From: "hugh bone" <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Aren't we all critics?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:40:30 -0500


>Is it really necessary to seperate our emotions from our >opinions and
>analysis?  I could argue both ways on this one.
>:randoms thoughts...
:>karena

Not really necessary, maybe sometimes impossible. But to think about what
you've seen can be both analytical and emotional.
I rarely want to see a film twice, even if I like it.  But it would be
necessary for a film student who is going to be a film maker.

Sometimes it might result in writing a better review, sometimes it might
not.

And thanks, Michael for the Agee link.

Hugh

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
From: Karena G <radchick7-AT-hotmail.com>
To: <film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: Aren't we all critics?


> I am sure we like to think ourselves so.
>
> I often wonder how critics can give reviews after a single viewing.
> (obviously I am refering to the reviews that come out in the dailies, not
> the journals) One of the first things I learned in film school was the
> necessity of multiple viewings.  Generally your initial viewing is
engrossed
> in plot lines and characters and emotions.
>
> As for the topic of opinion versus analysis, all art can be analyzed many
> ways and it is our opinion that the way we analyze it is right.  And they
> all can be right, as long as you can back it up.  Which is basically true
of
> all opinions.  A friend once told me (and I think she was quoting, but I
> don't know who)  "genius is the ability to hold two conflicting ideas in
> your mind and not go mad"  Maybe that is why many of us so vehemently
agrue
> our points.
> It is possible to say, that film was great but i hated it, but it is not
> always easy.
> Is it really necessary to seperate our emotions from our opinions and
> analysis?  I could argue both ways on this one.
> randoms thoughts...
> karena
>
> >From: hugh bone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
> >Reply-To: film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> >To: film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> >Subject: Aren't we all critics?
> >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:00:12 -0500
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >I know Agee was a famous critic, but do not remember his reviews.  I have
> >his book:  "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" with the Walker Evans photos -
> >one
> >reminds me of my
> >mother.  Is a collection Agee reviews available?
> >
> >It seems to me, our views are much more similar than different.
> >pas de probleme..
> >
> >But first, about the List:  Yes, a lot is abstruse, but it is
un-moderated
> >and a lot of us would abandon it, if it were moderated.  There was
intense
> >discussion of  "Eyes Wide Shut", both pro and con and with reasons.
> >
> >Lately, a few of us posted our personal selection of  of 3 favorite
English
> >language and 3 favorite foreign language movies of  the year.  So many
new
> >movies have come out (as usual) at year's end, that we haven't had a
chance
> >to see them.
> >
> >So newcomers can submit new lists and others may
> >re-submit.  We can compile them before the Academy Awards.  Maybe
eliminate
> >the language distinction if majority want to.
> >
> >As I see it, to say much or little about one's reasons for choices is up
to
> >the person submitting.
> >
> >As for the rationalizing and emotionalizing:  Some scenes and sequences
are
> >rational/believeable or irrational/unbelievable,
> >and the makers of great movies often, deliberately, keep us off balance.
> >
> >Another thing is the viewer's attention span.  Some movies have fantastic
> >scenes that really get my attention, Yi. Yi , for example has some of the
> >most beautiful city scenes ever.
> >"The Color of Paradise" has outstanding rural scenes.
> >
> >But get deeply involved in the scenery, and you tend to lose some of the
> >words - rapid action and dialogue give one little time to think,
especially
> >in a whodunit.
> >
> >It's my experience that a movie in which I become deeply involved
> >frequently
> >inhabits some waking hours for a day or so,
> >provoking more thoughts.  "How do I know what I think until I hear what I
> >say?"  Or, at least, say to myself.
> >
> >I agree that emotion without reason and reason without emotion
> >approach the oxymoronic, but I can't imagine a reviewer giving
> >a performance complete attention and composing his/her review at the same
> >time.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Hugh
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > hugh, let me toss another problem into this discussion: we must keep
in
> >mind
> > > that immediate " emotional "reactions to a film  are largely the
product
> >of
> > > preexisting assumptions,theories , prejudices, i.e rationalities,
belief
> > > systems, world views, etc as well as personal  life-experience and
one's
> > > history of film viewing, most of which we are not usually conscious of
> >at
> > > the moment of the emotional reaction so that maybe we shouldn't see
> > > emotional and and rational modes of thinking about film as so  opposed
> >and
> > > separate.  perhaps they are not even separable in real life, only in
> >theory
> > > for purposes of analysis. so you can't say emotional response is
primary
> > > without saying opinion and rationale. usually watching a film i will
> >have
> >an
> > > intellectual / emotional response at the same moment, and later i try
to
> > > deepen my understanding of why i reacted that way. as a sometime movie
> > > reviewer i find the process reviewing a film  to be intensely
subjective
> > > and intensely emotional and intellectual at the same time. a reviewr
> >without
> > > brains and heart, and opnions is pretty boring,btw, one of my favoite
> >movie
> > > critics was james Agee,who, incidently, wrote the script for African
> >Queen.
> > > So far i've found this thread very abstruse how come folks are not
> >talking
> > > very much about the films they like and why? bob brown
> > > --
> > > "solidarity means sharing the same risks" - Che
> > > ( la solidarita significa correre gli stessi rischi)
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > >From: hugh bone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
> > > >To: film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> > > >Subject: Re: What's wrong with mainstream sensibilities?
> > > >Date: Sun, Jan 7, 2001, 4:56 PM
> > > >
> > >
> > > > OK,
> > > >
> > > > Occasionally I remember that we : "Rationalize our emotions and
> >emotionalize
> > > > our reasons".
> > > >
> > > > The fact that telephonic robots diminish personal contact would have
> >been
> > > > fantasy a few decades ago.
> > > >
> > > > Let's fantasize that a few decades in the future, unsalaried movie
> >critic
> > > > robots, will save $millions and increase the profits of newspapers,
> >TV,
> >and
> > > > Internet media who presently pay humans to write the reviews they
> >publish.
> > > >
> > > > Question:  How to design and build the robots?  How to build
> > > > in the emotional and rational qualities which will make them
> >comparable
> >to
> > > > human observers?
> > > >
> > > > Enough fantasy.  The point is that each human viewer is an
instrument
> >with a
> > > > history of movie and real-life experiences built into its memory by
> >natural
> > > > processes.
> > > >
> > > > The separation of the emotional from the rational-analytical
> > > > is a sophisticated and difficult process, as you have noted.
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me the emotional is primary. It occurs instant-to
instant
> >as
> >the
> > > > movie appears on the screen.  Reflection comes later.
> > > >
> > > > One recollects and compares with other movies, including for
example,
> > > > comparison of the performance of an actor who
> > > > appeared in both - or a director, or cinematographer, or special
> >effects.
> > > >
> > > > Considering whether to see a new movie, one anticipates emotional
> >reactions,
> > > > decides, yes or no.  But once in the theater, the movie takes over -
> > > > emotions are spontaneous -sometimes you walk out.  You are, so to
> >speak,
> >a
> > > > victim of your
> > > > emotional history, a truism of "real" life.
> > > >
> > > > Then you rationalize, analyze.
> > > >
> > > > At least that's my view.
> > > >
> > > > Let's try to keep the matter clear and easy to understand.
> > > > But realizing that sensibilities and philosophy are important to
film
> > > > theory, there is a broader view.
> > > >
> > > >>From childhood, we are taught standards, rules, ideology.  We
> >respect,
> > > > admire, condemn, the dispensations of celebrated elites.
> > > >
> > > > We absorb (often subconsciously) the stories, theories, prinicples,
of
> > > > authorities in the arts, politics and science.
> > > > This seems to be the background for the "functionality of the
> > > > devices" you mention below.
> > > >
> > > > For me, functionality of devices implies the method(s) by which
> > > > which audience emotions are produced; for example, a couple of brief
> >but
> > > > extraordinary, and extraordinarily quiet, scenes and sounds of the
> >tropics -
> > > > in "The Thin Red Line", or, the 25 minutes of noisy mayhem on the
> >Normandy
> > > > beach in "Saving Private Ryan".
> > > >
> > > > To the extent that such devices take us to a pleasant place
> > > > (emotionally) we are glad to go.  Sometimes the opposite occurs.  An
> >example
> > > > for me, was "Twin Falls Idaho".
> > > >
> > > > I would say one's "independent" analysis and critique can not rise
> >above
> > > > personal experience, and at the same time, one's relative
indpendence
> >and
> > > > judgment is inevitably influenced by "expert" doctrine we absorb
> >through
> >the
> > > > media.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Hugh
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Lita Coucher <lita_coucher-AT-hotmail.com>
> > > > To: <film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 3:42 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: What's wrong with mainstream sensibilities?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > LC,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Not to be finicky about words,
> > > >>
> > > >> Hugh,
> > > >> PLEASE be finicky about words.  That's what I'm trying to figure
out!
> > > >>
> > > >> but your illustration seems to be
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 1) a contrast of feeling, emotion, one's personal reaction to,
and
> > > >> enjoyment
> > > >> > of a movie, vs.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >  2) logical definition of its story, characters, cinematography
> >etc.,
> > > > and
> > > >> > how they relate to each other.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Two people may not agree about the emotional impact of a scene, a
> > > > segment
> > > >> or
> > > >> > the entire movie, but are likely to agree about the facts
> > > >> > of item 2.
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes.  I agree.  I'm in a bind about seperating emotional response
> >from
> >the
> > > >> functionality of the devices used to illicit that response.
> > > >> lc
> > > >> >
> > > >> > HB
> > > >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > And about what Lita was asking... I think in some cases it's
> >more
> > > >> > > important
> > > >> > > > to have opinions than to analyze. I, mean, you can understand
> > > >> something
> > > >> > > and
> > > >> > > > still don't like it. I remember an article by a music critic
of
> >the
> > > >> New
> > > >> > > York
> > > >> > > > Times saying just that... that he understood Schoenberg but
> >still
> > > >> didn't
> > > >> > > > like him.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Right.  My example of this is "Fight Club."  I really found it
> > > >> distasteful
> > > >> > > and grotesque, but i recognized it's value as a film.  I
enjoyed
> > > > getting
> > > >> > > into the themes, subplot, etc.  Film is such a subjective
realm,
> >i
> > > > think
> > > >> > > it's almost impossible to seperate completely the opinion from
> >the
> > > >> > analysis.
> > > >> > > It's difficult, at the very least.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > LC
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > cheers,
> > > >> > > > Manuel
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>
>      --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>




     --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---