Author | coconut palm
When film critics like it, the audience does not pay, when the audience claps their hands and applauds, film critics begin to raise the microphone to criticize. Such scenes frequently appear in the variety show "Director Please Advise".
Coincidentally, this year, there is also a director's variety show "Let's Shoot" that also inadvertently pointed out this contradiction.
Director Wang Luodan's first short film in the show first generated a bipolar score of 1 and 9 points in the film critic group, and finally became the lowest score short film given by the film critics on the average score. However, after it was released to the audience, it became the first rated short film.
In these two different programs, the setting of the film critics section is the same clear and focused, and this contradiction is also exposed more obviously.
The film critic group, which has always been known for its "critical" and "sharp", attracted its attention in the first broadcast of "Director's Advice", and also stimulated a new wave of public discussion on the film critic group: Is the sharper the evaluation, the better? Should academics have a sense of superiority? Are these reviews really useful?
Some viewers even asked some film critics directly in the show, "Like chewing sugar cane, I have to eat what people have chewed, and then chew it a second time, does that make sense?" ”
Back to reality, the recently released "Lion Boy" and "Manslaughter 2" have the same schedule, schedule but the rating and box office are upside down, which seems to be more indicative of the aphasia of the film critic community on a certain level. Maybe it's time to discuss another question: what makes a good critic when film critics inevitably become an important part of the production of film opinion?
First, film critics & quarrel variety shows, should be criticized?
After the launch of "Director Please Advise", it was once ridiculed by the audience as a "quarrel variety show", and the conflict of views between different film critics and audiences constituted the biggest dramatic point of the show.
In real life, many film critics comment on the Internet, which is so common that it is almost ignored by the audience, but such a place that faces the creators and also faces their peers allows them to be gathered for the first time and start to be discussed by the audience again, which is in line with the logic of a variety show.
Earlier, Channing Huang, the director who participated in the show, described to Entertainment Capital that during the recording of the first issue, the 50 film critics present raised a hundred pairs of hands, and everyone seemed to have something to say. The positive film reflects not only their vigorous desire to express, but also the image of "sharpness", "love criticism" and even "stubbornness".
In a variety show, the inherent impression of film critics is amplified, and the program effect is successfully achieved, but on the other hand, it also becomes a slot point.
Still taking this show as an example, there are a few slots that are worth mentioning.
One of them is the "chewing sugar cane" remark quoted at the beginning, which occurred at the scene of the first short film that was suspended.
Director Liang Long, crossed over by rock singers. Having never made a long story before, and knowing little about film theory, I tried a fresh way of shooting in the show. But the audience pressed the pause button because they "couldn't understand".
The professional film critics present were almost all applauded: experimental, pioneering, emotionally rich, difficult to explain, but just liked. Some film critics even said that their job is to help audiences understand films that they "can't understand".
It's just that the audience is still very unbreadable: "A good work, I think at least let most people understand it," does not mean that it is very low-level, an audience member said emotionally in the show.
Some professional film critics are getting taller and less high, which is one of the reasons for the groove behind the scenes. In addition, "academic" film critics who overemphasize technology are even more eye-catching among them.
In the program, director Bao Bell's short film has been well received by the public in terms of story watchability and emotion, but it has still been criticized differently, among which Professor Nortel's "criticism" is like grading students' homework: the two-line narrative is chaotic, the motivation is not valid, and the theme is not buckled. The problem at the technical level seems very urgent. Bao Bell, as an actor turned into a director, knew that his skills were not good, and responded: He will continue to listen to the teacher's class, and he may understand it after listening.
This time and again, it seems that some "academics" secretly poke and poke their own "sense of superiority", they always have a fixed format to judge the film, emphasizing theory, emphasizing technology, and preferring the class. But in fact, neither the votes of the live audience nor the box office in the actual theater will have much impact on these sounds.
Film critic Tübingen Carpenter told Xiaoyu that in his opinion, film theory is not used as a criterion for judging directors, directors can not understand film theory, film critics can also use film theory to evaluate films, but this is not a two-way thing.
In addition to professional film critics, the audience can also see the extreme to another extent in the show: not talking about technology, only looking at three views.
When the show reached the second round, several well-known debaters of the variety show "Strange Story" were invited, and because they had their own right to speak, they actually played a professional audience in a sense, similar to film critics. And they commented on the live short film, focusing on the three views.
In the second program, the short film that the director once gave was derived from a memory of his youth. The film critics and producers present were all right in terms of directorial intent, technology, and empathy points, but it was inevitable that the analysis of the three views would cause controversy.
At that time, Fu Seoul talked about a point of view on the field: the most important thing for teenage girls presented in the short film should be learning and health, but I think it should be love and dreams. He was immediately interrupted by the voice of producer Hao Lei: "Let's not argue about the different growth views of two women, this is meaningless."
Some netizens also asked on social platforms: When did the movie only watch three views?
It really doesn't make sense. These very slotted sounds can come from all directions, but the ones that ultimately affect the audience correctly, or the box office, don't come from here.
Of course, it is these slots that constitute the highlights of variety shows. Only behind this, it should be a wake-up call for a huge group of film critics, behind those lofty evaluations, how much should be criticized, how much is really able to survive and play a role, should be re-examined.
Second, the aphasia of film critics
Back to real life, a recent example is the comparison between the movies "Lion Boy" and "Manslaughter 2" in terms of Douban reputation and box office.
The first day of the two movies released on the same day is almost the same, but the box office of Douban's 8.4 points "Lion Boy" has only just broken 100 million, and the box office of "Manslaughter 2" with 5.9 points has approached 700 million. Although such comparisons are not uncommon in the past, it is relatively rare to give enough films and produce such a large contrast.
Film critic Tübingen Carpenter told Xiaoyu that it made him feel the presence of an information cocoon. "Lion Boy" was praised by many relevant media and film critics in the early screening stage, but after really meeting with the public, its results were not as "explosive" as expected. In addition to some objective reasons, this may show to some extent that professional film critics and the public are in different public opinion fields, and people who will buy tickets to enter the theater are not necessarily directly related to some more professional and senior film critics.
Take the just-released "Love Myth" as an example. Whether it is the texture of the film, the story, and the performance of the actors, it has been highly praised by film critics. Precious is not only because of the emergence of a rare Domestic Woody Allen-style love sketch movie style, but also the texture of Shanghai life written in it and a certain truth in adult life.
But the audience doesn't seem to pay the bill. At present, the film has been released for two days, and the box office is only more than 50 million.
Once upon a time, the opinions of professional film critics were highly valued by the industry, and therefore had a certain strong relationship with the audience, which was a kind of existence similar to the weather vane.
After entering the era of new media, the status of a group of professional film critics is no longer so unique, and the so-called film critics have increasingly become a very large group. "It may not be a profession, but a label," several film critics invariably told Xiao Yu. In addition to film critics with systematic professional knowledge, the dividend of self-media has also cultivated a group of film critics who have become video or graphic film bloggers halfway out of the house, and a group of self-media film critics with partial media attributes, which is difficult to classify specifically.
This has also caused the "dilution of power" of some professional film critics. For the publicity company, they are no longer the focus of the marketing strategy, and for the audience, whether to buy tickets to enter the theater is not related to the aesthetic orientation of this group of people.
The movie big V blogger "Black Light Leak" once posted a positive review of a horror movie on Weibo, and the words were vivid. It is also because of this that it really led a group of audiences into the theater, but many viewers feedback that it is not so good-looking. Although the blogger was later criticized by some people, in fact, a practitioner told Xiaoyu: "Sometimes we would rather need this to bring some heat, and may not need some professional film critics to give some high and low reviews." ”
Of course, the black into white should not be advocated, but for the self-media film critics, through graphics, and even short videos to help the film to do topic fermentation, it is indeed a more in line with the needs of the filmmakers, which also makes their position in the industry become important.
On the other hand, the frequent use of marketing methods such as mass movie viewing groups and early screenings has also made the general public become the first batch of film critics. In this case, some film critics who will only criticize, or even self-deprecating, in their own aesthetic circles face a more aphasia.
When the group of film critics begins to slowly detach from the audience, either obeying capital or only caring about their own lofty words, this group may really be left with only sensationalism. For some industry practitioners who do not have a direct connection with film critics, "it can only be said that they are respected, but it will not have much impact on us (or the box office)." One practitioner said. Because of the needs of the filmmakers, the focus of marketing, and the preferences of the public, they will no longer have a shift in will because of this group of people.
Third, what should a good film review look like?
But good critics and critics are a different matter.
In fact, the label of film critic is actually a convenient pass in many cases, just to see how this card will be used.
When good film critics only make comments, good film critics can even feed back on creation, and there are really creators who are willing to listen patiently. In addition, there are also many film critics who will slowly transition from some auxiliary creative work to the role of producer or even director, which has finally become the backbone of the film industry' creation.
In the market, good film reviews, whether from self-media bloggers, or more professional senior researchers, in addition to the most basic love for movies, reverence, retention of true insights, not for the sake of guidance and praise or criticism, but also need to consider the relationship between users and theaters, and perhaps also need to understand the audience from a diversified perspective.
Especially when the needs of the filmmakers and the focus of marketing are shifted in a certain direction, good film critics should perhaps amplify good things and play a more positive role in the industry.
Further, when most of the films have sincere recommendation from film critics, when people are willing to praise for excellent works, and point out highlights or objective and pertinent criticisms for less excellent works, this market will at least not be worse.
And in another sense, from the variety show "Let's Shoot", it can be seen that the highest score short film and the lowest score short film given by the film critic are the lowest and highest scores in the audience rating. Here, film critics have taken on another function of "expanding the public's horizons".
Tübingen Carpenter, a film critic who gave director Hao Jie 10 points in "Let's Shoot", told Xiaoyu that at the beginning of the scoring, he expected the short film to be at the bottom of the audience rating, but this did not affect his score. "I especially hope that this film will be seen by more audiences, "even if you don't like it," it will enrich the horizon and make the whole (industry) a little more diverse." ”
Perhaps only after the formation of these consensuses, film critics can really play a more role.