Footnote: One of the reasons I like your film criticism has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether I agree with you on a movie, but EVERYTHING to do with the fact I know you have a pretty deep understanding of film history and context.
Thanks for saying that. We have been commenting back and forth for many years and, any insights you bring are just as strong based on all the films you have seen.
Classic inquiry into film and arts, right? I guess I can recognize the skill, talent and creativity that goes into quality Jazz for example. But I don't listen to it and musically I don't like the sound. Inversely I might find myself singing along to a Katy Perry pop song (haha). Fine, whatever. BUT if I was tasked with critiquing them it would be of no value to dismiss the former, while championing the later. What would be the point. To my sensibilities good movie criticism has to have enough awareness of the medium to be able to identify what the objectives are and then whether it succeeds on those terms. There is some level of objectivity with that. For me the worst films, in a critical sense, have a clear objective then fail utterly at it. Just my two cents anyway.
@@ablacknambercat That's fair. There's nuance in all these terms, right? For me "ambition" would translate into passion and sense of quality. A good example for me would be something like Sam Raimi's early Evil Dead films. Ultra-low budget b-movie horror. But Raimi and Campbell were obviously passionate and inspired - as a result they deliver an undeniable classic of the genre. A good critic should be able to recognize that and make the case that they might be more important films than many Oscar winners.
Footnote: One of the reasons I like your film criticism has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether I agree with you on a movie, but EVERYTHING to do with the fact I know you have a pretty deep understanding of film history and context.
Thanks for saying that. We have been commenting back and forth for many years and, any insights you bring are just as strong based on all the films you have seen.
Classic inquiry into film and arts, right?
I guess I can recognize the skill, talent and creativity that goes into quality Jazz for example. But I don't listen to it and musically I don't like the sound. Inversely I might find myself singing along to a Katy Perry pop song (haha). Fine, whatever. BUT if I was tasked with critiquing them it would be of no value to dismiss the former, while championing the later. What would be the point.
To my sensibilities good movie criticism has to have enough awareness of the medium to be able to identify what the objectives are and then whether it succeeds on those terms. There is some level of objectivity with that.
For me the worst films, in a critical sense, have a clear objective then fail utterly at it.
Just my two cents anyway.
And yet I would prefer a film where the ambition is clear and failed, to a film with no ambition but which succeeded in it's limited aims.
@@ablacknambercat That's fair. There's nuance in all these terms, right? For me "ambition" would translate into passion and sense of quality.
A good example for me would be something like Sam Raimi's early Evil Dead films. Ultra-low budget b-movie horror. But Raimi and Campbell were obviously passionate and inspired - as a result they deliver an undeniable classic of the genre. A good critic should be able to recognize that and make the case that they might be more important films than many Oscar winners.