For the next year, as
a goal or personal project, if you will, I’ve decided to write reviews for 52
films. A film a week. I’ve written a few film reviews but nothing consistent so
I think it’ll be a fun challenge and hopefully improve my writing on cinema and
in general. I’ll try to maintain the variety I’m accustomed to in my current
cinematic diet and that in turn should force me to wrestle with a diverse set
of genres, eras, and voices.
Before evaluating whether or not a particular film is “good” or
“effective” or “compelling” or whatever other positive categorical description
you prefer, I need to first make an attempt at defining the traits, attributes,
pieces, and processes that compose the formula of the cinematic experience. You
may consider this my cinematic prolegomena.
Cast, Crew, Collaborators
One of the primary draws for me when considering whether or not to
give a movie a try is the collection of individuals on the project. Generally,
the number of names I recognize in the cast and crew correlates with my
expectations.
This does not mean I’m not excited to see up-and-coming actors or
directing debuts, but my expectations will be tempered accordingly.
Setting, Sense of Place, Ambience, Environment, World
Stories can’t occur in a vacuum. Unless of course, they occur in
space or inside the home appliance used to remove particulates from the carpet.
Even in both of these remarkably different but suspiciously similar examples,
the “where” for the story creates the means by which it is understood. A good
film is in a recognizable place with consistency, clarity, and often a certain
level of sophistication in its design. Details are better shown and not told,
experienced not explained. With more familiarity, there’s more capacity for
errors or inconsistencies to stick out. The more radical and bizarre the world,
the more difficult it can be to understand.
A well-built world can cover a multitude of screenplay, character,
and acting sins.
Writing, Screenplay, Dialogue
How the film communicates to the viewer is hands down the most
important part of making a film. The best story in the world can’t overcome a
clumsy telling. Effective writing is an elusive idea. I think it’s similar to
effective painting. Individual brushstrokes and color choices can be analyzed
and perfected but if the picture isn’t coherent, communicative, and meaningful
all the technical skill in the world can’t save it.
Characters, Acting
Great characters come in many different varieties. On the one
hand, complete, deep, multi-dimensional characters resonate in the real world.
On the other hand, caricatures are effective ways to form analogies, establish
and deconstruct stereotypes, relate to literary archetypes, and feed the
fantastical nature of many stories. Bad characters are flat in three-dimensional worlds; their motives and stimuli either incoherent or telegraphed.
Good acting is either such a magnificent transformation or
emotional display it dominates the experience or its so subtle as to be
ignored. I like both types of performers but admittedly will praise the former
more than the latter. Bad acting is like rotten fruit, impossible to ignore and
it ruins whatever it’s a part of. Elements like wild emotional swings, no
emotion at all, and inconsistent characterizations will reduce my enjoyment.
Story, Plot
Something has to happen for me to enjoy a film. This, more than
the other categories, can set me against films that have historically received
critical backing. Not only does something need to happen but I have to
care about that something, either in real life or as a result of the film
providing a reason to believe, if you will. There are films which are
beautifully made, well-acted and scripted, with plenty of thespian curb appeal
that fail miserably to get me to care. The ultimate example of this is probably
Speilberg’s War Horse. I just didn’t care enough to enjoy it.
The story, or more accurately the plot, needs to have interior
consistency. Plot holes are forgivable for a myriad of reasons ranging from
perspective to time constraints but at the end of the day if the world doesn’t
“make sense” I’m going to complain about it.
Technical Features, Soundtrack, Lighting, Sound, Editing, Mixing,
Etc
I have no training or special knowledge about the technical
aspects of film. I can appreciate a beautifully framed shot or a perfectly
timed swell in the score but I’ll completely miss most of the nuanced bits and
pieces of making a movie. Maybe someday I’ll pursue some technical training but
for now, I’ll remain a blissfully-ignorant layman. That being said, obvious
editing is distracting and annoying and I don’t like it.
Meaning, Moral, Philosophy, Zeitgeist, Theme
The center of all communication is the message. Film presents a unique
way to transmit a message. When I consider a film’s theme, the criteria is two-fold.
Did I understand the message? And, did I appreciate, resonate with, like
the message? My favorite movie, Signs, earned its top spot for
excellence in many categories but specifically unparalleled personal connection
to me in its meaning. A good message communicated poorly is less enjoyable than
a bad message picked up loud and clear.
So, in summary, a good film has a strong cast and crew, a clear
sense of place, memorable dialogue, relatable characters, an interesting and
coherent plot, technical skill, and a defined theme. I am looking forward to
tackling this challenge and hope it will be interesting for any who decide to
come along for the ride.
