10 lessons for aspiring film critics

Jim Hoberman

The Village Voice's retrenchment of its senior film critic Jim Hoberman  was the big news in the world of film criticism this week - yet another sign of the decline of paid film criticism in the US. I thought the whole point of a magazine like the Voice was to display informed criticism on the arts among other vital aspects of New York life. It's hard to imagine who it now sees as its readership. 

On the positive side I note that Hoberman, a deeply knowledgeable writer always worth reading, including when you found yourself disagreeing, lectures on film at NYU, so it's not like the Voice was his only paid gig. Plus I'd be surprised if he didn't crop up somewhere else, just as Todd McCarthy was picked up by Hollywood Reporter after being dropped by Variety, where he'd been the senior film critic for ages.

While in the short term this is obviously bad news for smart film criticism and for the appreciation of cinema as art, in the longer term I think it's merely part of an upheaval and re-arrangement in the way things are done.

For an example of the way the net has enabled smart film writing, it's hard to beat David Bordwell and Kristen Thompson's site, Observations on Film Art. It's an unpaid blog, ultimately supported by academic work at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and their various books.

I find it interesting, in this context that they've been able to use the blog as the basis for their most recent collection of writings, Minding Movies (University of Chicago Press). I think this kind of model, where the barriers between paid and unpaid work start to break down, is something we're going to increasingly see more of. The one major problem for this is that it's going to make it harder for newcomers to break in though.

 

In the meantime, thanks to music and literary critic Bruce Elder for drawing my attention to Hoberman's 10 pieces of advice for aspiring film critics, posted by one of his former students this week on the website of theIndependent Film Channel. All the points are valuable. My comments appear in italics.

On the fundamentals:
“Ask yourself the question, ‘What do people want to know about a movie that they’ve never seen?’”

On plot:
“Plot synopses automatically ruin a review.”

Detailed plot synopses, yes. It's almost impossible to write about a film without giving something away , but try to keep those restricted to the earlier scenes that set up the story. Be sensitive to the moments you personally found surprising and try to preserve their mystery. 

I'd add: good film writing is never just about plot. It's about the totality of elements that go towards making a film, from music and sound design to performance and everything else between.

On brevity:
“Watch for excess words. If there’s a shorter word, use it.”

Indeed good advice for all writers, not just film critics. I'd add: be aware of your readership. "Mis-en-scene" makes sense to a sophisticated, cine-literate audience  - film students or readers of a serious periodical. If you're writing for a general audience, most people won't get what your point is. If you can't find a concise way to explain mis-en-scene, perhaps you shouldn't be writing about film.

On editors:
“Work with them for the good of the piece. Don’t have ego. Don’t compete.”

One of the most valuable reactions I ever had from a section editor was when he handed back a piece and told me it wasn't what he'd asked for and that I could do better. I went away. I did do better.

On interviewing filmmakers:
“If you’re thinking about it, ask them about it.”

Obvious, perhaps, but there's no point being shy. Spit out what's on your mind. 

On digressions:
“The longer the em dash, the weaker its impact.”

Great rule. In general, it's a good idea not to let your sentences get too long. At the same time, don't fetishise short sentences. Sometimes you need to contrast sentences of different lengths to create a more dynamic rhythm.

On taste:
“Always ask yourself why you like what you like.”

That's what good criticism is: the reviewer exploring their reactions, finding out why they felt the way they did, and bringing their knowledge and personal insights to bear.

On bad movies:
“Vent your spleen. In criticism, it’s better to be angry than depressed.”

Can't argue with that.

On the competition:
“Never read other critics’ reviews. They cloud your judgment.”

"Never" is a bit harsh. Reading critics you admire is immensely stimulating.  But in general it's better not to read them on a particular film until first you've written your own review. The exception: writing on older films,  you might want to hold upearlier critical reactions to scrutiny. You may want to argue with them. You may even want to agree with them.

On deadlines:
“Never miss a deadline.”

Can't emphasis that one enough. If you mess around editors, they won't invite you back. Can't blame them.

I'd add a personal piece of advice missing from Hoberman's list:

Don't run with the crowd. Just because your peers loudly declaim a film you've just enjoyed as banal rubbish or pretentious tripe, it does not mean you have to follow sheepishly. The best critics are leaders. At the same time, don't go the opposite extreme and be perverse. An opinion doesn't become invalidated just because it's widely held.