Reviewing reviewers

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM

“I’m not saying you have to be mean – there is such a thing as constructive criticism.” Enough McDuff

McDuff raises an interesting point but fails to follow through and explain just what he has in mind by “constructive criticism.” What does one do when one criticizes constructively?

There are those, of course, who claim that the concept itself is empty, that there can be no such thing as constructive criticism since, as the saying goes, “everyone’s different.” But this is simply to confound matters of subjective taste with criticism based on criteria which are as objective as humanly possible. But what are those criteria? Several come to mind.

There is, obviously, the question of plot, of the story-line, which of course varies with the age and maturity – not necessarily the same thing – of the audience. Assuming basic intelligence, the story-line must be, at a minimum, credible. There must be, at least in principle, a real-world possibility of the plot actually occurring. In other words, as with coherent thought in general, there must be STRUCTURE. Structure is to the film as the skeleton is to the body. Without the skeleton, the body is just a lump of hairy flesh (and that’s just the females). Without structure, the film is just a dog’s breakfast, a loose bowel movement.

In addition to and supported by the structure, there are, of course, the regular criteria related to film. One thinks of the quality of the acting, the credibility of setting, the sensitivity of the photography, and so on. But, in my view, the paramount criterion of constructive criticism still is missing. What is this apex of constructive criticism? It is the film’s philosophical dimension. It is the criterion criterion of reflective significance.

What I am talking about is DEPTH. This is the criterion which distinguishes the truely artistic film from dross. The characters in particular and the film in general must be motivated by a quest for meaning, a search for coherence. This need not be the explicit theme of the film but it must be present, even in the form of a tacit subtext. It is essential. Otherwise, the film is little more than a cartoon and the people who like it little more than cartoon characters.

Unfortunately, this is the case with the overwhelming percentage of current films. In fact, it is difficult to think of a current film which is not, to a greater or lesser extent, a cartoon. Rather than engage the audience in a philosophical fashion, current films work only to expand the lobotomization and cretinization of our culture.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!