Because it's not necessarily important! Most critics just talk about how a movie made them feel. And that's cool! What I do is based on how I see and interact with movies. If I was a cinematographer I'd likely come from that perspective. This is just my lane. I'm cool with that.https://twitter.com/Alex_Jamieson/status/1257617206042595328 …
-
-
Replying to @FilmCritHULK
If a critic isn't well-versed in story function and mechanics, there is little value in their opinion on the topic. Some of the worst "analysis" of popular films is by Dunning-Kruger victims attempting to dissect the "story" (see: SW:TLJ)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @koko_the_tbone
Everything I do is based on the value of that idea - and yes, there are people who misapply story mechanics across the board. But there's more to this. For one, those very same people said the movie failed a "screenwriting 101" test when i literally wrote a book by that title-and
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @FilmCritHULK @koko_the_tbone
More to the point, there are so many brilliant critics that rarely dig into that stuff at all. Sure, Kael had story sense but she was much more interested in the poeticism and emotional effect of movies, the cultural effect, and evocation of language.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @FilmCritHULK
I realized my previous tweet may have been vague, so to clarify: I love it when critics like you, who are knowledgeable about story, get into it. I think you got that, but I didn't want to leave it hanging.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Oh, this was clear, and I thank you for this! really! I guess I just wanted to defend the kind of critics who don't get into that stuff. There's more than one way to skin the proverbial cat after all.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.