A PERSONAL ESSAY ABOUT the FILM CRITICISM

It is not necessary to go back to Aristotle in the 4th century B.C., but anyone who wants to practice art by stepping on his thin Poetics gets higher and can look to the future development of the arts.

Twenty centuries later, Nicolas Boileau (1636-1711) wrote his aesthetic principles for classicism, which are not directly applicable to film criticism. But read carefully; at least one sentence is still valid today: "Love critical advice, not praise."

 
And Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729-1781), who of course, was not engaged in film criticism, but while working as a playwright at the Hamburg National Theatre, he actively prepared the repertoire. He regularly wrote his essays on various specific issues of theatrical practice, as well as diverse aspects of dramaturgy and stage production. And thus, serious in volume and deep in analysis critical texts accumulated that naturally and logically formed his remarkable book Hamburg Dramaturgy (1767-1769). There, he leans on Aristotle but further develops his ideas about the essence of tragedy, the specifics of acting behaviour, and the psychology of emotions, and reflects on the social role of theatre. Therefore, objectively speaking, Hamburg Dramaturgy is, as of today, a practical textbook of perfect critical skill, which is of such a high class that it even points to the theory! And Lessing had just finished his major theoretical work Laocoon (1767), modestly called An Essay on the Limits of Painting. 

A literary legend tells that one day the Russian literary critic Belinsky (1811-1848) on his way to the editorial office of his magazine accidentally found a lost manuscript of a small novel under the title Poor Folk by an unknown author. 

That same evening, Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky read it in one sitting, and on the next day he wrote: "Today, a new writer was born in Russia!" 

Here, among the great names of critical practice in literature and theatre, we should add the name of the remarkable French film critic André Bazin (1918-1958), editor-in-chief of the famous magazine Cahiers du Cinéma. In the 1950s, he attracted as editorial associates young journalists and future cinematographers, who later emerged „from Bazin's greatcoat“ (Dostoevsky's paraphrase of Gogol) to create such remarkable films as The 400 Blows (1959, Truffaut), Hiroshima Mon Amour" (1959, Resnais), Breathless (1960, Godard)! It is not by chance that later, he was called the ‘father of the French New Wave’. Meanwhile, just like Lessing, alongside his daily critical practice, he wrote his fundamental theoretical work Qu'est-ce que le cinéma? (in 4 volumes, 1958-1962). 

But perhaps it is time from the high classical examples (Aristotle, Boileau, Lessing, Belinsky, Bazin) to get down to earth on our topic and look at critical practice. 
It is important to define, as far as possible, its own scope and where is „the thin red line“ (Terrence Malick) that distinguishes it from journalism. An old question that we do not need to update again, but it is still not out of place to mark it briefly, because there is still a certain misunderstanding of the category of film criticism, even by professional cinematographers. For some of them, everything captured in footage is a film, and everything written in letters and words - criticism, even theory. And it is very often just journalistic information. Not to mention the verbal nonsense ‘advertising criticism’ used almost slang-wise by some self-righteous functionaries in the mainstream media. Otherwise, professionals simply call it PR (Public Relations). 

In the world festival practice, professionals from the field of film-making are divided into two large categories: industry and press. The former make (create, distribute, show) cinema, the latter write about it. It is precisely for the latter that a brief explanation is necessary. It is clear that there is no Berlin Wall between journalism and criticism - they are not only neighbouring territories, but very often with interpenetrating ‘enclaves in the foreign zone’. Nevertheless, information dominates in journalistic texts (which does not exclude possible comments). And criticism begins from here on to focus on analysis and evaluation. The first requires dynamism and quick response. The second requires specialized competence, wide erudition, mastered cultural horizon and depth of the text. 

Film criticism should be first and foremost excitement and care for cinema! It is, first of all, a well-intentioned empathic experience of the film, so that its analysis can then be objective and at the same time subjectivated in the author's individual assessment. The critical text should not serve any extra-artistic considerations. Criticism is primarily a responsibility to viewers and readers; therefore it does not allow fear of the truth or short-term consideration of current circumstances. It is more complicated with the authors of films: critical truth is most important for them too, but if it is painful and unpleasant, it should be sincere and well-intentioned, not condescending or nagging. Some weak films allow also for critical irony, but without gross mockery. There is no point in critical texts that boringly retell weak plots or are fascinated by minor details. 
Other similar considerations may be added. But the aphorism of the remarkable Polish satirist Stanisław Jerzy Lec is particularly accurate, saying: ‘Beware of a critic who writes not with a pen but with a knife.’  

After the remarkable cultural phenomenon - the birth of cinematography at the end of the 19th century, the next miracle was the appearance of sound on the screen (around 1930). This moment demanded and imposed a significant transformation in the critical practice as well, which had to take into account the new and different artistic nature of screen art. Later, the appearance of colour also changed the screen image, but it is not so significant for critical practice. 

And still later, with the advent of the new digital audio-visual screen and even the illusory three-dimensional image, critical practice was to undergo an important change. The new ‘technological poetics’ of the screen awaited an adequate critical transformation. 

And precisely this stage of the development of critical practice is one of its most important evolutionary stages. Let's tentatively call it digital criticism. Of course, such an official category does not exist, but we can call that the writing of critical texts in a digital environment and their publication in Internet-based media. Or to put it in other words, the new being of criticism takes place in the transition from printed (paper) or analogue electronic media (broadcast radio and television) to digital media with fundamentally new technological features. And first of all – free personal author’s access to a media platform with a huge, practically global audience! The Gutenberg revolution with its mass reach of readers to all kinds of printed texts is innocent child's play compared to the amazing mass communication in the digital space! And it defines the new nature of the critical tribune with unlimited media energy and, accordingly, the increased author’s responsibility in critical practice! 

But exactly this exclusive access to a public platform and a mass audience also illuminates the other side of the coin: countless sites, blogs, Facebook pages easily appear and exist, where anyone can write whatever they want, accompanied by the illusion that it is film criticism. However, in 99% of cases it is not! And it's just a sea of digital words that benefit from quick publication, but lose depth of analysis (if any)! These texts are mostly subjective reflections, without convincing arguments, and sometimes with low linguistic culture. The well-known problem of ‘hygiene of critical texts’ has been updated with the emergence of ‘rapid criticism’ in digital media and social networks. These are the new realities and we have to evaluate it sensibly! 
In 1925, in Paris, a group of French and Belgian journalists, who wrote about cinema created the first professional organization in this field and called it the Fédération Internationale de la Presse Cinématographique with the abbreviation FIPRESCI. By then, the silent movies had already mastered the basic principles of the screen narrative and its artistic nature, won its place as the „seventh art“, in the words of the Italian-French critic Riccioto Canudo (1877-1923).  And in parallel with this, film criticism has grown into an independent section in art studies. And so, FIPRESSI turned out to be the oldest professional organization of film critics, alive and well to this day, already 99 years old! It will soon reach its first century! And we will witness this respectable professional anniversary! 

How are we going to face it? Are we ready for it? Is there anything to make us celebrate it with dignity? 

These and other similar questions are faced by contemporary professional film critics. 
But let's not forget: the possible parable of film criticism is from Poetics by Aristotle to the digital freedom (plus self-control) of the film critic today! 

About the writer: Prof. Dr. Bojidar Manov was Born in Sofia, Bulgaria (1947). He is a film critic, teacher and journalist. He has penned many books like Theory of the Cinema Image (1996), Digital Audio Vision (2000), Evolution of the Screen Image (2004, 2012), etc.