The premise: Benny (Aidan Quinn) has lived with his younger sister, Joon (Mary Stuart Masterson) ever since their parents died when they were young. Although Benny and Joon are old enough to live in their own separate apartments, Benny continues to live with his mentally ill sister both as a protective measure and out of necessity (or so he thinks). When Benny loses a strange bet to one of his friends, he is forced to bring an eccentric young man named Sam (Johnny Depp) into his household. Uncomfortable expressing himself through words, Sam instead makes his feelings known through brilliantly imitated routines from old Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton films. When Sam and Joon form a romantic bond, Benny starts to experience jealousy about his sister's growing independence from him.
While reading up on the film afterward I noticed that audiences and critics alike were pretty divided about their opinions. Some took it for what it was -- a sweet little distraction that was never meant to be taken as high quality cinema -- while others lambasted it as an empty and contrived film that reduced mental illness to a trivial character trait. Film critic Desson Thomson of The Washington Post commented on Rotten Tomatoes: "Riddled with insufferable contrived zaniness ...it deals as deeply with mental illness as The Sound of Music explored the genocidal advance of the Third Reich." Yikes, I say. It got me thinking about film criticism and how, every once and awhile, it's simply okay to thoroughly enjoy a film without damning it for not being high-calibre cinema. I completely disagree with Thomson's comment and it made me think about films that I may have reviewed in the past that I maybe shouldn't have taken so seriously and criticized so harshly.
Joon (Masterson) and Sam (Depp). |
The audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes is at 85%, which is incredibly positive. The critical rating is lower, at 73% -- but that's still not too bad. Overall, it would seem the majority of people enjoyed the film. That being said, I'm sure everyone will agree that it's not exactly anywhere near one of the greatest films over made -- but it did what it set out to do; entertain.
I know there are a lot of people out there who hate film critics and think they shouldn't exist. I know people personally who say that it's one of the most useless occupations because it ultimately has little influence as to whether or not a person winds up seeing a certain film. While this may be true to a certain extent, I'm of the opinion that all art forms should be fairly criticized so that they can be discussed and studied. How else will we learn to form opinions, share our ideas and talk about popular culture without art criticism, in all its forms?
So, I guess my question to you is: Should some movies be exempt from serious film criticism? Or, if not exempt completely, should they be rated differently than certain higher quality films?
I was hoping someone else would have commented first for once!!
ReplyDeleteDoesn't the problem become one of who is to judge which films are exempt from critisim? And which are considered quality over those that aren't? It sort of starts a vicious circle. Look at Super 8. I hated and yet the masses loved it. Who is right in deciding it shouldn't be subject to a certain level or type of critisim? I think the bad has to judged against the good and in the same light to recognise which is which.
I know where you are coming from with this and I share your sentiments on dicussion, and study. I feel if we went down that road it would be one step closer to a form of dictatorship where one or two opinions govern over all.
I'm not overly fond of critics but I have the option of not reading them. I'm not sure I want to see another person decide for me what they consider quality as it may not appear to me to be so. Judging from the many movie/film orientated blogs I shudder at what some consider a good film!!!!!!!!! I don't want to see Hollywood making movie after movie like Super 8 to satisfy a certain group of critics or the majority of opinion. I think that is what would happen if we divided movies into sub groups for different ratings.
Great, great question, and it does open up a real Pandora's Box doesn't it?? It reminds me of the questions I had to write essays on for uni assignments!!
Every film is worthy of theory and criticism. Absolutely no film should be exempt. A critic (or writer or film enthusiast or blogger) is responsible for knowing how to accurately and appropriately analyze a film. Many films are not meant to be measured against the cinematic canon. While some films are best suited for evaluation in their respective genre, others are best suited for evaluation in context of their maker (e.g. a director's filmography). All films, however, can - and should - be examined from within, which is how the most insightful criticism is born.
ReplyDelete@Brent: I agree. I'm a fan of film criticism ...but when I watch a movie like Benny & Joon and read criticisms that are really negative I just wonder if it were possible to grade it differently, you know? But, I don't think anything should be exempt. You make art, prepare for both the negative and positive things that come with that.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point: If you aren't a fan of film criticism, you can avoid reviews. But, film criticism generates important discussion so it must still exist in some form, even if we don't always agree with the verdict.
Thanks! :)
@Jess: Hey! Thanks for commenting again.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 100%. I couldn't have said it better myself. There are some -- like comic book adaptations -- that can be criticized within a specific genre, but ultimately it's a matter of figuring out how to appropriately discuss the film you are reviewing (as you said).
Ha ha..'if you make art, prepare for both the negative and positive that come with that'. Perfectly worded and all too true!
ReplyDelete