NEW FILM REVIEW FEATURE/^ R«dy Nelson
mary department. To cite a less obvious example, there was a film made several years ago by Good News Productions in Pennsylvania entitled Twice Convicted. Written and produced expressly for a non- Christian audience and originally intended to b e s h o w n in h i g h schools, jails, community centers, army camps and other locations not directly connected with the church, it painted a realistic and at times rather sordid picture of one man’s life apart from Christ. For such an audience it packed a wal lop. But then it began to be distrib uted to the churches. Understand ably, it was pretty heady wine for some hallowed sanctuaries and was severely criticized by church audi ences. HoW inadequate to judge a film as good or bad apart from its intended utilization. What then is the reviewer’ s func tion? Presumably, in order to qual ify as a film, television, book, music or art critic, one must have a cer tain knowledge of techniques, his tory and accepted standards in his chosen field — at least more than the average person. This should enable him to trace his evaluation of a given artistic work to specific characteristics rather than be satis fied with an over-simplified, whole sale, unanalytical judgment. Practically, of course, a review can give valuable information con cerning the content and best use of a film. Inevitably, paid advertise ments and printed brochures can not be expected to deal with all of this in complete objectivity. With this in mind, I would like to suggest that even a reviewer with whom you radically disagree can be read constructively. At the very least, you may find yourself concluding, “ If he likes that film, I’m sure I won’t!”
realize that personal opinion will be a part of every review. This is inevitable. But let it also be recog nized that that opinion is in no way being forced upon the reader. If I shotdd say that the acting in a film is sub-standard and you agree, fine. If you disagree, that’s good too. No premium is paid for una nimity of opinion. There is another function a re viewer cannot perform legitimate ly. And that is to render an unqual ified objective judgment that a given film is good or bad. At best, this would be an over-simplifica tion. For example, the basic idea, story or subject matter of a film may have been superb; but perhaps somewhere along the way, from subject matter to story idea to script to screen, the tremendous potential was forever lost. To judge a film as bad without recognizing this would be to miss an opportunity for con structive criticism. Another film might be a richly rewarding experience for the view er except for one thing ■*—a thor oughly unconvincing performance in one of the major roles or unintel ligible sound or careless editing. Then, too, a film might be good for some purpose and not for others. Martin Luther is an excellent film, but not for the Sunday school pri-
■ ou have a right to know what to expect from this column. Perhaps the best way to clear the track for some positive suggestions is to state at the outset that there are some things a film review column should not do. It is not the job of a film review er to be a tastemaker. If you have seen a film and liked it, no amount of argument to the contrary on the part of anyone, critics included, should move you from that favor able opinion. That is, if the dis agreement narrows down to per sonal taste. For on matters of taste there is no logical dispute. Fortun ately, over a period of time, taste does change — both the reviewer’s and the reader’s — but not by force of logic. The danger, of course, is that the reviewer can literally govern the taste of many who read his column. With some reviewers this is a premeditated, conscious process. In other situations it is not so much the reviewer as the reader. He likes a particular film, book or television program because a r e c o g n i z e d critic has expressed his approval. He sees a significant dramatic achievement on television but arbi trarily suspends his judgment until he learns from the local TV news paper critic how he should have re acted. In some circles this has evolved into a sort of cultural tyranny. Everyone concerned with a Broad way dramatic production waits with trepidation for the morning papers and the critics’ judgment on the opening night performance. While that judgment is not final or irrefutable, it is enormously influ ential on the box-office receipts and can make or break a new play. Let it be said clearly that the writer of this column is the first to
A b o u t t h e A u th o r
For the last eight years Rudy Nelson has been writer-producer-director of Christian films, radio and TV shows. A graduate of Brown Univ. and Boston Univ. School of Theology, he is currently instructor of com munications at Providence-Barrington Bible College of which he is an alumnus.
16
Made with FlippingBook HTML5