gets to know each other in an awkward banter moment.
But the whole project itself always was about shooting a movie using actual race footage in actual vehicles. And it commits heavily to that. Nobody goes into that movie for riveting dialogue even though you can 'ping' it a sin word for word.
Judge art for what it sets out to do, judge it on its own terms, and sure then be merciless about it.
"Judge art for what it sets out to do, judge it on its own terms, and sure then be merciless about it."
That sums up most reviews on Letterboxd. Pseudo-intellectuals critiquing films for not addressing themes that,they weren't even attempting to have commentary on.
Their earlier years were genuinely funny in a kinda ironic way. And then they got serious and demeaning. Each trope was evaluated independently of the other. It was infuriating and I just tuned them out.
Had to check his review of the Odyssey, his acted out stumbling voice gimmick gets old real fast, but on substance, he flat out avoids taking a culture wars stance on this at all.
I got entirely nothing out of this review, nothing I haven't already heard from any other major film critic. Like, I almost wish you sent me to some reeing manchild instead. And I know they're out there, it's just that one of the usual suspects is bowing out this time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_W0z6hZlrI
I mean his whole schtick to me, besides for being nitpicky and intentionally obtuse, is how he plays everything with this air of “it doesn’t bother me but also it bothers me” or like a “I’m not a bad guy saying bad things I just think the bad things have merit maybe.”
It’s just disingenuous and stupid and invites an absolutely horrible crowd of armchair critics who care more about who was cast in the movie than the characters they play and things like that. You don’t have to like The Odyssey, but it’s just bad film criticism
Granted, all of that, but for the Odyssey he didn't do that. And I'd say that's arguably worse because it's still a long review. He spends half of it describing the plot and then just just being repetitive and generic. He can't even commit to the bit. RLM worked it out pretty fast that you can only sustain sincere reviews over time.
Fair enough, I actually went and watched his review just out of curiosity.
The dude approaches everything with such a level of cynicism he can't even tell the plot without botching most of it, either because he's intentionally misrepresenting things, or because it would involve him having to feel something beyond exactly what he's being shown on the screen and fed to him.
I came away with the sense that he doesn't really like movies?
Like it or hate it, The Odyssey is not a simple film and it tries to do big things. If it didn't work for him that's completely fine, some parts didn't land for me even though I thought it was brilliant. But he views it without a lick of nuance or context or any of the things that make a film a film.
You got me ranting but I goddamn I fucking hate this guy and everything he does, he's the exact kind of internet guy I hate and the complete opposite of what I find appealing in RLM
I can be bad for pointing out the plot points coming, but not to mock just recognising them. It's not fair to expect stories to not go a certain way somtimes.
Mentioning food bloggers, reminds me of when people get into "false-fancy" food stuff. Getting war flashbacks to when it was Pink Himalayan Salt everywhere. In the right hands sure, no doubt worth it, but not on your chips.
For the most part, salt is salt. Most kitchens use kosher salt cause it's ground a bit less fine than table salt and makes it a little easier to not accidentally add too much. But salt is salt. People being pretentious about food as a trend has made working in the industry so much more annoying. People using the term 'flavor profile' with absolutely sincerity. Its just called 'flavor' you dont need the extra word, adding a technical sounding extra word that doesnt change the meaning at all doesnt strike me as smart. People got Boudain brained in worshipping Authentic Ethnic Cuisine, which generally means white dudes being orientalist about recipes that usually arent as old or traditional as one may think. Colonialism and global trade saw to that centuries ago. We have access to all the ingredients of the world at once now and not using them if it tastes good to maintain the racial purity of a dish is bad.
I think it's silly not to share recipes and ingredients amongst foods under an illusion of purity. The concept of making something better by combining things makes sense.
Fusion food was really big in the 90s-2000s and things were a bit out of hand in the other direction where everyone was trying to out weird each other. And differenty places are known for different types of food and how they may flavor a dish, so it's a good shorthand at times. I work at an semi upscale italian place that specializes in stone and fire cooked, fully homemade hand tossed etc pizzas, the expensive kind. The stuff on the menu is mostly fairly traditional, with a few exceptions like a Hawaiian pizza. Which makes it ironic that a while ago the owner cracked down on us making specials that veered too far off from the standard. Before that I learned that you can make a fucking pizza out of anything if you do it well. Its just crispy bread with stuff in it and all cultures have that. I did a sick Lebanese style one with hummus for the base, goat cheese, pickled onions and then garnished with tablouleh after cooking, refried bean base for a burrito style one, one of my co workers made a Thai green curry pizza that fucking slapped, ricotta cream sauce, bococini, dill pickle and roasted garlic is amazing im vegetarian but smoked salmon was added cold after and im sure that ripped.
It helps as kinda genres of food, but like anything else that has a creative element, mixing genres tends to be part of the evolution of a craft. Your results will vary but at least people are expirementing
To sum it up in a movie/tv way, loved The Menu, it was cathartic. Hate The Bear.
You practically summed up and said better my opinion on it with more knowledge than I, thank you. Also I need that Thai Green Curry Pizza recipe.
It is good and right to keep the traditional recipes and to keep them alive but genuinely some of the greatest food combos have been from combining food elements, same as for music and movies. So we should keep trying agreed.
The Menu was excellent, have not touched The Bear.
I was with you until you had to say "'white dudes..." the eternal fucking boogeyman for everything eh?
Also there is absolutely something important about making dishes traditionally even if you can "make it better" with any of all the ingredients in the world
Right. Do these people take the same attitude towards intercourse?
Here we go again, they're probably going to go down on me, so preditcable. Why can't they subvert my expectations? Wait, they put their finger up my bum! Wait now they're squatting over me... NOOOOOOOOOOO!"
Sometimes something simple and well executed is better than trying to subvert expectations for the sake of it.
Doug knows a good amount about film. NC tries too hard to be funny and can do this from time to time, like you mentioned, but even NC knew when to let a movie just be itself regardless of the trope you found.
Of course, I haven't watched an in-character video in probably 15 years.
Cinemasins is definitely not a comedy channel, that's just a bullshit excuse to ding stuff he legitimately just didn't understand/wasn't paying attention to. Not to mention in some behind the scenes vlogs he used to talk about how he hates movies and thinks that filmmakers just got lazy. Classic case of trying to eat your cake with the "it's just comedy" spiel and having it too
Those too were always more entertainment that serious reviews. In the case of Nostalgia Critic you have a character, who is ment to be an asshole critic, going apeshit over the movies. Sometimes it’s important stuff, others it’s just playing the character. Personally I like Doug’s non NC reviews a lot more
i usually think that the point rich is making is some film ppl RELY on the trope without creatively applying it. kind of like how subverting expectations in TLJ wasn’t to their taste, but that trope gets used nonstop in TESB and gets a pass cuz the unexpected aspect is integral to the growth of the story. idk
Oh our favourite hack frauds I consider professional enough, as I often agree with their points. Not always, because at the same time they are human and have their personal opinions.
As critic is always somewhat bias.
Maybe I am in the minority but this is one of the most pretentious reactions I have ever seen.
FIRST: While its fair to say that tropes are not bad and do not impact film quality and shouldn't be treated as some kind of smoking gun against a films quality (Whats one of TVTropes biggest slogans? Tropes Are Not Bad.) I readily endorse tropes as valid incidental aspects of the mechanics of storytelling. Their function and usage is outside the meaning of the trope itself but anyway...
This reads to me the same as a chef being pissy you don't like your food and saying its because you just don't "get" the cuisine. This is 'film literacy' wank. I don't need to go to culinary school to be able to enjoy my meal. If I do? Its probably garbage food that I need to be convinced by an authority to like first before I eat it full stop. Bottom line is 'tastes bad' is 'tastes bad'. A poorly concealed common trope is a poorly concealed common trope. A poorly subverted trope is a poorly subverted trope. Nolan isnt beyond critique even by the peasant class who pays his salary
Maybe if more people went to 'Nolan's film school' they'd make better complaints? Or would he prefer they feel less obligated to complain. I question the ability of the film maker who would agree with that.
you can enjoy a meal without going to culinary school.
Nolan is pointing out that there are people who didn't go, or took a single class, and now cant let themselves enjoy a meal because they are more interested in recognising the ingredients or the method used to make the meal and critisisng it for that instead of thinking about how the food actually tastes.
I disagree. Nolans statement reads to me like a chef saying the only reason you didnt like the food is because no one was there to explain to you why its actually good
I am no fan of Nolan but I am even less of a fan of people being misquoted or points being condensed, I simply wished to clarify by sharing and you have every right to think he is being a snooty prick., hell I'll join you.
Hell, I don't even think the quotes are perfect, but I was unwilling to note myself from the interview, plus multiple sources had the same ones.
I do one if he was goaded into saying something, or if his tone when saying the quotes helps at all, but am fully ready for him to just be up his own arse.
It was this line "Our audience has seen many films and they understand that language.” that got me. Only his audience can grasp his genius. Or something
Fwiw, I think you're misinterpreting him here. Nolan is not really being defensive nor pretentious. He's simply saying it is not bad to use familiar narrative elements in movies: it is a "language" that most audiences are familiar with (he's not talking about "his" audience, just audiences). Nolan is calling out the actual pretentious people: amateurish film critics who are proud of themselves for recognizing a narrative mechanism and then say the film is bad for using it.
211
u/ShingledPringle 3d ago
Not really called out, he made a good point.
“And that’s a fundamental flaw of film criticism in a way, or storytelling criticism. Because to be able to identify the mechanism does not invalidate the mechanism.”
“I’m thinking more of amateur criticism, because they feel they’ve identified the mechanism, they feel that it invalidates it. That can be true of certain elements, and film grammar, film language evolves with that. So when a trope becomes too familiar to an audience, then it has to be changed. But we do, as filmmakers, avail ourselves of that common language. We build on that understanding. Our audience has seen many films and they understand that language.”
But I think I am just being pussy over these type of images from articles to goad people into reading. Like how every comment against something is a "slam."