What I look for in a film |
After assigning 750+ ratings and developing a pretty dependable gut instinct about them, I thought it was about time to decide for myself what factors specifically influence my ratings — what makes the difference between, say, a 
and a 
. You must always bear in mind that my ratings are incredibly subjective and my favorites incredibly personal — it is, actually, my life cinematic — and probably no use to anyone who doesn’t have very similar taste in film to mine. So this is no absolute guide to film criticism, but rather a way of justifying my position.
So, a few crucial elements for me:
Screenplay. Probably the most important factor. In all truth, what I prefer is a filmed play; I’d be primarily a fan of the theater, I’m sure, if I had access to it. There’s no one kind of screenplay I like, but something about its construction and content has to speak to me. I’m nuts for the dazzling and obvious brilliance of Charlie Kaufman, the razor-sharp wit of Joseph Mankiewicz and James Goldman, the subtle and character-driven scripts of Billy Wilder, Woody Allen in all his glory… Put it this way: my choice for Best Film of the year is more likely to also be my choice for Best Screenplay than it is to be Best Direction.
Direction. As long as we’re on the subject. Direction very rarely influences my feelings about a film — I only ask that the shots, the execution, the feel of a scene reflect what’s actually going on in the scene. It must be of a piece. I don’t mind reserved direction, that will never detract from a film; I do mind unnecessarily flashy direction — frantic jump-cuts, overuse of steadicam, meaningless close-ups &c. I’m impressed by a well-done long take. I’m impressed when a director trusts his/her actors to do their job and doesn’t manipulate the performances. I like story-driven innovation — for this, I would refer you to Allen or Hitchcock, whose use of the camera always reinforces a specific mood they’re trying to create.
Performances. When I construct lists of movies I want to see, I am most often guided by the filmographies of my favorite actors. I go through waves with different actors, feeling compelled to devour every film they’ve ever made in a short period of time. There are many directors and screenwriters whose entire body of work I’d like to see someday, but I’m never as compelled by them as I am by my top 20 or so actors. I would say Katharine Hepburn and Emma Thompson are the only two who have such power over me they can push a film into my Top 100 simply by being in it. There are a couple dozen others I love enough to see everything they’ve ever done, regardless of quality and my taste. Two honest confessions — I am more drawn to women, and I am more drawn to Brits. If an actor has caught me under his/her spell, I’m quite likely to give the film a higher rating.
Genre. Fair or not, there are certain genres that are hard-pressed to get a high rating out of me. Romantic comedies rarely get more than a . Flat-out comedies rarely get more than a 
. Sure, these are to a certain extent tired, formulaic genres, but I recognize my bias. I’m also likely to write off westerns, musicals, sci-fi and action right from the start. On the other hand, period films, quirky comedies, unlikely romances and 30s & 40s romantic dramedies rank higher with me before I ever see them than perhaps they should. Just what I gravitate toward.
Technical considerations and production values. It’s very unlikely elements like editing and lighting will influence my rating, unless I think the choices distract from the story, or undermine/contradict the point of the film. Occasionally I am very impressed by this sort of thing — I didn’t care much for Touch of Evil, but Welles’ brilliant use of light and angles alone makes it a film. If a film has poor production values — due to budget constraints, or whatever — I very readily overlook it if the story is good, the characters are compelling, &c. I have no problem with very basic and spare sets and technicals.
Personal connection. I’m basically a self-obsessed person. You’ll see in most of my reviews I’m more concerned with the issues a film raises in my life and how it makes me think and feel than I am with its objective strength or artistic merit. Most of my favorite films are tremendously meaningful in my life. Perhaps I relate strongly to one of the characters, perhaps I had a wonderful experience viewing the film with a friend, perhaps it came to me at a time when I desperately needed it. An impersonal masterpiece is at best a . A pretty good film that is very important to me will always be a 
. Hey, I’d never try to argue Dead Again is a finer film than Vertigo, but it does mean a lot more to me.
Rewatchability. There are a lot of beautiful yet disturbing films I adore, but I might not be keen on seeing them again anytime soon (eg, Dancer in the Dark). This usually doesn’t count against a film. On the other hand, a not-quite-brilliant film I could watch any day of the week will get a big bump in the ratings. There’s no doubt, however, that every film that gets a would stand up to repeated critical viewings from me.
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URILeave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
This post is obsolete.
Comment by Mango — 7 May 2008 @ 7 May 2008Actually this post is DISGUSTINGLY WRONG but I keep everything. I should write more bloggy. It’s wrong that this is on my front page.
Comment by Lauren — 7 May 2008 @ 7 May 2008