tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post4307716558162942009..comments2024-03-14T04:07:39.792-07:00Comments on Earl Pomerantz: Just Thinking...: "The Critical Condition"Earl Pomerantzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963705121297866334noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-41930879147976241152012-02-06T10:58:04.792-08:002012-02-06T10:58:04.792-08:00William Goldman has an exercise which he tries to ...William Goldman has an exercise which he tries to get all students of screenwriting to do (and he's very serious about it): Watch the same film, three times in one day, in a movie theatre.<br /><br />As someone who actually attempted this punishing and gruelling exercise, I was totally surprised that I ended up learning exactly what he wanted me to.<br /><br />On the first showing, I enjoyed the film for what it was. (A tame comedy.) On the second showing I watched the film again, but with less interest, picking out one or two new things. On the third showing I couldn't stand watching the film again. I was absolutely sick of it. So I found myself paying more attention to the audience.<br /><br />To my shock I knew exactly when the big laughs were going to come. I sat there and found myself thinking, what's next? Oh yeah, there's a big laugh coming up... and lo! if I wasn't absolutely right, every time.<br /><br />The point of this exercise was to show that a film actually plays the same to every audience (generally speaking). Yes, there will be people in there who are hating every moment. Yes, there will be people there who are enjoying it, but will afterwards say they did for different reasons. But, on the whole, the audience reactions are in the same place. Especially the bits where it drags, and people start shuffling in their seats.<br /><br />So while, on the one hand, it may seem impossible to review something with anything approaching actual objectivity, this exercise proves (if you care to do it) that major successes and flaws are felt by all audiences.<br /><br />Afterwards we may rationalize our reactions to the film in different ways: "Those two funny moments didn't make up for characters I didn't care about" or "Those two funny moments were comedy genius. I loved that film!" but I wager that the majority of the time even those on the opposite ends of appreciation for a film or TV show will find common ground and find themselves agreeing on what <i>didn't</i> work.Johnny Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13302545167970532080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-55311833015272134922012-02-06T09:36:55.562-08:002012-02-06T09:36:55.562-08:00Dear Mr. Pomerantz; I hope you figure it out. I...Dear Mr. Pomerantz; I hope you figure it out. I'm sure it will be a very interesting post.<br /><br />Comedy and drama are very subjective. That you see your brother's work in Mr. Brooks's is "interesting", and let Freud handle it. Mr. Brooks's sensibility is to swing for the fence, and many times he flails wildly at it. Yours seems to have been aimed more at on base percentage. Unless you're the best at that no one remarks on it. While the Home Run King of an era is talked about. Flash over results, it's an age old condition.<br /><br />yours sincerely,<br /><br />-ZZarayahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00336440600394588306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7823625636675642409.post-38378765389225923982012-02-06T08:08:48.715-08:002012-02-06T08:08:48.715-08:00Mel Brooks is definitely hit and miss. If you did...Mel Brooks is definitely hit and miss. If you didn't enjoy Broadcast News, then, yes, you do have some strange bias. And reviewers are just representative of different audience types. I generally agree with Roger Ebert on dramas, but his opinion on comedies means nothing to me.<br /><br />Subjectively yours...Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17970641911241417692noreply@blogger.com