What is a movie? A Cinephile Blog from Icelandcinemanow.com

Comprehension of the movie critic

If a film critic is suppose to be capable of criticizing a movie he has seen. Then he must obtain a certain comprehension of that movie. If he cannot fulfill this condition, then his opinion cannot be seen as a productive film criticism. The comprehension of a movie is however not the same as understanding the basic plot. To be able to recite the story of a certain action movie is not the same thing as comprehension. The comprehension I am talking about is much deeper than that. In his book Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism, Monroe Beardsley says that when the critic is confronted by an aesthetic object, like a movie, it is his responsibility to see what kind of thing it is. Everything that he may do or say regarding that object depends on this:

... though he does not expect to discover all its manifold features and aspects, he cannot even fully enjoy it until he has a good grasp of its main features and primary aspects. Now, the critic may be content to observe and to enjoy, but if he plans to interpret or to evaluate the work, then he must be prepared to give at least a partial description of it-to point out clearly those characteristics upon which its interpretable significance or its aesthetic value depends. [1]

What kind of comprehension are we talking about? Does it require the critic to view a movie over and over again for days? That he goes back into the movie theatre multiple times until he knows every shot, every move and every gesture that is portrayed in it? No. The film critic is not obligated to study a movie as deeply as a scholar, but then again it would not hurt the critic to at least take the scholars methods to heart, because:

... [c]ritical descriptions are of all levels of precision and specificity, but they are most helpful when they discriminate and articulate details, and thus give us an insight into the inner nature of the object. Such a description is called an analysis ... [2]

Comprehension involves identifying that which the critic sees and analyzes what is on the screen, not falling victim to old creeds and presume that he has seen it all before. Comprehension is achieved by analyzing the features that a movie presents. The job of a critic is to identify what those features are and how they work together.

The features of a movie are constantly changing. But movies are fictional stories, and stories always have a certain structure, no matter how simple or how complicated they may be. It can be the classic three part story arc where you have your beginning, middle and end or it can be something that completely turns everything on its head. Movies can often be confusing, introduce infinite number of ways to tell their stories. But there is always a structure, some comprehension that allows us to view the story that’s being told. When we are watching a movie, we are always being shown something – being told something. Therefore it’s important that we comprehend that what is being shown to us.

If we take an oversimplified example, then the movie 1408 (Mikael Håfström, 2007) comes to mind. The movie can be viewed as a ghost film about a writer that investigates paranormal activity, checks into a haunted hotel room and ends up in a deadly situation where he fights for his live. If an audience member was however paying some attention to what he was seeing he would without a doubt know that this was not a ghost movie, the movie does not imply it nor ever suggest it.

This example is, again, overly simple. I suspect that a vast majority of movie goers that saw 1408 did realize this fact. But what I am trying to highlight here are two different levels of comprehension: those who walked out of the theatre, thinking it was a ghost movie are wrong. It is not a question of interpretation or insight – but a matter of fact. In the movie the hotel manager says to the writer that the hotel room is not haunted. We never see ghosts in the room; the movie is not a ghost movie.

The point of this example is to guide us to understand what the film is about in addition to its basic plot. More clues about the movies features appear in its first sequence. We watch the main character check into another ”haunted“ hotel, listening to the managers ghost stories and then spend the night staring at the wall because nothing happens. This sequence does not only introduce us to the movies main protagonist and his disbelief in the supernatural, but also to present us with series of features: shots of the main characters car driving on a dark and stormy night; standing and listening to the managers ghost stories, who is obviously just trying to sell the illusion of the hotel as an exciting place to stay in. The main character sits in the room, performs a few test with gauges but doesn‘t encounter any ghosts. What features has the movie presented us with?

From the first shot of the car driving in the rain, the movie has put forth a dark and dreary tone and the cinematography suggests certain isolation. When the protagonist listens to the managers ghost stories it implies that psychological dread will play a certain role in the film. Even though the main character does not see anything the whole night, the cinematography and mise en scene keep a certain tension going – like something might happen in the future.

These are simple features that the movie presents in the beginning, features that will change in one form or another later on. They are both derived from the basic story, the actor’s performances and the technical aspects of the movie. If the movie suggests in the beginning that the story entails dark and dreary things and paranormal activity, but then changes those features and becomes a typical action movie, where a very real person is simply stalking and killing everyone that stays in the hotel room – the critic must identify and analyze how the features the movie has presented change during the course of the plot and how the coherence of those changes work.

If we try to describe in a simple way how 1408 could fail to account for the changes in the features it puts forth – we can imagine that it upholds its dark and dreary theme throughout the movie, until the final sequence where it simply becomes a romantic comedy – if the movies features would not be changed in a coherent way, a way that would logically make sense, then in all probability the movie would be a failure. The failure could, for example, entail a sudden change of pace and style in the cinematography without warning and without changing the basic plot.

I believe that this kind of analysis will give the viewer a better comprehension of a movie. Normal movie goers can of course ignore that kind of analysis and watch the movie without thinking of its coherency, which is his right. Majority of movie goers are used to accepting the features that are presented to them without giving it much thought. But a film critic is not a common movie goer, he must watch the movie with a critical and analytical mindset, it’s his job.

To understand and comprehend a movie is the prerequisite of judging a movie. A common movie goer can say that a certain movie was simply bad - but that is not a productive film criticism but a personal opinion. The film critic must support his argument and his opinions. If he cannot, then he has not shown comprehension and his judgment is therefore not, a productive film criticism.

 

---

[1] Beardsley, Monroe. 1981:75.

[2] Beardsley, Monroe. 1981:75.