Fandom: Experiencing the Same Thing Differently
I like films. I have done so since I was a young child, mainly because we watched them as a family. Furthermore, both my parents weren’t just casual viewers. They were fans who were knowledgeable about their hobby. Plus they came from a generation where going to the cinema was a major part of their life and a very accessible pastime. Hence my love of film, filmmaking and analysis. But like any form of fandom, it can often be a very broad church. For example, I may be at a social gathering such as a dinner party or a fundraising event for the Humber and District Catholic River-Wideners Club and I strike up a conversation with a stranger. The stilted conversation turns to film (or more informally “movies) and for a brief moment, there is the possibility of a shared interest. However, if the other party then indicates that they are a committed advocate of the works of Ben Stiller, then that common ground evaporates like a politician's promises after election day.
I like films. I have done so since I was a young child, mainly because we watched them as a family. Furthermore, both my parents weren’t just casual viewers. They were fans who were knowledgeable about their hobby. Plus they came from a generation where going to the cinema was a major part of their life and a very accessible pastime. Hence my love of film, filmmaking and analysis. But like any form of fandom, it can often be a very broad church. For example, I may be at a social gathering such as a dinner party or a fundraising event for the Humber and District Catholic River-Wideners Club and I strike up a conversation with a stranger. The stilted conversation turns to film (or more informally “movies) and for a brief moment, there is the possibility of a shared interest. However, if the other party then indicates that they are a committed advocate of the works of Ben Stiller, then that common ground evaporates like a politician's promises after election day.
Belghast wrote a very interesting blog post today about “subculture and gatekeeping” and how fandom is often very personal as we seek to define ourselves during our teenage years. Hence it can lead to a sense of ownership and even gatekeeping. Tangentially, one sentence in the post stood out for me and is relevant to the theme of this post. "RHCP (Red Hot Chilli Peppers) had sorta been one of those arcane signals of belonging that helped us find more members of our tribe. Even though that “tribe” was contorted as fuck because none of us actually had the exact same ideals or beliefs or even hobbies". That is a succinct description of the point I was making earlier. E.g. “I like movies. You like movies as well? Oh, you like those movies”. Again we return to the concept that fandom as a broad church and that a shared interest does not guarantee that you and the other party will have lots of other things in common. Something I discussed at length in a post about a shared love of Tolkien and how I was surprised when I found out that his work found traction with politicians I’m “at odds” with.
However, differing opinions can be a good thing and provide an alternative perspective upon a shared interest. They can also provide an opportunity to reappraise something. Film criticism is not pure science. One can make comments made upon objective facts, such as how well a film is edited, the quality of the cinematography and other technical aspects of the production. But whether a joke is funny, a character is likeable or a story arc is engaging or not is ultimately very personal and subjective. It comes down to taste and one’s own expectations. Which brings me to the point that sparked this post in the first place. The 1978 conspiracy thriller, Capricorn One. Blogger and writer Syp shared his thoughts on the film over at Mutant Reviewers. They differ from mine and it would appear that the aspects of the film that I specifically like, Syp does not. I like the seventies hard boiled dialogue and focus on verbal exposition. I also didn’t have an issue with the pace of the film.
I briefly spoke to Syp via Twitter regarding this, not to instigate a fanboy bunfight but to determine his perspective and it highlighted some very interesting points for me. Contemporary film and TV has a particular idiom and certainly a very fast pace, compared to material from the eighties and older. Hence if you are watching a TV show from the seventies or a movie from the forties, then it requires a form of mental recalibration so that you’re prepared for the obvious stylistic and technical differences. That is fine if you are approaching the content in a scholarly fashion or for an in depth critical analysis. If you’re simply watching for entertainment, then having to make that shift in perspective is quite a big ask and not necessarily one that is conducive to having fun. It is important to remember that we don’t all have the same relationship with a shared fandom and that we don’t all approach it with the same intent.
Every form of fandom has its own set of self appointed gatekeepers. They’re often also responsible for perpetuating an apocryphal dogma and trying to convince us it’s somehow legitimate. For example, in film fandom there is the cult of Stanley Kubrick in which any deviation from the consensus of his genius is deemed as heresy. Although I will strongly argue positively regarding the technical and thematic talent of the filmmaker, I would not say that all his work is accessible to everyone. The “detonator” for this particular debate being 2001: A Space Odyssey. As far as I’m concerned it is perfectly acceptable not to like a so-called “cinematic great”. I don’t care for Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner. I recognise the skill inherent in its making and I understand it’s cultural significance (like certain literary classics) but I don’t warm to the film.
So today was a timely reminder that the only universal constant in fandom is the inherent difference between fans themselves. I shall continue visiting Mutant Reviewers specifically because they will continue to offer an alternate view to my own, on many films that I love. Furthermore, those views are backed up with valid arguments, which is good because reviews that aren’t are ultimately just a series of unqualified statements. I will also continue to gently encourage people to step outside of their personal boundaries and to give wider material a try. However, I won’t give them a hard time if they do so and subsequently don’t enjoy the experience. Fandom is about shared enjoyment and enthusiasm, although paradoxically, that itself can be used to reinforce hierarchies and can lead to preposterous gatekeeping and the nonsensical “true fan” fallacy. Stay clear of all that. You do you. And if you really like the work of Ben Stiller, then so be it.
Writing Film Reviews
"You’ve probably gone over it before, but I’d like a refresher for how you go about choosing the movies you watch - I’ve got Netflix and Amazon Prime, but your titles always seem to go all over the place. Did you ransack a Blockbuster Video before it went bankrupt?" Rambling Redshirt. I was asked the above question recently, via Discord chat, because I do appear to post a rather eclectic range of film reviews. So, I thought I’d clarify my respective process (or lack thereof) as to which movies I choose to write about. I’d also like to share my thoughts on what I consider constitutes a good film review and the procedure I use when writing about the films I’ve watched.
"You’ve probably gone over it before, but I’d like a refresher for how you go about choosing the movies you watch - I’ve got Netflix and Amazon Prime, but your titles always seem to go all over the place. Did you ransack a Blockbuster Video before it went bankrupt?" Rambling Redshirt. I was asked the above question recently, via Discord chat, because I do appear to post a rather eclectic range of film reviews. So, I thought I’d clarify my respective process (or lack thereof) as to which movies I choose to write about. I’d also like to share my thoughts on what I consider constitutes a good film review and the procedure I use when writing about the films I’ve watched.
First off, here’s a little background about my relationship with cinema. Both my parent grew up during the thirties and forties when the primary form of entertainment were films and radio. Hence when I was a child, watching movies together was a common family activity. Mainstream network channels showed a lot more movies during the seventies, where now they’ve been replaced with property, cooking and quiz shows. Satellite and cable options did not exist in the UK at the time and there were just three analogue terrestrial channels. Sunday afternoon was a day where there’d be a movie scheduled on BBC Two mid-afternoon. We’d have our Sunday roast and then settle down to watch the likes of The Mark of Zorro or Top Hat or The Dam Busters. As these were my most formative years, my passion for film was kindled. This was how I was introduced to the works of Ray Harryhausen, George Pal and Hammer Horror.
As a carer, I now have a fixed schedule which although busy, provides me with periods of time that I can use to pursue my interests. Thus, during a week, I will watch about three or four movies. Because I don’t go to the cinema so often these days, some of these will be recent releases, especially now that the gap between the theatrical and video-on-demand release is as little as two months. I also have a “watch list” that contains both old and new films, that regularly has new titles added to it. These will be recommendations from critics or genre classics that I want to familiarise myself with. I often re-visit films I’ve previously seen for a re-evaluation, especially if it has recently been “dissected” on any of the film related vlogs and podcasts that I subscribe to. However, there is not a great deal of rhyme or reason to the order in which these movies are watched. All can potentially be written about.
I do not consider myself a casual watcher of films. I believe film making to be an art form and I can find merit in all genres. Many people see films as disposable entertainment. Something you passively observe and then move on from. That’s fine. You do whatever is good for you. I however, watch, analyse and reflect. I like dialogue and the way it’s written. I focus and consider the composition of shots and the construction of scenes. Lighting, production design and style are all important to my enjoyment. I can also remember details and visualise how scenes played out, after I have watched a film. As I have this level of interest, I naturally read and seek out data about film stars, film makers and movie production. If you like sports you will often become knowledgeable on the subject, especially stats. I do the exactly the same with films. Why? Because they bring me pleasure, they tell stories and they entertain. And this passion drives me to write about them.
Moving on, here are the rules that I broadly try to apply when writing about a movie. Just for the record, I often sit on the sofa with a pen and notebook in hand to write my thoughts down as they occur to me. This can be a little confusing to anyone watching with me.
1). Be sure to establish the genre of the film in question. Is it a comedy, a drama, a horror? If so, judge the film within the confines of said genre. Don’t make the mistake of comparing apples to oranges. All movies require a degree of “suspension of disbelief”. You have to vary this according to what you are watching. A drama such as On the Waterfront does not need to be watched with the same objective removal from reality as Dog Soldiers.
2). Consider all aspects of filmmaking when writing your review. Reflect upon directing, writing, editing, acting and other aspects of the production. Did they contribute positively or negatively to your experience? Where they of note contextually? IE with regard to the budget of the movie. If you have points you wish to highlight, then give specific examples in your review.
3). Imagine that your readers know nothing about the film in advance. It’s your job to introduce it to them and to provide them with a succinct and salient summary. How would you describe the film to a friend in one sentence? That may not always be possible with movies like Cloud Atlas but strive to be concise. Also do your best to avoid spoilers. If there is a dramatic event that serves as a surprise, don’t reveal this in your review. Provide enough information to intrigue readers so that they can choose to watch the film if they see fit.
4). When summarising your overall experience, think about who would enjoy this film, what its appeal is and in what circumstances. It helps to contextualise this, so if possible, why not make a broadly equivalent film comparison. IE Under Siege is Die Hard on a ship. Watership Down is essentially The Wild Bunch but with Rabbits. Any movie with Ben Stiller, is like a good comedy but with all the humour, talent and enjoyment conspicuously absent.
Finally, I’d like to finish with a quote from top UK movie critic Mark Kermode. Here are his top five ingredients for a proper film review, taken from his book The Good, The Bad & The Multiplex. Needless to say, I think he’s spot on.
“Opinion, description, contextualisation, analysis and entertainment.
1. Opinion
Saw 3D is rubbish.
2. Opinion and description
Saw 3D is a horror film that is rubbish.
3. Opinion, description and contextualisation
Saw 3D is the seventh episode and the first stereoscopic instalment in a long-running horror series, and it is rubbish.
4. Opinion, description, contextualisation and analysis
Saw 3D is the first instalment in a series that began life as a tortuously inventive low-budget chiller but which has descended over the course of six sequels into gory, boring torture porn which is rubbish.
5. Opinion, description, contextualisation, analysis and entertainment
It took the once-inventive but increasingly depressing Saw series seven movies to resort to the hackneyed headache of 3-D, but despite the promise that this is ‘The Final Chapter’ (just wait till the sums say otherwise) you keep wishing those protruding spikes would leap a little further out of the screen and puncture your eyeballs to ensure that you never have to watch rubbish like this ever again”.
