In the 1960 classic chiller Village of the Damned George Sanders is finally able to rid the village of Midwich from the menacing mind-reading children by focusing his mind on a brick wall, the better to conceal that he has carried a bomb into the schoolhouse. "A brick wall," he keeps repeating to himself, "a brick wall." Lately with all the Avatar talk going on around town, and by town I mean the tubes, I've been thinking of that scene again. Why? Because, in a strange phenomenon that has developed, it seems much of the talk isn't just about the movie but about how many people, and who, pre-judged the movie before they saw it, as if they should have blocked their minds from any thoughts on the film and concentrated instead on a brick wall. That they didn't do this is apparently of great ethical concern. Allow me a brief lapse of decorum so that I may say boldly, "Who gives a fuck?!"
I pre-judge movies all the time. And food. And books. And events, parties, gatherings, what have you. No matter what it is or may be I have this annoying habit of actually giving thought to something before I engage in it. Goddamn meddlesome big human brain! And if you're a member of the human species, and I can only conclude definitively that you are if you have the ability to read this, you do too. It's called the cognitive process. Thinking. You, me, everyone - We do it all the time. So why is it such a sin to suddenly do it with Avatar? From what I gather, the sin has been to, gasp, make public one's pre-judgments. Again, who gives a fuck?
The problem with pre-judging something surfaces only if you allow your pre-judgment to trump your actual experience. Outside of stubborn children I have rarely encountered this in real life. And so the pre-judgments simply serve as a jumping off point for talking about the movie and what you think it's going to be like. And what's wrong with that? Going into a movie I always have expectations one way or the other. Always. Examples? Okay, I'll give you some examples:
Return of the Jedi: Oh boy! Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy. Having seen the first two Star Wars movies upon their respective releases and liking the second, The Empire Strikes Back, even better than the first I was freaking psyched for the third and final installment! It was guaranteed I would love it and I liked the series so much I knew I'd love it no matter what. Ahem. I was underwhelmed. Substantially. For years I was miffed that that was how it ended, until The Phantom Menace came along and made it look like Citizen Kane. Speaking of which...
Citizen Kane: That's right, you read that correctly, Citizen Kane. Like most, my ciniphelia started at an early age and like all the 40-ups out there I had no cable or video stores with which to feed my burgeoning fanaticism and so relied on film books. Well, let me tell you, by the time I finally had the opportunity to see Citizen Kane I was sure - Absolutely sure! - I would be unimpressed. I'd read too much about it, way too much and it couldn't all be true. I was prepared to be underwhelmed and dejected. Boy was I wrong! I immediately fell in love and Orson Welles and all his works, and life, have been a fascination of mine ever since.
Catch-22 and Fail Safe: I think of these movies together because both suffered from being compared to another film released around the same time that was considered vastly superior. In the case of Catch-22 it was M.A.S.H and in the case of Fail Safe it was Dr. Strangelove. I saw both of the "lesser" films years later and was prepared to be slightly bored by both. Not only was I wrong and, in fact, greatly enjoyed both films but in the case of Catch-22 I think it has dated far better than M.A.S.H.
Okay, I've got about a million more examples like those but you get the point. I've never said to myself, "Boy, I'm probably going to hate this," and then saw said film, loved it, and said, "I've got to hide the fact that I loved it to save face. I'll pretend to everyone that I really hated it!" Nor have I ever let a prejudgement affect my considered opinion of a film (or restaurant or party or whatever) for very long. Perhaps for the first few minutes but then the brain takes over and you know if something is good or bad, no matter what you thought going in.
So there you have it. Can we stop knocking folks for pre-judging Avatar please? Anticipation, forming advance opinions, sharing them with other cinephiles - it's all a part of the process, not a shameful sin. Now, don't get me wrong, I understand when things go too far and it's usually around this point: "I hate that movie and I have no intention of seeing it!" Well then you can't hate it can you? I mean, if you're never going to see it how can you hate it? And if you're going to refuse to see it then you probably should refrain from discussing it with others who have. That I understand. But that isn't what's happening. The complaints are about reactions the film received in the months leading up to its release. And there I don't quite get the problem. If you're not into the pre-release gossip (and as anyone who reads Cinema Styles knows, I am not) don't talk about it. If others are, don't worry about it. Let them discuss how bad or good they think it's going to be if that's they're bag of fun. Really. It's okay.
And no, I haven't seen Avatar yet but I will tell you that I did (of course!) pre-judge it. I saw the trailer a couple of months back and thought, "My God, that looks like one of the worst things in the history of the human experience." Now it's out and I've read many good reviews and many bad ones. When I see it I will either love it, like it, be indifferent to it or hate it. And whichever of those it turns out to be it will have nothing to do with my reaction to watching the trailer and everything to do with my actual experience in the theater. And if you don't believe me just go ask Dennis Cozzalio. Read this piece and its paragraphs concerning Speed Racer. He was convinced it would be a dreadful dud going in. A few months later it ended up topping his list for the best of the year. Why? Because he's not a child and no matter what his pre-judgments were going in he went with his actual experience in the end(and even shared his pre-judgments with us). It's only human. The only problem is when the pre-judgment trumps the experience because then we've moved into the area of dishonesty and that's an area into which no cinephile should ever venture.
39 comments:
Good points.
Because I'd never seen a Tarantino movie I thought was truly any good -- this space and my patience prohit a coherent analysis -- I'd prejudged Inglourious Basterds. Could my ear tolerate more of his insipid, hipper-than-thou chit chat or petty attitudinizing, I wondered.
My ideal movie usually runs about 89 minutes; 2 1/2 hours of QT was initially vexing. But Inglourious Basterds held me from start to finish. When the Blu-ray came out, I placed my order at Amazon.
And thanks for bringing up Dennis's Speed Racer episode. He was prepared for crap but found treasure. I read about his treasure but found crap. Like a dog chasing its tail.
Great post, Greg, and I agree... expectations, in and of themselves, are not a bad thing. It's when you allow those expectations to color what you think of the movie that it starts to become dubious. Not to mention, all movies are marketed in a certain way, and with a really good movie, the marketing is almost always in no way true to the actual finished product. Inglourious Basterds was advertised as a rip-roaring action movie starring Brad Pitt, and it's anything but. Fantastic Mr. Fox had two different marketing strategies: when the trailer played before more family friendly films, the trailer played up that aspect of the movie. When the trailer played before an independent film, it played up the Wes Anderson angle. Advertising creates this atmosphere of pre-jugement, and you can't judge a movie by a byline.
But sometimes the marketing machine just gets out of control, especially in the 'net era. Avatar is probably the most extreme example of this, but it's also helmed by maybe the world's greatest self promoter, James Cameron. I don't mean this in necessarily a bad way (still haven't seen it), but he has created an atmosphere where the movie and the techniques that made it are inseparable. People who know me know I like movies, so all of a sudden everyone I know --- even people who live in caves --- are informing me of Cameron's brave new cinematic world. "Did you hear that it's the most expensive movie ever made?" "Did you know he developed new 3D technology for it?". Why, no Detective Dipshit, I haven't been hearing about this movie for 4 fucking years already, thank you for informing me.
What I'm saying is I can't blame people for being sick of it before they even walk through the door. Nothing kills a good time like overexposure. Cameron may be the master of creating a hype-machine, and while that sells tickets like nothing else, it almost sets itself up for a backlash (see: Titanic).
Flickhead, I too love a movie that runs about an hour and a half. And when I saw the trailer for Inglourious Basterds I had the same reaction. I thought, "How dare Tarantino make a WWII movie! What does he know about it?" and said about as much somewhere out there (maybe Fox's blog). But I saw it, loved it and also put that out there.
I'm not calling anyone out but on Twitter and Facebook especially there have been a few critics who keep complaining about all those folks who said it was going to suck and ha,ha don't they feel stupid now! Well no, why should they? And why are we casting judgment on them for doing what is natural, wondering how you're going to like something and using past experience and minimal evidence to do so. Then when you see it you might have a completely different reaction. I don't see that that's such a horrible thing to do.
Ryan, I get the same thing. People ask me all the time "did you hear about this movie or that and what they did?"
"No, do tell. I spend all my time with my Banzai trees so I don't know of where you speak."
Actually, I usually just say that I haven't heard about it and move on to something else. That usually works. But when I see a trailer I immediately form an opinion. And sometimes I would like to talk to other cinephiles about it. And sometimes the trailer makes me believe, as does the trailer for Avatar, that one of the most inartistic and horribly constructed pieces of human waste is about to hit the screen. That's just my opinion based on what I truly believe to be an awful trailer. The movie may very well be superb and I'll know for sure in a couple of days when I see it. Until then, fuck it, why not talk about what we think about everything going on with it? As long as I do see the movie and form my final and considered opinion of it from that I don't see the problem.
I think the objection is prejudgment that goes into actual criticism. I know Rick Olson was teed off about the conversations about Tarantinoand Inglourious Basterds, which I admit I participated in. Making the decision whether to see a film, a movie, a TV show, go to a restaurant, etc. is just an educated guess. I don't know if we'll go see Avatar or not. Sometimes spectacle is a good thing.
And not just that but hypocrisy too. Glenn Kenny called out Jeffrey Wells for writing several things in advance about how bad Avatar was going to be and then he saw it and liked it and now Wells is, unbelievably, criticizing people who pre-judged the film!
Nothing wrong with talking about a movie before you see it as long as when you see it you leave the conjecture behind which I know you, Rick, myself and everyone I know in these parts would do.
Yeah, so, as you probably know, I got involved in some of this recently. And I do not get the "don't judge it until you've seen it" idea -- well, okay, I DO get it, but since we all, as you say, Greg, pre-judge things, I'm put off by the hypocrisy of the whole thing.
Since I don't know that I'm actually going to see AVATAR, so put off by what I've heard, it has been my plan (well, not plan so much as inclination) to steer clear of any talk about it. I no longer care, really, and I got off my chest what I needed to.
Also, Wells does that kind of shit all the time.
Bill, I think I will definitely be seeing it soon and as to pre-judging, well, here I go again: I read Jim Emerson and Larry Aydlette's reviews and couldn't help but think, "Yeah, that's what I'm going to think too I bet." Larry even mentioned how irritating the tree destruction scene was because it echoes 9/11 in a backwards, knee-jerk exploitative way.
Let's face it, Cameron is a mental lightweight. If you go into his movies thinking you're going to get a full-bodied script, forget it. His scripts are broadstroked excuses to dazzle with the epic vision of his filmmaking. Turn off your brain, and you're home free.
I should have said that there is an almost 100% chance that I will see AVATAR some day, what with cable and everything, but there's also an almost 100% chance that I'll see the most recent FINAL DESTINATION movie, too.
Anyway, the bad reviews of this film are almost uniformly more interesting than the positive ones -- which can't possibly be my own bias talking -- because almost all of the positive ones, as Jim Emerson pointed out, acknowledge the lack of any interesting, or non-repulsive, content. They say it's a technical marvel. Well, I've seen those before. INDEPENDENCE DAY was a technical marvel at the time, as was TITANIC, and I hated both of those. And I went into both of those films with a lot of optimism.
It seems like you're allowed to pre-judge a film if your pre-judgement is positive. If it's negative, then who the fuck do you think you are!?
Also, and finally, I should have complimented you on your post, especially the VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED connection. Nice.
His scripts are broadstroked excuses to dazzle with the epic vision of his filmmaking. Turn off your brain, and you're home free.
Well said. Terminator is still my favorite of his. Pulpy, made on the cheap, cheesy effects and all in the service of a silly script which made it fine. But suddenly he thinks he's David Lean, and even Lean got much less interesting (to me at least) once he started making epics only, much as I like some of them.
It seems like you're allowed to pre-judge a film if your pre-judgement is positive. If it's negative, then who the fuck do you think you are!?
That really could have been my blog post right there. That's mainly what irritates me about the complaining. If I go onto a comment site or a message board and go on and on about how good it's going to be and how it seems like it's saying something noble and yadda, yadda, yadda it's no problem. I can talk all I want. But if my assumptions run towards it being a stinker well then, what an asshole I am!
Anyway, the bad reviews of this film are almost uniformly more interesting than the positive ones -- which can't possibly be my own bias talking
Not at all, Bill. Even as someone who enjoys Cameron and is looking forward to it, as much as one can look forward to these things, I agree that the positive reviews have read like ad copy, with few exceptions. Yes, the amount of money he has spent on the film is impressive, but at the end of the day, that has nothing to do with any kind of evaluation of it --- you just have what's on the screen. And what's on the screen hasn't much been engaged with by its admirers (again, with few exceptions), whereas all the best reviews I've read of it have been negative, because they at least engage with the movie as a work instead of as a feat of technology.
But maybe it should be engaged as a feat of technology. Let's face it - a lot of film academics and film snobs engage films from a purely technical standpoint in ways that ignore story, action, and character. One film scholar I know likes Invictus because of what it says about Eastwood as an auteur. There are a lot of ways to skin the film-going experience.
I agree that the positive reviews have read like ad copy, with few exceptions.
They really have. They all discuss stats! Who cares, I want to know about the quality of the movie.
But maybe it should be engaged as a feat of technology.
I'm sure I'll admire many of the tech aspects of the film but that's not enough to sustain me for three hours. But you're right, that's probably the best way to engage it.
But I don't know if it's being considered on a formal/academic level... I think they're just regurgitrating the things Cameron himself has been saying for years. I don't feel much analysis going on, just discussion of the 'wow' factor... which is a commercial's job, not a critic's. So what I should have said was it's being engaged with strictly as a feat of capitalism.
But I aqree with you, discussion of form is boring without a discussion of how the form relates to the story that's being told
while i wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment (pre-judgement being completely natural and human) i can't say that i agree with the conclusion: who cares?
I've actually become more distressed each year about this -- maybe because i follow the Oscar race so closely -- that it's getting harder and harder to have conversations about film without prejudgements coloring everything. It's like cinema is sports and everyone has their favorite teams. and they can't process whether or not they're losing the current game.
The most obvious example of this to me is the (critically speaking) adulation for Clint Eastwood no matter how uneven the current film is and (oscarbuzz speaking) certain actors of high esteem (the Hoffmans, Blanchetts, Streeps) always being considered "great" even if they're misreading their new character or what not.
I do think the internet and 24 hour news cycle has changed our ability to process actual experience. at least in a small way. Obviously some people will have more trouble with this than others. But there is an awful lot of no budging side-taking without any actual info... and you can see this in politics too.
and there's also an awful lot of recording of experience rather than living it and I think that has to be a part of the larger problem. Set down your camera phones and actually WATCH this event please.
Ryan, like Bill said, other films have been great visual feats before too and been disasterous as stories. I don't like reading about the wonderful visuals in one paragraph and then in the next about how cliched and trite and poorly written the story is and THEN the critic concludes the movies it terrific based only on the first part. Well, if that's the case then editing together a couple of hours of great special effects demonstration shots would be the pinnacle of cinema.
Nathaniel, you're right that prejudgments can become a real problem which I acknowledge in the piece as well. I have had arguments with people who run down a film without seeing it and when I ask them to come back to me after they've seen it to see what they think then, they inform me they have no intention of seeing it... because it's horrible. That drives me insane! They have let their own prejudgment convince them the film is bad and to never give it a chance.
With actors it happens more often because they have a discernable look and feel no matter who they're playing so when we hear Meryl Streep is playing any given role we, if we're fans of her, know what she has brought to other performances and 'see' all those past performances while watching the new one. Thus, if the new performance is shoddily interpreted we don't necessarily notice that she could've done it different.
When it stops the conversation, as it can, then yes, it is a ooncern.
Greg,
I pre-judged this film and I post-judged it as well and I judged it several times while watching it. This is a well judged film.
Before I saw the film, I thought "those aliens are going to look like shit." I also thought that the story would be a re-hash of something and the dialogue would suck.
After the film, I was right about everything except the aliens. They didn't look as cartoony as I originally thought they would.
And back to pre-judging. How can you not? If you're in to cinema, this is Cameron's first film since turdsville and it's sci-fi which is his sweet-spot. Not only that, it's a movie that he's been developing for 15 years.
Anyway, I wrote a little piece about it over at my blog. It's called Lazy Eye Theatre. It was almost shut down but I scrambled together some money to keep the doors open a bit longer.
Great post. So very true. I sort of want to go see Avator i am just curious to see what all the hype is about, Im not really a fan of all those special effect technical films, so when I first saw clips from Avator on 60-minutes i thought SHIT.
But now compared to the crap that's been showing at movie theatre's (Sherlock holmes, probably don't need to see this to no its garbage)this looks alright and something new, it might be something to gasp over. Great post.
Let it be known that I have pre-judged Sherlock Holmes and I have pre-judged it to be a very enjoyable movie. Time will tell if that pre-judgement is true or not.
Pat, I believe all of your pre-judgments are true. Like that time you said, "Hey Greg, let's go get an ice cream cone," and I was like, "I don't know, looks kind of shady over there," and you were like, "No it's not, it's great. Trust me." And then we went over there and got mugged. So, actually, I guess you were wrong there but for the most part your pre-judgments rock.
Except that my pre-judgment of Sherlock Holmes is that it will be this year's equivalent of Barry Sonnenfeld's Wild, Wild West. Trust me.
Zoe, I have a much greater desire to see Avatar than Sherlock Holmes as stressed in my comment to Pat. I think, after reading Pat's review at Lazy Eye Theatre and many others, that it will be quite something to look at but will fall kind of flat in the story area. But again, I might think it's great. I mean, I won't know until I see it.
Jeez,
Wild Wild West. That's a little lofty don't you think? I mean, you haven't even seen the movie and you're comparing it to one of the greatest action/sci-fi/comedies of our time. Go easy, Greg.
Hey Greg, I know a good place to get some Pizza. We should go there tomorrow.
Pizza? Sounds great! Let me just grab my wallet. I just withdrew my lifesavings and it's all in there so it's my treat buddy!
I haven't read your post yet, Greg, but I already know what I'll like and dislike about it.
Except that my pre-judgment of Sherlock Holmes is that it will be this year's equivalent of Barry Sonnenfeld's Wild, Wild West. Trust me.
Will it have a big, giant mechanical spider in it? And Kevin Kline in drag? I love me some Kevin Kline in drag ...
Actually, it is my judgment that it will have those things, therefore they will appear in my warmed-over review on Avatar. Look for it in a pile of electrons near you!
I did see the film, and enjoyed it for what it is -- a technical marvel (the 3D didn't give me a headache -- and I would suggest if you're going to see it, you should see it presented that way), with a script that took bits and pieces from other films (some of Cameron's own). It has a very left-wing viewpoint (which is fine by me), and is a bit too long -- as so-called "epic" films feel they have to be these days.
My two cents...
Craig, your pre-judgment is wrong. There shouldn't be any part you dislike.
No Ryan, I don't really see a backlash here at all, unless it's out of envy, which it usually is. The film is an out and out masterpiece, and it's gathering some of the most prestigious support there is include the Best Film from the New York Films Critics Online Association, the always tasteful and sicerning anti-populist, Manohla Dargis (one of our bets writers) and a nod for Best Picture yesterday from the London critics Society.
I'm no fan of Cameron either, but you have to give the devil his due. This is a rapturous, awe-inspiring films with visuals that take your breath away and a deeper philosophical underpinning.
I agree with the primary outcry of this post: Fuck the dialogue! It's all symbolic in the larger scheme anyway.
Rick, the answer to one of your questions is yes, the other is no but I'm not saying which goes with which.
And warmed over reviews are the best. I look forward to your tepid response.
Mrrspidey, there is absolutely no way I'll see it without 3-D, I mean, to me that's in a large part the point of going to see it is to see the new 3-D technology on display. Unfortunately the IMAX 3-D films I've seen have given my headaches so I'll just take a few advil with me.
Sam, it's clearly got both sides. There are some big names supporting it like those you mention and big name detractors as well. I won't be able to see it until after Christmas but I'm really looking forward to it one or another.
Greg, it's got the numbers, overwhelmingly, but you'd be right to tell me to shove the critics too, as I just recently wrote negative opinions on INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS and UP IN THE AIR, which they also loved.
I use the critics when they agree with me!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have a great holiday and I look forward to your reaction to AVATAR.
Thanks Sam, happy holidays to you too.
Thank you for your brave comments about The Return of the Jedi! For years I've thought (secretly, silently) that it substantially fell off in quality from the first two. The misjudgements piled up throughout, but somehow culminated in Darth Vedar's face being at long last revealed--and looking totally WRONG.Stunning, tragic ruined beauty was called for. Instead, he looked like a butcher after a bad night out. To be fair, I do think they got the funeral pyre right. It was very moving.
Margaret, it's those damn Ewoks that get me. I mean, after the dark grandeur of The Empire Strikes Back to then go 180 degrees and transport the whole cast to Fraggle Rock was just too much to bear.
Post a Comment