The Art of Film Reviewing

Conducting a workshop for aspiring film critics in Cambridge, England, I had made these points. I was having a look at my notes recently and I thought there were some interesting points and it would be nice to put them on my Iland. Here it is"

·         Film is possibly the most dynamic art form of all. It is the newest as well and still just a century old. And really at a stage of development where new ways to make films are constantly emerging. That is what gives cinema its dynamism.

·         We all watch films and all of us react to them. You all love watching films, don’t you? So, when you go and see film—let’s say “Spiderman”—you will come of the theatre and involve yourself in a simple discussion of the film’s merits, or lack of merits, as is perhaps more the case in the example that I’ve chosen. You will talk about what you liked in the film, and what you didn’t. You will say you liked the acting of Toby Maguire or Willem Dafoe, or whether you liked the special effects, or you thought the script was very tight and held your interest.

·         Now all that is film criticism. I mean you are reviewing the film. But when you are actually reviewing a film for a publication, you have to do it in a structured manner. That’s really the difference. And you have to bring to your reviewing a certain expertise which makes you and, not your friends and foes, film critics. This expertise is actually quite simple to understand.

·         You can’t review a film in a vacuum. You need to have at your command certain types of background information and a historical perspective to be able to do film criticism which has some meaning. If I go to see a film by, say, Martin Scorsese, who is perhaps the greatest film-maker working today, maybe one of the greatest, but for me he’s actually the greatest. I see a film by Scorsese and I review it just as a film that I have seen with no points of reference. I don’t know who Scorsese is, what his past films, what genre of cinema he works in, some background on the actors and the screenplay writer. Is the film based on a book or is it based on an original script. Unless I know all this, my review is going to be very thin.

·         I think a bad film review is one where the writer just recalls the story of the film and at the end talks about the acting, the photography, the screenplay, the music, the editing and that’s it. That’s a review from which you don’t take out very much. It is a very basic, very rudimentary film review.

·         Imagine on the other hand, a reviewer who talks about a Scorsese film authoritatively. Knows that he’s the director responsible for some the greatest films ever made—whether it is Raging Bull, or Good Fellas, or Casino, or The Last Temptation of Christ. This reviewer knows that the film Casino is based on a novel written by Nicholas Pileggi and that Pileggi himself collaborated closely with Scorsese during the making of the film. This reviewer also knows that the cinematographer of the film is Robert Richardson, who is a talented director of photography, who has shot films for film-makers like Oliver Stone and Robert Redford. The reviewer knows the main actors of the film. Knows about Robert De Niro and his films as one of cinema’s great actors, knows about Sharon Stone and her films, and knows others like Joe Pesci, James Woods, and other actors. When you know all that and then you review a film, the quality of your review and the information that you are able to offer your readers immediately lifts the quality of your review.

·         It is important to know your audience. Who is your reader? If you are writing a review for Sight and Sound magazine, you will review a film differently. If, on the other hand, you are reviewing a film for Cambridge Evening News, you will do it very, very differently. Why because the reader of Cambridge Evening News is a lay person with a basic interest in cinema but he or she does not, or may not, know very much film history. So you need to explain things. For instance, in Sight and Sound if you wrote about the Italian neo-realism, you wouldn’t have to explain what you are talking about. Your reader is highly likely to know because it is a specialised film publication. But, if you are writing for Cambridge Evening News, you should ideally when you talk about Italian neo-realism, just explain briefly, what you are talking about. It could be just a few words—that Italian neo-realism was this phase in cinema in the 1940s and 50s, when times were grim, the post-war period and the great depression, when film-makers like Vittorio De Sica, Roberto Rossellini, Luchino Visconti, Pier Paolo Pasolini, and several others made films that were socially conscious and moved away from the more fantastic elements of film, of film being a dream or a fantasy. You’d have to briefly say that for a Cambridge Evening News reader. He may not know what you are talking about when you say Italian neo-realism, in fact might think you are just a smark-aleck who’s showing off and using jargon.

·         You are reviewing films, you are communicating with your readers. And what is the most important thing about communication? That what you are saying should be accessible. I should understand exactly what you mean. If I fail to do that, I am not a good reviewer. I am a terrible reviewer because I have failed to communicate with you. So write simply and elegantly. Don’t try to impress. You will impress if you write simply and effectively.

I have done a checklist that you should have with you when you are reviewing a film. I can say with some confidence that if your review covers these five points that I have listed, your review will have managed to communicate effectively with your reader.

·         The WHAT questions

1.      What film are you reviewing? What is it about? What’s the plot or the theme?

2.      What is the director’s purpose in making the film? What is he trying to communicate to you?

3.      What genre does the film belong to?

4.      What is the tone of the film? Its point of view. What is the mood?

·         The WHEN and WHERE questions

1.      When was the film made?

2.      When does the action in the film take place—is it a period film. Is it a futuristic film?

3.      Where was the film made? If it was shot in Cambridge, it would be of great interest for all of us present in this room. Where does the action in the film take place? Which city is it set in?

·         The WHO questions

1.      Who has directed the film? Who has written it? Who has acted in it? Who else is involved in the film—the music composer, the production designer, etc.

2.      Who are the main characters, or the main protagonists of the film?

3.      Who is the intended audience? If it’s The Lion King, it’s obviously intended at a younger audience.

·         The HOW questions

1.      How does the film convey its story? Is the film storytelling effective or is disjointed and unconvincing?

2.      How is the audience likely to react to the film? It is important when you are watching a film to be alert to the reaction of the audience. That’s the buzz and it often will tell you if the film is going to be commercially successful. I was once at the first commercial screening of “Titanic”, the James Cameron blockbuster, and it if you just followed the audience reaction, you’d know that the film was going to be a mega hit.

3.      How well does the film fulfill its purpose? If it’s making a sharp point about some aspect of life, does it make it effectively?

·         The IS IT questions

1.      Is it a good film overall? Did I like it? If I did, why? If I didn’t, why not?

2.      Is it that I agree with the director’s argument? If not, why not, if yes, still why?

3.      What is it specifically that I liked or disliked? As reviewer your job is not just to condemn a film, or heap praise on it. Say what is wrong with the film. Or what is so good about it that you are in raptures.

4.      Is it that the director has done a good job with the film? Is the film cohesive and effective? Did the actors perform well? Is the cinematography or production design good? If so, why? If not, why not?

5.      Finally, is it that the film fails on certain counts? What are they? And if you think the film could have been improved, state what those improvements could have been.

These were tips on how to review films in terms of elements and structure. But there is some basic wherewithal you need to be able to read a film. Do you know French director Francois Truffaut? A delightful man he was, made his films between the 1950s and 1980s, some wonderful films he made too. He said once that anyone can be a film critic and all you need is to be a film buff. Well, that’s partly true. You absolutely must be a film enthusiast to be a film critic. Otherwise, if you find watching films an ordeal, rest assured your readers will find reading your reviews an ordeal.

So, yes you need to be a film buff, but you need to be able to read a film. Understand some basic things about camera movements—tracking camera, panning, also camera distance, as in long shot, medium shot, or closeup. Familiarise yourself with some basic information about cinematography. More than anything else film photography is about lighting. You are a painter using light. All the great cinematographers—there are people like Gregg Toland, Freddie Young, Conrad Hall, and various others—are basically admired as lighting camermen. It will help if you know a bit about film technique. About camera lenses, is it a deep focus camera, is a filter being used, is the shot underexposed or overexposed. Has the sequence been shot in artificial light or natural light. Framing and composition. Sometimes emotional distance between characters is expressed through composition. Editing techniques and transitions of shots. You  need to be aware of all this. Film has its own unspoken language. Remember there were silent films and they worked. They are images and the images speak to you. Some of the best film-makers don’t make wordy or talkative films. They make visual films.

You don’t need to become obsessed with it, but you need to have a basic idea. Awareness of these things will over time show in the quality of your reviews.

When you are watching a film, take notes. I always do. There are things that strike you while you are watching a film. You might forget those things later. So keep a paper and pencil with you and in the dark just scribble whatever comes to mind.

Always be convincing about what you say. Don’t just throw an opinion. You need to able to defend that opinion. For instance, if it is my view that this year’s Oscar should have gone to “Monster’s Ball” and not “A Beautiful Mind”, I should be able to logically argue my point. Not just use my power as a film critic to just float an opinion.