HOLLYWOOD—The ability to criticize films is a career that I take seriously as a writer.  I spent countless hours as an undergrad studying the work of such greats like Fellini, Spielberg, Hitchcock and many others; understanding the importance of technique, storytelling, sound, editing, lighting, genre, cultural & economic influences and character development.  If there was one thing that I discovered about film criticism is that every movie has a purpose, it’s up to the critic to decipher what that purpose is.  A good critic realizes it’s not just enough to reiterate rather they like or dislike a film; it’s to provide a critique to inform the viewer and the public the reasoning behind that decision.

If we really think about it some of the worst movies in history have had purposes because they create dialogue in the public sphere, but as critics we have failed to pinpoint what the movie was attempting to do.  Take for example the flick, “The Hangover Part II” it was panned by many critics, while I in fact adored the movie very much.  The vulgarities were taken to the extreme in this second outing, but perhaps the point of the movie is that crazy things do occur at bachelor parties.  Let this be a warning to all men on the verge of getting married, be careful not to drink too much or place yourself in situations where you’ll regret the consequences of your actions.  The film sets out to warn audiences of the pitfall of excessive partying. 

The reversal can occur for a critically acclaimed movie like “Black Swan.”  Critics across the nation adored the flick, but I happen to dislike it immensely.  There is no argument that Natalie Portman delivers an exceptional performance as a ballet dancer on the verge of insanity.  My issue with the movie is its linear structure.  What type of movie is the audience watching?  Is this a psychological thriller, a drama or a horror movie? 

Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield in "The Amazing Spiderman."

Darren Aronofsky is a genius behind the camera.  There are some great techniques used to capture the action on film, like the documentary style aspect that makes the audience feel immersed in the picture.  I just wished I wasn’t left with so many unanswered questions after the movie ended, but then again that may have been the goal of the picture all along; to leave the viewer speculating long after the movie has concluded.

No movie can be analyzed on one viewing; the more a film is watched the more it can be deciphered to the tiniest elements: dialogue, acting abilities, style of filmmaking, lighting, sound, editing, etc.  The smallest facet can have a detrimental effect on the overall product of the picture.  My theory is that it’s a great thing when critics disagree on a movie; it shows that a different perspective can be appreciated by the spectator.

When a movie is about to be critiqued by someone who has studied various genres of film, style, technique, cultural background, historical influence, etc. those factors should come into play.  See the flick for more than what you expect.  That’s a key word, there should be no expectations.  The slightest influence from an outside source can have a surmountable effect on that writer’s opinion on the movie. 

So to all the critics out there, let’s take a deeper look at the movies that we critique, is there something we missed during the first viewing?  How can we bring to light the social purpose of the movie at the forefront of our discussion?  Critics have to be willing to dig deeper to find that missing element that could be the reason we may or may not like a particular movie, but have no idea as to why.

-