The most unfair criticism to apply to a movie

Cafe Society
1

Have you ever read a movie review that slams a movie, and you run up against an adjective that makes you think, “So the hell what? That’s not just an unfair criticism against this movie, it’s an unfair criticism against any movie.”

The movie criticism that most annoys me is “manipulative.” News flash: when I go to movies, I expect and intend to be manipulated! I expect the director to have certain moods and emotions in his mind when he makes the movie, and do his level best to manipulate me into feeling those moods and emotions. I expect that he should try to evoke my happiness, pity, disgust, grief, rage, or anger in the appropriate scenes through the appropriate use of music, colors, casting, and everything else in the director’s bag of tricks, and that the actors should work with the director to produce this result. The ending of Billy Budd is manipulative; it’s intended to make me sad and it does. Hooray! The scene in A.I. where David finds the previous models of himself is intended to make my blood freeze, and it does so. That’s what I want! The scene in Glory where Trip is whipped for desertion is intended to make me cringe, just like the officers on the screen, and it does. That’s good movie-making!

Sometimes movies manipulate me in ways I don’t want to be manipulated, and that’s especially good. I did not watch Das Boot with the desire to root for a crew of Kriegsmarine submariners. I’m glad the Allies won the battle of the Atlantic. And yet when I watch those German submariners, who respect each other and work so heartbreakingly hard just to survive, it was absolutely impossible for me to want them to die. I wanted them to live, even though I didn’t want to want them to live. That is superb manipulation.

The movies that annoy me are not those that manipulate me, but those that try to manipulate me and fail. Case in point: The Black Swan. The movie wants to manipulate us into rooting for the English, but never gives us a good reason to do so. We’re just expected to root for them because they’re English, and since the Spanish all have sinister black beards they must be evil and deserve to have their towns looted and burned. You gotta work harder than that to manipulate me! In contrast, The Sea Hawk immediately enlists our sympathies on behalf of the English with a peek into King Philip II’s throne room and his fantastic plans for world domination. Now we’ve got a good reason to cheer when Errol Flynn kicks Spanish behinds. That’s much better manipulation!

So this thread poses two questions. First, who agrees and who disagrees that “manipulative” is an unfair criticism? Second, what other movie criticisms do you think are inherently unfair?

2

I hate statements like: “Director Rake Mumblethorpe and star Jack Power do their best with sub-par material…” when I just know that Drake and Jack sat in a room with a perfectly good script and hacked it to ribbons.

3

I am trying to think of something specific - I get annoyed with critics who review the movie they wanted to see instead of the movie they saw. Or the ones who expect every film to be Citizen Kane instead of a diverting two hours of storytelling served up with popcorn. I also get annoyed when the director gets all the glory and the screenwriter doesn’t get mentioned.

4

I agree. I believe that writing is the foundation of any movie. If a movie is poorly written, there isn’t much that can save it, whether it be spectacular direction, acting, special effects, photography, etc.

5

I agree with honoring the screenwriter. Robert Bolt is my idol.
As far as “Manipulative” goes – I agree that mopvies are supposed to manipulate you, and I think the critics you lash out at dop, too. But when you’re aware of the writer and director and actor trying to force an emotion from you, rather than having it develop from the feelings you have from a well-told story, that’s manipulative, and they have a right to call it so. Mighty Joe Young saving a kid at the risk of his own life isn’t manipulative. Mighty Joe Young saving a kid from a burning orphanage is manipulative.

“Manipulative” is exactly the word I would use to describe E.T., and it’s the reason I haven’t seen the movie more than once. When I can see all the puppet strings so clearly, it ruins the movie for me.

6

The critics who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes are those that hate a particular genre of film, then review it anyway. What we end up getting is not a piece about that movie, but about the critic’s own likes and dislikes.

For example, Kathleen Carroll, who has written for several New York papers in her career, can’t stand horror or science fiction movies: hates them, hates them, hates them, doesn’t care for 'em much at all. Consequently, any review she ever did of any such movie had the smell of, “Well, I suppose this is all right if you like this kind of trash…”

Always refreshes one to see an open mind.

7

I see your point about the director. Even if the director didn’t have a perfectly good script to start with, he ought at least to have made it better, since directors deviate from the script they’re handed all the time.

But why the star? How often do the actors, even the leads, actually get to determine their own dialogue? I always felt that the actors could usually be excused for having bad material.

8

“Powerful” stars like Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts, among others, have script approval written into their contract, this happens quite often when they’re also in a production role. A specific film I remember this occurring in was Misson:Impossible 2, but I’d wager that one was a turkey-by-committee from the start. So your average everyday actor wouldn’t have much recourse, mostly the director is supervising the rewriting process.

9

What I hate is when the reviewer finds out that the movie isn’t about what he thinks it was going to be about, then pans the movies because it doesn’t live up his expectations.

The Elephant Man got this treatment because it had the same title as Bernard Pomerance’s play about the life of Joseph Merrick (usually named as “John” Merrick). The movie actually had nothing to do with the play, aside from being based on the same two books. Critics seemed to dislike because it wasn’t based on the play, or because they actually showed actor John Hurt in full prosthetic makeup (rather than “interpreting” the disease, as in the play). But it’s a movie! The strength of a movie is its ability to show things that one doesn’t ordinarily see, and in ways you don’t see them, even in a theater.

Another movie that was panned because of critics’ expectations was Predator, believe it or not. Because the earliest ads were somewhat vague about the subject, I think a lot of folks thought this was going to be a movie about Central America or something, and felt cheated when they found out it was Science Fiction.

10

“It smelled terrible.”