I doubt if it would be presumptuous of me to say that most moviegoers, casual or otherwise, are disenchanted with the world of film criticism. I count myself in their ranks, though I'm decidedly not of the former category. Casualness is not an approach this author often takes to movie watching, nor to the critical reading of a film. I feel confident when I say that many of the Metacritic mandated members of the critical community do not share my contemplative approach.
One reason for this lack of contemplation is that many movie reviewers must take it upon themselves to voice an opinion on every film they see. A daunting task to be sure. I respect the sheer amount of effort required in writing an articulate article on the subject of three or more different films a week. The problem with this method is that it overworks the writer, and therefore diminishes the quality of the work. These critics see these films and churn out reviews based on a blur of screenings. In this critical climate, studied review devolves into an exercise in the pontification of the author's taste. An inevitable byproduct of a first impression.
Which brings me to the reason for the existence (and the name) of this blog.
The purpose of Twice Seen is to provide a meditative, studied approach to the art of cinematic critique. This will be accomplished by adhering to one simple rule: I (or anyone else in association with this blog) will never write a review on a film having only seen it once.
I would make other declarations about the disparity between this blog and the slurry of other more prominent filmic writings but I feel it would be unnecessary. Simply sticking to the rule of basing my readings on second (or more) impressions, I feel, will largely eradicate many of the flaws inherent in the hurried world of movie review. I would, however, like to list a few traits that will be unique to this blog.
1) There will not be a review on every movie released. I do not think it is necessary to write on every damn thing that Hollywood slots in every weekend.
2) Many of the films deemed worthy of review will not be new releases. If I, or a visiting writer, have an interesting idea about a critical piece whether it concerns Birth of a Nation or Black Swan, we will write on it.
3) There will be spoilers. Another major gripe I have with movie critics concerns their treatment of "spoilers". Many writers literally structure their reviews upon the actual plot of the film. Obviously this reveals more than a reader should know prior to their own viewing. And it's just lazy writing. Conversely, many critics refuse to discuss elements of a film's plot which are necessary to a comprehensive presentation of their review. They waste so much energy writing (or talking) around certain aspects of the film that their reading of it takes a back seat to "spoiler panic". The reviews presented by Twice Seen WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS. However, they will NOT be synoptic relays of the films in discussion.
Lastly, I would like to make it clear that I do not consider myself more enlightened or more knowledgeable about cinema than many of the people who call themselves film critics. And I certainly don't consider myself to be a better writer. I don't question the intentions of (most of) these authors and I applaud the fact that they were passionate enough about movies to put in the work required to make a go of it in the business of film journalism. It's the business itself that I question, and the resultant critical method.
I'm sure that there are others out there who think the way I do, and there's probably something out in the blogosphere of a similar ilk to the idea I'm presenting. I hope there is. I'm not claiming an original idea or hoping to corner the market. I hope everyone who writes about film does so in a studied, contemplative way and that they are all willing to give a movie a second look and not let their shitty mood, or their inability to immediately grasp a movie's complexities dissuade them from appreciating what might be a wonderful work of art. I hope you, as readers, do the same.
Thanks
John Ingle
Twice Seen
No comments:
Post a Comment