A very honest question: why are you even doing what you're doing? Being a film critic has become some sort of a fashion statement within the insanely mundane world of the filmbros. And in that world, every body is trying to escape being labelled as a film bro. Iam astounded at the capabilities people can go to feel and look superior, even in that little world.
As I read through a few professional critics and the little critics that bud out in letterboxd I can only think of the illusion they keep themselves in. Some writings are good, I wouldn't disagree. But what really is the meaning of it. Watching films for the sake of critiquing has become the norm and what is the point of it at the end of the day? The better critique they are and the better the way they confuse the audience and intellectualize it, the better they think themselves to be.
Having been a huge fan of cinema myself and still a lover of a selected cinema (thanks to my intuition, I don't need the critics to tell me what to watch and thanks to the depression I get if I watch a fucked up movie), I can say that that is not your identity. There is more to being a fan of cinema, than discussing it all the time, writing reviews and threads, just for the sake of it.
Cinema, as I understand it, is very personal and intimate. Of course there are others, but let's just call them movies. Here, Cinema is supposed to be experienced as a personal art form and it manifests and unfolds in your own mind, as time passes by. What part of this has gone twisted, I don't know. I can see the filmbros who don't want to be called filmbros who make cinema their identity. Cinema can never become someone's identity and the way they relate to each other. Iam sorry, but art is not even that artist's identity. Cinema is not even the identity of the man who made it. Even that director cannot make it his identity and how will you make it yours just because you watch it, understand it and write about. Now what is a man's identity? It's how he lives how much he changes and his empathy. That's all. Thus proved that art can be seen as a separate entity from the artist. Because that art is not his identity. His identity is the way he is.
As a social structure, watching quality cinema and talking about it has become a social norm that is being done for the sake of the social discussion. Here, Cinema has lost all meaning. When I see the same filmbros who don't accept themselves as filmbros shaming the filmbros, I just sit there, not knowing where I fit in within all of this. Now I see these 'art film intellectuals' who involve in shaming the rest and even troll people. Here I wonder, Cinema is a machine of empathy and if they don't have that empathy in them, have they really seen Cinema in the right way? And is all the reviews and discussions enough to prove to themselves and the others that they are the 'art intellectuals' they show and think of themselves to be. So filmbros are at the bottom of the pyramid and the top of the pyramid is the one who can dissect a movie to pieces, almost killing it with the flowery, 'mortals and filmbros can't understand' language.
How has it become that everybody has started to judge each other by the kind of Cinema they choose to see or the books they like to read. How has it become that a man is judged by the art he consumes and creates? Art and Cinema is where you spend your time in bliss in relaxation. And now it has become a source of judgement too. I have done it in the past and Iam sure I will never, in the future.
It's really sad, that sometimes people don't see the real reason for what they're doing. It's not an uncommon thing to tell yourself the same story that you tell others to make them believe you. But when a man tells himself a story and slowly starts believing it, there is nobody who can save that man. perhaps this will never end.
Comments