I have occasionally revised, or completely rewritten, my review of a film simply because it took more than one viewing before I could see it clearly enough, and understand it deeply enough, to make a fair assessment.
If I could take back the way I rated Spider-man 3 and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe at ChristianityTodayMovies.com, believe me, I would. (Instead of 3.5/4 stars, they’d each get 2.5-star ratings.)
Peter Suderman wrote passionately about his problems with Alfonso Cuaron’s Children of Men when it first came out. (And I remember taking heavy flack for defending that film upon its release. I love it even more now, after four or five viewings, and would only expand upon the appreciation I expressed in my original review.)
Well, Suderman has just published a thoughtful reconsideration of the movie. (Thanks to Peter Chattaway for the link.)
And I applaud him. Not because he came around to agreeing with me on the film… but because he set an example for other critics and readers that demonstrates how much time and thought and attention it takes to assess a work of art.
I wish more reviewers would keep us posted on how their understanding of a movie changes over time. I wonder if Roger Ebert will still feel so indifferent towards There Will Be Blood after a second viewing (which was for me quite revelatory), or if he would still write off The Coen Brothers’ Raising Arizona because “people don’t talk that way.”
Just yesterday I substantially updated my review of a recent comedy, because I felt very differently about it after three viewings than I did after the first viewing. And as I (very, very slowly) begin moving my review archive to a new format, I’m making all kinds of changes to the reviews..
If you’ve ever completely changed your mind about a movie, tell us about it.
To quote Epictetus:
“To make a statue needs skill: to view a statue aright needs skill also.”
As my skill changes and improves, its often nice to revisit a work; I find that there are often many beautiful things I’ve missed in the past.
That’s one reason why, if I see a movie that I really enjoy, I tend to write my initial thoughts down, and then I read interviews with the cast and stuff like that, then I revisit the film, still in theaters, and see if I still like it as much.
I tell you what, Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium really grew on me, and the 3rd time I saw it, I noticed a whole layer to the film that the previous two times did not reveal.
It’s a clearly brilliant work of art that shows something very simple: a man, hundreds of years old, experiencing things with the faith of a child, and yet, also one that can sit down and read Shakespeare. Being both a child-like imaginative person, and a brilliant enough mind to know when to get serious. If only we could all see the world with such joy and wonder from time to time.
Anyway, I have gone back to reviews of mine and re-written whole sections because I’ve gotten the film more, or to see if my initial reaction was in fact what the filmmaker wanted the viewer to get out of the film.
I wonder how much the watching a movie in the theater versus watching the movie at home plays a role in revising a person’s take on a movie? A friend of mine once remarked that the cinemas are made to overwhelm you with the movie, and it’s very hard to really discern what your opinion is of the movie. I believe that if a movie can still be enjoyable as a home video (dvd or vhs), it is truly a good movie.
I find that certain movies simply don’t resonate with me anymore like they did during my initial viewing. For example, when I first saw Waterland with Jeremy Irons, I fell in love with the movie – its tone, colors, themes, etc., – but now I can barely get through the movie.
Of course perhaps we are talking more about personal taste than a critical perspective on a movie. I go around and around with friends on how I can personally dislike a movie but still view it as a good work of art. I find the movie Sin City to be more than I can handle, but I still think it was a very well done movie.
I am curious if anyone changes their perspectives on movies after reading reviews or talking to other people about movies. A friend of mine argue back and forth because he thinks I am wishy-washy when I change my opinions of a movie after reading a review or talking with people about it. I tell him I am just seeing it from a different perspective.
Biased as I am in the film’s favor, it does not alarm me as much as it probably should that it is so commonly misunderstood. Rather than take it at its own merits, the source novel looms hugely in every discussion. But that’s like saying you don’t like Blade Runner, which departs as much if not more radically from its origins. The adaptive tools of cinema are all but forgotten.
So it’s nice to see someone else come around. And I hope viewers take heed and revisit the film; it only gets richer and more satisfying with repeat viewings.
This is a fascinating topic. I think aravis72 is on to something though. Often I’ve radically changed my appraisal of a film once I’ve had a chance to view it on my own terms on home video. Seeing a film on the big screen can often skew things one way or the other. Or, as is often the case in South Florida, a rude audience member or absymal projection/sound can taint the experience.
FIGHT CLUB was a film I despised at first, but later came to admire and even like. Even though P.T. Anderson is one of my favorites, I strongly disliked PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE when I saw it in the theatre back in 2002. But I suspect once I get the time to revisit in on DVD my opinion will be changed.
Sometimes first impressions don’t need to be changed. Couldn’t tolerate “Children” upon first viewing (post) and still just as disappointed.
Indeed, tomgoodman, sometimes the things that dismay us about a work just never give way to what others may appreciate.
I’ve seen American Beauty several times, in hopes that I would eventually appreciate it. But the things that distress me about the film always overpower what are, I admit, some admirable qualities.
Still, it’s worth noting that your original review… the perspective you imply that you haven’t changed… is primarily an objection to the film as a poor adaptation. And what Suderman’s article explores is the critic’s own understanding that the film is not an adptation, as it claims to be. In fact, it’s something new, drawn from a few spare details from P.D. James’ novel. And when Suderman stopped assessing it as a big-screen version of the book, he began to see it for what it was… a different story, with different themes, and different strengths.
My friend Wayne mentioned this week that he has settled on a simple reply to those who object to Children of Men because of how grossly it strays from its source material. Wayne then asks them, “So, what did you think of Blade Runner?”
Well, Blade Runner is vastly overrated, too. 🙂
I concede that Children of Men is so far removed from its source material that to look at it primarily as an adaptation is a bit problematic — whereas a film like, say, The Two Towers strives for a certain amount of fidelity to its source material, and thus invites evaluation as an adaptation, which leads to the result that the tension between its fidelity to the source material and its lack of fidelity to the source material can be a bit maddening at times. In both cases, though, the films suffer from a number of internal problems — things that don’t make sense, given the premises that the films are working with — so there are still weaknesses that can be pointed out.