TAJNA USPEHA (I DOBRIH KRITIČARA) – RAZOTKRIVENA!

[Ghoul]

TAJNA USPEHA (I DOBRIH KRITIČARA) – RAZOTKRIVENA!


Study Analyzes Secrets to Movie Success
Friday August 17 8:12 PM ET

Movies are supposed to be about getting lost in emotion. But one scientist has broken down the film industry to cold, hard facts. A psychology professor at the University of California, Davis, has done a statistical study of thousands of movies to determine what makes them critical darlings or box-office hits.
Films that earn awards and praise from reviewers tend to be R-rated and based on a true story or a prize-winning play or novel, says professor Dean Simonton. The original author or the director usually have written the screenplay.
Big-budget blockbusters whether they're comedies, musical, sequels or remakes don't ordinarily draw acclaim, Simonton found. Neither do summer releases, PG-13 movies, movies that open on thousands of screens or ones that have enormous box office numbers in their first weekend.
"I had this hope that there was a difference between blockbusters and really great art films films that can be considered great cinematic creations," said Simonton, who presented his findings Friday at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association in San Francisco. "It was gratifying to find out they're very, very different and you can find out what's different about them."
Simonton says he's not a movie buff "I'm a consumer like everyone else" but in his longtime studies of genius, creativity and leadership, he started compiling data about the collaborative process of filmmaking in 1999. He's also done a study comparing the Oscars with the Razzies.

"Brokeback Mountain" is a prime example of what Simonton discovered. It was rated R, had an 87 percent approval rating on the Metacritic.com Web site and it came out at the height of prestige-picture time in December 2005. It featured a top-notch creative team, including director Ang Lee and screenwriters Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana, working from a short story by Pulitzer Prize winner Annie Proulx. The film cost $14 million to make and grossed nearly $175 million worldwide. It was nominated for eight Oscars and won three.
(harv, ovde ubaci svoje tumačenje uspeha ovog filma!)

But then there are exceptions, like this summer's "Knocked Up." It's also very much an R-rated movie, but it's a comedy that's gotten 85 percent positive reviews on Metacritic and it came out in June. Judd Apatow, who has long enjoyed a cult following, both wrote and directed it. The film cost an estimated $33 million to make and so far has grossed $164 million worldwide. It's probably not going to win any Oscars, but who knows?
"All these things are just statistical relationships there are always exceptions to every finding you have," Simonton said. "You'll have a film that really shouldn't have success but they have something quirky going for them ... `My Big Fat Greek Wedding,' it's just a quirky thing.
"As a consequence," he added, "Hollywood falls back on sequels and remakes. Even though you've seen them before, you know they've succeeded in earlier versions."
Stephen Whitty, chairman of the New York Film Critics Circle, says Simonton's findings weren't terribly surprising.
"Anybody watching the Oscars even casually knows that they tend to reward certain things they love they love biopics, they love when a pretty woman puts on some ugly makeup to play a character in trouble," said Whitty, critic for The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. "They're not going to spend three or four hours of prime time rewarding movies that flopped badly at the box office."
But Whitty pointed out that one of the rare recent times that his group and the Academy Awards have matched up was with 2003's "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," which was a big-budget fantasy sequel as well as a huge box-office hit.
More often, the group prides itself on singling out movies that aren't obvious Oscar bait, like "Mulholland Dr." and "Far From Heaven."
"Our best-picture winners, very few I would say were major hits because a lot of them tend to be smaller, more serious movies," he said. "They don't depend on special effects so they tend not to cost as much as most movies."
Such thinking and Simonton's research prove something awards expert Tom O'Neil has long suspected: "Critics are supposed to be guiding American moviegoers. This study proves they're taking their own esoteric side trip."
"Critics are academic types who want to prove how smart they are. They're professional grouches who think a critic's job is to be critical," said O'Neil, columnist for theenvelope.com Web site. "Unfortunately, great critics tend to be social misfits with extraordinary powers of observation. Being misfits, they tend to bash sentimental movies because they remind them of a loving, nurturing world to which they do not belong."
A great example of this, he said, came in 2002. The best-picture winner at the Oscars was Ron Howard's uplifting "A Beautiful Mind" (which was based on a prize-winning book about a true story) but several critics' groups gave their top honors to David Lynch's dreamlike "Mulholland Dr."
"Even though," O'Neil points out, "David Lynch said publicly he had no idea what the movie was about."

[Kastor]

[Tex Murphy]

"Brokeback Mountain" is a prime example of what Simonton discovered. It was rated R, had an 87 percent approval rating on the Metacritic.com Web site and it came out at the height of prestige-picture time in December 2005. It featured a top-notch creative team, including director Ang Lee and screenwriters Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana, working from a short story by Pulitzer Prize winner Annie Proulx. The film cost $14 million to make and grossed nearly $175 million worldwide. It was nominated for eight Oscars and won three.
(harv, ovde ubaci svoje tumačenje uspeha ovog filma!)

Gladly. Film je uspio isključivo zato što je u pitanju priča o hormosesualcima, to je bar očigledno. Naravno, da ne griješim dušu, ne mislim da je film loš (ali ni da je remek-djelo).

Što se tiče

"Unfortunately, great critics tend to be social misfits with extraordinary powers of observation. Being misfits, they tend to bash sentimental movies because they remind them of a loving, nurturing world to which they do not belong."

mogu samo da kažem:        

Inače, interesantno je da si postavio ovu temu, pošto sam o nečem sličnom razmišljao prethodnih dana. Nejmli, na to me (između ostalog) ponukalo nešto što sam čitao u Politikinom zabavniku. Znate da tamo ima ona rubrika sa izjavama poznatih ličnosti i sad u tom nekom broju su bile izjave o kritičarima i kritikama. I bejzikli, svi (pisci, pjesnici, glumci, etc.) nalaze za shodno da izjave nešto genijalno i nadasve revolucionarno tipa "Ako nešto znate, onda radite to što znate, a ako ne znate ništa onda ste kritičar" i sve neke slične debilizme, što me često navodi na pomisao o tome koliki su zapravo KLIPANI ti nadriumjetnici. Vjerujem da i tice na grani znaju da je umjetnička kritika POSAO baš kao i sama umjetnost i da, baš kao i u umjetnosti, postoje oni koji se tim poslom bave dobro i oni koji se bave loše. Napisati dobru kritiku nije ništa lakše nego napisati dobru kratku priču i ako već nekom osrednjem priprostom glumcu možemo da oprostimo što to ne zna, valjda bi bar pisci trebalo da znaju.

Okej, možda sam malčice odlutao od tebe, ali eto morao sam da napišem koliko me nerviraju ti klipani koji omalovažavaju čitavu jednu profesiju, a za sebe smatraju da su geniji i tome slično.

Inače, što se Mulholand Drajva tiče, ako se ne varam linč ZNA o čemu je taj film, čak je valjda dao i nekih desetak hintova, ali do đavola, kao da film mora da bude O NEČEMU da bi bio dobar  

[Shozo Hirono]

....i na kraju kritika je uvek stvar licnog ukusa i afiniteta....

[iDemo]

...kao da film mora da bude O NEČEMU da bi bio dobar  

Apsolutno.

[Ghoul]

Film je uspio isključivo zato što je u pitanju priča o hormosesualcima, to je bar očigledno.

jebote, harv, očekivao sam pomniju i promišljeniju analizu!
pa jedini li je?
što baš taj film da uspe, a toliki drugi o 'hormosesualcima' – ni milionče da naberu?

glede dijagnoze kritičara (koji 'nemaju život'): to je argument iz žanra 'da, ali nije bitno'; nije sasvim netačan, ali je proizvoljno 'povezan' sa smešnim zaključkom.
a ako su kritičari asocijalni, koliko li su još više od njih takvi – sami umetnici o kojima ovi pišu? pa da onda zajebemo i umetnike da čitamo/gledamo/slušamo? ...

glede MALHOLENDA: ne treba linča baš često shvatati bukvalno; kao što je ČAK i harv primetio, taj film NIJE proizvoljan, ko je gledo, shvatio je; a sve i da film nije 'o nečemu', to je vanredna, fascinantna exkurzija u jedan bogat i uzbudljiv svet (za razliku od, npr, INLAND EMPIRE, koji nema ništa nalik konzistentnosti i ustrojenosti u skladu s bilo kakvim principom, pa bila to i tzv. 'logika sna') – sapientis sat!

glede umetnika koji pljuju po kritičarima: napadati kritičare en generale, kao profesiju, znak je totalne nezrelosti, pa i nesvesti o sopstvenoj nesvesti, i o značaju te iste kritike za umetnike; u indirektnom smislu to označava bežanje od svake refleksije, analize, evaluacije... što je najčešće pogubno po samu umetnost, i vodi u samodovoljnost i autizam kakav već pomenuti INLAND EMPIRE savršeno ilustruje