On the recently raised subject of "taking a film for what it is", I often wonder how those who say such a thing think about films. How do they examine them after the fact, thinking back on what they saw? In the process of exploring this, I usually have the following series of thoughts:
- What are [INSERT FILM]'s themes?
- How does it go about exploring those themes?
- Did they consider the fact that movies even have themes?
- What do they think "taking a film seriously" looks like?
- Do they think "taking a film seriously" resembles a bunch of stuffy, turtleneck-wearing intellectuals with notepads writing endlessly verbose screeds against some populist piece of media?
- Do they think it is a focus only on the technical aspects of a film and not on the emotional impact?
- Are they not aware of the fact that it's possible to focus on both aspects?
- Are they also not aware of the fact that, in the act of watching a film, they are doing that very thing?
- Are they unaware of the fact that those technical aspects actively affect the emotional impact the film has upon them?
- Are they able to even identify those technical elements?
- What do they think having "a good time" at the cinema looks like?
- Are they aware of the fact that the majority of critics become critics because they love movies so much and want to talk about them and champion them?
I am aware of the fact that this may have come off as a bit elitist, but these are important questions to ask or consider when you watch a movie. I don't want to seem as though I'm telling anyone the "right" way to watch movies, but when someone says that they "take the film for what it is" I'm inclined to wonder how they got to the conclusion of "what the film is."
No comments:
Post a Comment