I have been posting a fair number of reviews about television shows and movies of late. I struggle with calling what I write reviews as I purposely try and not comprehensively review anything. I suppose I take the coward’s way out, I try and write what I consider appreciations of things I think worthy of being written about. I call this the coward’s way because a review implies I sit in judgement about the film/show/book/sandwich/whatever. Which, of course, I do but I try not to.
It feels strange to publicly sit in judgement on most anything as I feel the ground I stand on is shaky. Who am I to put this critique out into the world? What have I done? This is how A.O. Scott begins his “exit interview” and why I felt an immediate connection.
For those unfamiliar with A.O. Scott, until March of 2023 he was a film critic at the New York Times. His exit interview states he assumed this role in late 1999.
Over the years I’ve read numerous things Mr. Scott wrote, usually out of curiosity or because a film rankled me and I wanted some outside perspective. He was not what I would call a trusted voice when it came to film but he did write for the New York Times which affords a level of status and respect that kept bringing me back.
I can’t say anything he wrote, prior to this exit interview, ever stuck with me. I’m sure he said some interesting and witty things, as this piece of writing is interesting and witty. I never felt snobbishness from him, as I did from the likes of Anthony Lane at the New Yorker but I also never felt warmth or insight like I do from David Denby.
I’ve spent a good amount of time reading the works of writers I respect regarding the act of criticism, trying to see the value of it and whether I have anything to bring to matter. I should clarify that how I am defining criticism versus reviewing is best summed up by the following:
A form of writing that examines the achievement, distinctiveness, and quality of a film (or lack of it). The term is used to refer to a wide range of writing on film, ranging from reviews of the latest releases to certain types of scholarly/film-theoretical inquiry, such as genre criticism. Generally, however, film criticism is considered a separate activity from film reviewing. A film review will usually be produced after one viewing and is primarily designed to help potential viewers decide whether or not to watch the film; and a review will usually not contain spoilers—crucial information relating to the film’s plot, especially its ending. In contrast, film criticism will tend to discuss the film in its entirety and seek to deepen, reveal, expand, sharpen, and/or confront, a potential viewer’s understanding in a way that goes beyond simply deciding whether or not the film is worth seeing. Unlike academic writing, which usually adopts a neutral, objective style, film criticism may adopt freer, more rhetorical, language in an attempt to capture a sense of the film and to engage or entertain the reader. Whereas a scholarly, disciplined approach would be suspicious of personal involvement, subjective opinion, and serendipitous reflection, film criticism is at liberty to embrace these dimensions. However, this is not to say that film criticism is subjective and ill thought out: a key aspect of film criticism that makes it distinct from reviewing is the critic’s knowledge and erudition. Film criticism will usually also register, explicitly or implicitly, potential counterclaims about the film under description: as such, the work of film criticism embodies an element of judgement and advocacy.
Important points to note here – a film review will usually be produced after one viewing and is primarily designed to help potential viewers decide whether or not to watch the film. When reading the exit interview I was struck by the following from Mr. Scott –
Maybe because I see so many movies, I’m morbidly aware of how many I haven’t seen. Since my first day on the job I have been frantically trying to manage that deficit. Two a week? During festivals I go to four or five screenings a day. In the fall, as awards season looms, I’ll start the day at 10 a.m. with an art-house treasure in a small private screening room and stagger home late from a sneak preview at a multiplex, sometimes with a morsel of Oscar bait sandwiched in at lunchtime. In the days before my Top 10 list is due, I cycle through links (or disks) in a mad scramble not to miss a masterpiece. It’s impossible to see everything, and irresponsible not to try.
As someone who has only attended a handful of film festivals I’ve always felt guilty for not enjoying them more. Clearly they are important and clearly everyone likes going. Only for me I’ve felt overwhelmed and after the second film of the day I’ve felt incapable of seeing anything else with a fresh perspective. I doubt Mr. Scott is an anomaly in his festival watching schedule where he states he watches four or five screenings in a day.
Now imagine for a moment, that your film, the thing you spent two years writing, a year and a half raising the money for, six months casting…you get the point. This thing that you have invested years of your life into, fought with numerous people throughout to protect and make the way you believe it has to be made, then is the fifth film of the day that a film reviewer watches before stumbling home to scribble something together from hastily taken notes. Does this seem like a good system? Do you think anyone is capable of giving a thoughtful and measured response to your labor of love after this process?
For me this is the main reason I don’t try and write criticism and still feel less than capable of writing good reviews. The second reason would be summed up from the above definition:
a key aspect of film criticism that makes it distinct from reviewing is the critic’s knowledge and erudition.
Like Mr. Scott I am not sure how much knowledge I bring to a criticism of a film. I certainly have no formal training or education. My limitations make it uncomfortable for me to sit in judgement. I am aware of how much work goes into making a movie and how no one sets out to make a bad one. Often when I see something that fails to work for me (especially if it is made by a filmmaker I know and respect) my initial response is to assume the fault lies with me. Perhaps I was in a bad mood or had to take too many breaks when watching. Or perhaps I went into the viewing with misconceptions about the film or show and my disappointment was entirely of my own making and not of what I watched.
My point is I tend to put a lot of pressure on myself because posting a negative review or (no good opposites of appreciation spring to me) a slight is a big deal. Which is why when I do it I make sure to have seen the work multiple times, to consider my response for a time before writing and then try and offer a fair and measured critique. If a work elicits a strong emotional response then that means there is something contained with in it worth responding to. And a review, even a negative one, may have some value. I can say from experience there is nothing worse than spending years on something and to get a response that is little more than a shrug.
I’d like to conclude this with a slight aside. Mr. Scott wrote the following:
When I started, something like 400 films a year opened in Manhattan theaters, which was the criterion for a review in The New York Times then. By the mid-2010s, that number was closer to 1,000, and with the expansion of streaming and on-demand platforms since, it has become almost impossible to calculate how many new features debut in a year. That’s not even factoring in revivals and rereleases, festival films that never receive distribution, and movies from beyond the United States that never make it to our shores.
I was curious to see what the numbers looked like for 2024 and that led me to this graph from Statista.com. I have no way of verifying how accurate these numbers are or where Mr. Scott pulled his from because as you can see this chart indicates that in 2015 the number of movies released in the U.S. and Canada was 707.
The takeaway from what he wrote is that so many films are being released and rereleased now that it is nearly impossible to have a sense of what is out there in the world. Which is something I encounter on a monthly basis when I go to Kanopy.com and look through their selection. The sheer number of films I have never heard of, made by or starring people I adore, is staggering.
I am concluding with this because I think the issue is an important one for both filmmakers and film viewers. If those whose job is to keep up with all that comes out, to review or criticize, find it impossible to know all of the new films then the rest of us surely won’t. It’s a shame that so many films fail at the box office, or are buried on streaming services simply because there are so many choices, and there are so few voices or means to direct us to them.
It is an interesting problem to have and it is the main reason why I am writing about things I watch more of late. I’d like to contribute in some way, to help shine a light on things I’ve seen that I think other people may enjoy or at least appreciate.
As for Mr. Scott one of the things I took away from his exit interview was to try and embrace not being the best qualified person to do a job. He states at the beginning of his piece “I was a freelance book critic and youngish father of two small children.” He goes on to say he had watched a lot of movies but never reviewed any for publication. And yet that’s what he proceeded to do for the next twenty-three years. As someone who continually looks to other, more qualified people, as a reason not to take on a task this is a comfort. Perhaps the desire to write about these things and a willingness to improve is enough.
The Writings of John Ryan Sullivan 
Leave a comment