I don't mind if a film critic doesn't like my film, or expresses an opinion contrary to mine. That's fair and healthy and kind of fun. What I find objectionable is the smugness of film critics. By that I mean the tone they take in writing about a film. It is a tone of omniscience. Most film critics write as if what they are saying is incontrovertible truth, as if they were scientists simply describing the objective workings of molecules. But art criticism isn't a science. It's an art. And it has no more claim to objectivity than a rorschach test.
This is a tone issue. It is possible to express an opinion in a way that acknowledges its subjectivity. And it is also possible to express an opinion as if it were God's truth.
Let me give two examples. The first example, from Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly, while negative is nonetheless aware of its subjectivism:
"I wish that the actresses playing Zahedi's wives and girlfriends weren't so L.A.-model sexy compared to the real, earthy women themselves (whom we glimpse in home-movie footage)..."
Well, that's fair. He wishes the film were different than it is (at least in this one respect), and that's legitimate and true. I can agree or disagree but it's certainly not smug.
Now here's a smug one, from Carina Chocano at the L.A. Times:
"Zahedi tries to construct a narrative from his epic bad behavior, presumably for the purpose of shedding light on something. What this is remains mysterious after a single viewing, but not so mysterious as to inspire a second."
She writes well, and with a certain flair, but with absolutely no acknowledgment of her own subjectivism. The tone of her sentences is one of "authority." As a result, her sentences are untrue. What I am attempting to shed light on is not, in fact, mysterious after a single viewing. It is mysterious only to her. And it is not true that the film fails to inspire a second viewing. It only fails to inspire a second viewing in her.
One could argue that subjectivism is implicit in film reviews, but I disagree. One could also argue that subjectivism is implicit in documentaries, but it's not. Self-reflexive documentaries (such as mine) foreground their subjectivism, and that makes all the difference in their truth quotient and in their political implications.
Carina Chocano, like George W. Bush, is convinced that she's right. I find this both reactionary and dangerous, not because a film review can do anywhere near the harm of a George W. Bush, but because it strengthens and legitimates a certain kind of unreflexive discourse. Owen Gleiberman, on the other hand, manages to be critical and at the same time to foreground his own subjectivity. This is not only a more enlightened approach to film criticism, it is also a much more positive contribution to the politics of public discourse in general.
posted by Caveh Zahedi at
10:31 AM
