Another few observations by Philip Powers
When someone saw my first published film reviews, written as a student at the University of NSW for their newspaper in 1981 (Outland and Airplane! [aka. Flying High]), he asked me why I thought I was qualified to review films. I reckoned – mischievously – aged seventeen, that having seen approximately two films in the cinema every week since I was about ten years old, about 700 films in all, plus another thousand on television, that qualified me:
‘I’ve seen a lot films, good and bad, and I’m surely at the very least as qualified as any reviewer in magazines or newspapers to offer my thoughts.’’ – Philip Powers, 1981.
After studying Drama and Film for three years at University, I realized that there were many more films out there, which I would never see, and only certain kinds of films would be screened in cinemas in Australia. I remember making a decision to try and see films that weren’t released in Australian cinemas and to stop reading reviews to help guide me to what films I should or shouldn’t make the time to see. I remember telling someone in my very early twenties that I didn’t take notice anymore of what reviewers or critics in newspapers and magazines say or think about films:
‘Film critics are just people with an opinion, and as I’m not necessarily going to agree with it, I don’t read anyone’s opinion about a film until after I’ve seen it for myself. Before I see it for myself, not even knowing the basic plot, I don’t care what anyone thinks. I’ll make my own evaluation, uninfluenced by others. After I’ve seen it, I’ll read almost anything anyone says about it.’ – Powers, 1983.
As I think about what I’m attempting to do, as some of these films are very serious, and made by filmmakers from countries all over the world, I’m caused to reflect on my differing view of film critics, film reviewers and film critiques over the years. One of the things I’ve noticed over the years is that certain publications have a higher bar for what they consider good films, and that popular or commercially successful films often are derided because they are in fact popular, and there are many critics who have savaged film after film from Hollywood over the last 40 years, to such an extent it’s made me wonder why they even bother watching Hollywood films, for instance, if they hate them so much.
‘Are the people who review films in a different world than the rest of us? Shouldn’t people who review film, actually love film and always try to see the best in it, as opposed to always tearing the majority of films down? Sometimes it seems like there’s only twenty decent films made every year, if you listen to those guys.’ – Powers, 1985.
Since the time I was 18 and 19 when studying film formally, at University, I’ve had a lot different feelings and thoughts about what makes a film a good film, or a great film, and developed lots of theories (and rejected many) about how films are, can, or should be evaluated. I’ve always given a film a rating. Since I was a kid, my dad had books or collections of published critiques, based on a four-star rating system, lying around the house.
I adopted this system without knowing it and every film I saw got an evaluation for its quality as a film, and another for how good the music score was. When you look at my earliest diaries, ever film has between one and four asterisks following the title. *poor **fair ***good ****excellent.
For the last 20 years I’ve often give a film two ratings. The first one for my perception of its value as a film (compared with all other films I have seen in my lifetime) and the second one for my enjoyment of it. This change in just rating a film on one level was a life saver actually, enabling me to open up two different parts of myself (without the conflict that had previously always been there), and evaluate, quite discretely, the reaction my brain had, and the reaction my emotions had. Sometimes they’re exactly the same, and sometimes they’re quite different and sometimes they’re only a little bit different.
But, I’m not setting up something where I will opine about this film being better than another film. Every film is equal before it is seen by the public. Whether it is El Mariachi ($7,000 budget) or Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (more than $200,000,000 budget). Whether it is Plan 9 From Outer Space, Titanic, Heaven’s Gate, Casablanca, Crocodile Dundee or Transformers: The Last Knight. Even the unequal are equal before the film critics get to them and the public has their say and sometimes only time will tell how they are regarded ten, twenty, thirty, a hundred years from when they were made.
A silent film called Sunrise, made in 1927, which I’ve never seen, was ranked #5 by the critics in 2012. The directors rate it slightly less, coming in at #24. [I’ve ordered it from Amazon.] And The Passion of Joan of Arc, 1928, is ranked #9 and #38, respectively. [I’ve found it in my local library.]
Time will tell.
© Philip Powers 20170711