For reference
Aug. 30th, 2014 09:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bironicI find myself going back to reference these pieces by Film Crit Hulk often enough to want to bookmark them somewhere. Why not where friends might also find them interesting if they haven't read them already?
Archive, 2012 and back
(list likely to grow)
- THE AGE OF THE CONVOLUTED BLOCKBUSTER
- THE IMPORTANCE OF DRAMATIZING CHARACTER (the one with the Fast & Furious reference)
- HULK VS. SPOILERS AND THE 4 LEVELS OF HOW WE CONSUME ART
- HULK VS. PLOT HOLES AND MOVIE LOGIC
- THE ACT OF KILLING AND THE REAL MEANING OF IMPACT
- THE DAMON LINDELOF INTERVENTION
- HULK PRESENTS: CHARACTER TREES!
Archive, 2012 and back
(list likely to grow)
no subject
Date: Aug. 30th, 2014 02:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Aug. 30th, 2014 03:52 pm (UTC)The point that's hitting home right now is the advice to try and find what is interesting about a given work, and to find out what it is that works about movies other people liked that you didn't. I recognize that as what my favorite reviewers/fan commentators do, but I find it so much easier to pinpoint the things that don't work for me and why they fail. I know I'm not the only one -- Tarantino's advice reflects that sentiment, and Film Crit Hulk's own reviews do too. I remember being disappointed a while back in a (not very good) film review that explained how films the author hadn't liked failed to meet criteria they considered necessary for a good movie without explaining how the films the author referenced as good movies met those criteria. I wish Film Crit Hulk had taken the time to explain how specific good movies answered the seven questions brought up in the Man of Steel review and to demonstrate that being able to answer these questions meaningfully was close enough to a universal for good films (or good films of the type Man of Steel was trying to be) that failure to answer them was a crucial error.
no subject
Date: Aug. 30th, 2014 04:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Sep. 2nd, 2014 03:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Sep. 2nd, 2014 04:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Sep. 2nd, 2014 07:18 pm (UTC)And thank you
no subject
Date: Sep. 3rd, 2014 01:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Sep. 3rd, 2014 01:29 am (UTC)*ahem* Thank you for the tip, for all the articles over there I have yet to read. So, so very much.
no subject
Date: Sep. 3rd, 2014 01:34 am (UTC)Anyway. I haven't checked out the book, but it sounds intriguing, especially since it seems the discussion also applies to writing other than screenwriting. Maybe the local library network has a copy.
no subject
Date: Sep. 3rd, 2014 01:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Sep. 3rd, 2014 01:54 am (UTC)I am struggling right now with the movie logic and plot holes essay, because I like my movies to work on a dramatic level while also making sense (both at the time and afterwards on reflection). I am a nitpicker. The essay has got me thinking about whether that is a flawed or immature approach to movie criticism, and even if not, has strengthened the argument that it is at least an incomplete approach, or one level of critique among many. It was perfect that FCH used Christopher Nolan as a case study of a filmmaker who makes movies work while you're watching the first time, because Inception was a prime example of a movie where I felt swept along in a current purposefully made swift enough that I couldn't take the time to question the rules he was throwing down, and then felt cheated both during the movie at especially egregious principles (like that time is a constant in dreams) and afterwards at all the ways it didn't make sense. FCH's point that getting swept along in the action is a feature, not a bug, is an interesting one. That it's not a cheat, it's an achievement in storytelling. Although what may have hit home more is the point that when balancing all the elements of a film, character and narrative trump logic. I've encountered and learned to understand the need for that tradeoff when it comes to balancing science/medicine and character/narrative in film and TV, so maybe I'm primed to learn this new angle on the same lesson.
Still: Part of me resents being advised not to nitpick. :)
no subject
Date: Sep. 3rd, 2014 02:34 am (UTC)