The best critics illuminate the work, and you don't care if they agree with your opinion. Smart, entertaining analysis goes a lot further than mindless review and opining.
Without more context, this is unfortunately _terrible_ advice for young filmmakers. I actually like the metaphors Schrader used about the intentions of a film critic compared to a director, but the message which ultimately comes across is that _critics want to murder the filmmakers' babies,_ and that is not at all the case: Paul Schrader has a tremendous experience in the film industry, dating back to his work in the 70s, and these "words of wisdom" to me seem more like an acknowledgement of the struggle between his critical eye and his unfiltered artistic voice. On the other hand, young filmmakers should absolutely focus on developing their critical eye first, and only _then_ move onto revolutionizing the rules of cinema (similarly to how Picasso first learned to paint very well before the cubism period, or as an even better example that other people mentioned in the comments, the critics-turned-directors of the french new wave). In order to gain such knowledge, people should not shy away from critics for fear of tainting their personal opinion: there are objective qualities that can completely change one's perception of a film as a whole, just like totally subjective ones inherent to every human being. This is why democratic film discussion is SO important to the art form, and why critics are valuable just like the motherly film directors.
Great point! Schrader's advice can indeed be misleading without more context. It’s like playing the piano: you need to understand sheet music and basic techniques before you can start improvising and creating your own compositions with your unique voice
Olivier Assayas was a medical examiner that helped nurture Michael Cimino's baby Heaven's Gate back in 1981 when almost everyone in America killed it upon delivery
I really don’t see the point of having film critics. They seem to me to be like a sort of Mafia. If you are on their good side, they write positive reviews. If you upset them, they will make sure that they tell the public your movie is crap, so your movie will be an economic disaster. I never go by what reviews say, I prefer to form my own opinion. But the vast majority are not like that. The only professionals who should technically analyse movies should be professors in Visual Art schools.
@@marknewbold2583 Damn right gatekeeping! Real artists are suffering because of many things, amongst which is the untalented ‘artists’ who cultivate the public’s taste for cheap crap in cahoots with the ‘film critics’. Films are part of the culture. CULTURE. A term associated with ‘cultivate’. Since when culture means listening to weeds? Also, I am not sure how to feel about ‘democratisation’ of art producing techniques and technology. In theory, a potentially decent idea. In reality, all idiots who can write code can make machines that churn out crap movies and crap literature. Some say we should not be worried about technology undermining art. I say artists must protect their craft.
@@villain7140 What’s the job of a film critic? They should give feedback to the artists only. In private. Not talk shit in public. How do those artists feel? Maybe they didn’t make a good movie. Maybe they did. Let the public decide.
@@claudiamanta1943 "let the public decide" that's the role of the box office, we don't need populism in cinema, a lot of films that were commercially successful were bashed by the critics and vice versa.
This is truly a precious advice, thank you!
The best critics illuminate the work, and you don't care if they agree with your opinion. Smart, entertaining analysis goes a lot further than mindless review and opining.
Adore schrader’s description of his infamous facebook posts as “think pieces”
Thank you, thank you, thank you....That's the first bloody thing I thought! 'Think Piece' Hahahahahahaha
Without more context, this is unfortunately _terrible_ advice for young filmmakers.
I actually like the metaphors Schrader used about the intentions of a film critic compared to a director, but the message which ultimately comes across is that _critics want to murder the filmmakers' babies,_ and that is not at all the case:
Paul Schrader has a tremendous experience in the film industry, dating back to his work in the 70s, and these "words of wisdom" to me seem more like an acknowledgement of the struggle between his critical eye and his unfiltered artistic voice.
On the other hand, young filmmakers should absolutely focus on developing their critical eye first, and only _then_ move onto revolutionizing the rules of cinema (similarly to how Picasso first learned to paint very well before the cubism period, or as an even better example that other people mentioned in the comments, the critics-turned-directors of the french new wave).
In order to gain such knowledge, people should not shy away from critics for fear of tainting their personal opinion: there are objective qualities that can completely change one's perception of a film as a whole, just like totally subjective ones inherent to every human being.
This is why democratic film discussion is SO important to the art form, and why critics are valuable just like the motherly film directors.
Great point! Schrader's advice can indeed be misleading without more context. It’s like playing the piano: you need to understand sheet music and basic techniques before you can start improvising and creating your own compositions with your unique voice
Spoken with the wisdom of a person who has done both.
Olivier Assayas was a medical examiner that helped nurture Michael Cimino's baby Heaven's Gate back in 1981 when almost everyone in America killed it upon delivery
❤
Indeed akin to a pregnant woman that wants to nourish and survive until standing on its own.
You don’t have to understand everything. Leave some to mystery and shut the door to critics. I love it
You mean LIFE… As it always was… Before today.
Tɛnkeu for makin’ me know I’m not outta ma mind, Genius✌🏽
Also, consider not taking ambient before writing think pieces
Oh, you mean his single Twitter post that had his friends and many others concerned? Go away "kid".
I really don’t see the point of having film critics. They seem to me to be like a sort of Mafia. If you are on their good side, they write positive reviews. If you upset them, they will make sure that they tell the public your movie is crap, so your movie will be an economic disaster. I never go by what reviews say, I prefer to form my own opinion. But the vast majority are not like that.
The only professionals who should technically analyse movies should be professors in Visual Art schools.
Nice gatekeeping
@@marknewbold2583 Damn right gatekeeping! Real artists are suffering because of many things, amongst which is the untalented ‘artists’ who cultivate the public’s taste for cheap crap in cahoots with the ‘film critics’. Films are part of the culture. CULTURE. A term associated with ‘cultivate’. Since when culture means listening to weeds?
Also, I am not sure how to feel about ‘democratisation’ of art producing techniques and technology. In theory, a potentially decent idea. In reality, all idiots who can write code can make machines that churn out crap movies and crap literature. Some say we should not be worried about technology undermining art. I say artists must protect their craft.
What you're talking about is film "reviewers" and advertising; not real film criticism
@@villain7140 What’s the job of a film critic? They should give feedback to the artists only. In private. Not talk shit in public. How do those artists feel? Maybe they didn’t make a good movie. Maybe they did. Let the public decide.
@@claudiamanta1943 "let the public decide" that's the role of the box office, we don't need populism in cinema, a lot of films that were commercially successful were bashed by the critics and vice versa.