I think festivals can sway your opinion on how you view a film. For me this is mainly because I persevere everything I watch at a festival as a little bit better than they actually are. Perhaps it is because I am deluded by the sense of prestige and occasion.

I remember when I was just getting into "serious" (note the inverted commas) cinema when I was about 17 and going to see Olivier Assayas's Clean featuring Maggie Cheung and Nick Nolte. I only knew Cheung from Jackie Chan's Police Story films so I was blown away by her acting and soon proclaimed the film on of the best I'd ever seen. Then, a few years later, I re watched it and realised that, even though Cheung is still exceptionally good in it, the rest of the film is a bit of a tedious bore.



Who you see a film with definitely changes how you watch it. I have a massive soft spot for the Saw series that is completely based on my experiences watching them and nothing to do with the films. When I was a teenager I took a girl to see Saw 2 on a first date and then we got together after that. Then, a couple of years later, I took another girl to see Saw 5 on a first date and we started a relationship not soon after that.

Now that I am single again, I think I am the only person in the world disheartened that they are not making a Saw 7. I may never feel the touch of a woman ever again. :(



Anyway, really looking forward to seeing Certified Copy. Hope it's great in any setting.

A film does not exist outside of its viewer.



What I mean is that every viewing of every film will change according to the viewer's experiences and memories at that point in time.



So I say, of course watching a film during a festival will change your impressions. Just as watching a film with a bad or good date will change your impressions, or watching a film after you've just experienced the loss of a loved one first hand will change your impressions.



It may be at a superficial level, or a deeply profound level, but a film cannot, by its very nature, ever be the same for every viewing because the viewer is not static.

I had a big arguement with my sister after watching The Lovely Bones but I think that was the other way round. My view of the film wasn't tainted by the circumstances but the unrelenting bleakness of the film (which I actually thought was okay but so so miserable) put me in a bad mood and probably encouraged the arguement.

I think there's definitely something to be said about contextual enjoyment of films. Particularly in regards to films viewed during childhood. Growing up with vhs tapes of films and films recorded from tv, I have favourite films that are by all accounts terrible but due to the fact that I watched them over and over and over on tape as a child (loving them then with my undeveloped mind) they have become burned into my consciousness and I can never lose my soft spot for them. I think the film that epitomises this is... wait for it... deep breath... Super Mario Bros. Yes, yes. It is an awful awful film and set a precedent that holds to this day 17 years later that all films based on video games must be bad. But does any of this matter to me? Not in the slightest, I still love that horrible horrible film!

I think I know what you mean, but the closest experience I've had myself to this was with the recent Britcom Wild Target. By all accounts, an inadequate comedy with not enough laughs on the Kermodeometer or anyone else's measure of comedy to give it a pass. But I like Bill Nighy, Emily Blunt, Rupert Grint, Martin Freeman and Gregor Fisher so much that I still enjoyed watching the film. Which is odd, cos it's rubbish.

I've only directly been interested in films for the past ten years, and it's gradually increased over that time, but remains dominated by an interest in japanese cinema. On the whole, I really enjoy dipping into films from various other countries too - and I had done for many years before I could classify films as my main hobby - but have increasingly grown to doubt and question the validity of how films are being determined to be of value by others. It does, honestly, feel very self-serving on behalf of many amateur and professional coverage, but because people follow and don't clearly descent the praise heaped all too easily on many, it's accepted as the way things should be done.



Experience and critique is very useful, and, at times, fundamental in what I pick to watch... certain writers who show they understand it's not about a dictation of value more an experienced and dedicated expression of their personal value being shared, but these are few and far between & are dominated out of the picture by writers who would like to create (or be part of the set to create) the latest prize winner from X fesitval. I think fans have grown to accept being fed fish rather than having learnt how to fish at the hands of a good teacher.



With Japanese films, the wider viewing public - dedicated fans included, oddly - will miss coverage of the very large majority of the overwhelming quantity of films the country will produce during the year; it's currently somewhere between four and five hundred films per annum, of which I can personally follow about 250 via their websites over a period that usually stretches over about 18 months. The effect of missing the coverage of the majority is that the few that are picked out for attention are done so on the basis of easy terms by which the writer can connect to the audience, and easy terms by which a writer can express something of the value bound to be found within a film. To that end, festivals & those that cover them also stick to familiar names all too often, and as coverage in a sparse or realistically-scaled manner is too often taken as the all-important crossover market being conveyed or reached, many are automatically left out of a picture that many would assume is being sifted through with a fine tooth comb when in fact it's usually done on the basis of the bleedin' obvious.



Unfortunately, all this tradition or continuation of easy labels sidelines the emerging talent and dismisses the existing talent that remains harder to sell on simple terms - until someone inexplicably makes more than one award-winning film and becomes at risk of the lazy praise and easy-success bubble that festivals seem to create.

I definitely think the context around the viewing of a film really changes how you see it. I tend to enjoy comedies and horror films way more if I see them in the theatre with lots of people in the audience instead of on dvd by myself. The communal experience of hearing other people laugh/scream/gasp/groan loudly in annoyance when the words "From the mind of M. Night Shyamalan" flash across the screen intensifies my feelings.



And I agree seeing films at a festival make you see them differently. But I tend to think of it more in terms of the greater volume makes me more selective. For me, if a film really wows me on a day when I've seen 4 other movies - I know it's a great film. But I think some movies - especially small, intricate and subtle ones - suffer because you don't have the space to really reflect on them when you are seeing 4 and 5 movies a day.

"But y'know what...?"

Seriously though, Kermode, when are you coming back to fivelive? Every week it's just another disappointment and you're missing important films. Can you at least cover in your blog how you feel about the newest releases, I need to hear SOMETHING about Scott Pilgrim and you're the only one I even slightly trust.

I'm both shocked and disappointed that a professional film critic would care so much about which actor wins an award, to the point that such festival fluff completely overshadows a film as an entity of its own and distracts the critic from forming a valid opinion of it.

to tommus-jay



Do not fear, Mayo and Kermode are back next Friday. Normality resumes. Hooray.



Mark LIVES, BREATHES AND EATS films. There just aint no substitute.

Does this mean that you are the most inappropriate person to review films because you are only there because it's your job and you have to be there?



I hope not as you are my beacon of whether to go see a film.

I sat through 2012 a second time because the guy I was dating hadn't seen it. It was much better the second time. I have never forgotten the film I saw at the Vancouver Film Festival that featured bleak eastern european exsistentialism that was so funny I nearly wet my pants. Can't tell you what it was called only that the lady who kept a bucket of fish under her desk and fed them break balls cracked me up. I am not sure I would have found it so hilarious in my local multiplex. For me there is a greater sense of "audience" and group catharsis at a festival.

Film criticism seems like it would be an extremely difficult job to do and actually do well. Sure it has its perks, but making even-handed judgments on everything you see is an impossible task at best. Everything is altered by personal experience and some films just take a longer time to become fully appreciated for what they are. You could say something about a film and then turn around and find you feel completely different a month from now. Or find that you were being jerked around by your emotions or pre-release hype or any number of factors while you were in the moment and that they blinded you... but at the same time it can be enjoyable to give one's self over to those things.



How does deal with those issues? Or don't they?

I have an example of the opposite - when I saw Closer, I thought it was a good (though not spectacular) film, and objectively I still feel that way. The performances are good, the arc is engaging, the people are horrible in a way they should be for the purposes of the plot. Despite that vaguely positive opinion, however, my main association with the film is of me and someone else bonding over the fact that we had both been dumped shortly after seeing it with our respective girlfriends, and how our opinions had changed as a result. I've seen it once since and disliked it intensely.



I still think that Clive Owen is underrated, though.

It's all about the moment,and I've never been one to rush off to see a film just because it's had a good show at a festival.Example I got to see Precious(Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire) at the weekend for the first time. It didn't blow me away, I found it very much a film that was targeted to the award season,and quite frankly is nothing that hasn't been done before.Good performances yes, but on the whole rather disappointing on times. Yet 4 months 3 weeks and 2 days which had an equally depressing subject matter worked for me, and despite protestations from several friends I thought it deserved the awards that were lavished on it.( Though if I'm honest I don't care much for awards) and I think any recipients should be told ok 'you done good' then be given money to donate to charity rather than do the carousel of back slapping and brown nosing.

This might explain some of your more idiosyncratic reviews ;-)



Perhaps even "Socialism" isn't quite as bad as you said it was (?)

I went to see The Producers (2005 remake) just after I'd spent the best Christmas of my life with a woman with whom I'd just fallen in love, shortly after my football team won promotion by relegating our fiercest rivals, at a time when everything seemed to be going my way.



Trust me, it didn't make the experience any less excruciating.

@Dublin Dilettante

I could have done with a bit of your run of luck before I went to watch Pirahna 3D ...:-( Yes yes I know but I went as a favour to someone...It made The Producers re-make look like an oscar contender...

Has anybody realised that Dr. K has done very few video reviews lately????????????????????????????????????

of course the viewer defines the viewing!

to achieve some sort of sterile, utterly unbiased, completely objective mindset in order to review a film is not what i want from a critic. i want them to express their experience just as the film makers have expressed their imaginations(hopefully).



over my life i have developed an exponential obsession with christmas and as a result any film with snow in it, a christmas song or anything remotely festive it nestles cosily in my conciousness and by the next year will have become an integral part of the christmas experience. Die Hard is good example.



i always try to remember that its your inner child, or the right side of your brain, not your language or analytical centers that are desgined to enjoy films, so leave the critical analysis till the second viewing.



festival awards are the signal for pretentious people to like the film without risk to their image!



down with the self!!

I don't know what all the fuss is about...this blog entry is mildly interesting but also seems a little lacklustre for you Dr K...maybe because you are on your hols perhaps? ;D

You saw Certified Copy at a Film Festival, where as a respected critic you will be on the lookout for the standout movies and performances because a) you are a film critic and natural film fan and b)that is what the public expects of you. We all wanted to know your opinion on the winners and losers at Cannes. You just have to work a double shift at Cannes, reviewing and picking out the winners.

I'm sure you also formed a pretty good critical opinion of Certified Copy as well, but watching it again won't hurt. Simples!

It's very rare for a complete turnaround on one's opinion of a film. I still haven't changed my mind about 'There Will be Blood' having watched it again recently. I still love the first 20 mins and did enjoy the rest marginally more but not by a big margin ;D

this camera work made me feel dizzy and sick

When is a review not a review? When it's a revue?



I'm here all week.

Interesting camerawork...

A few years ago and injured my back at work and was laid up for about 8 weeks, during which time i watched a load of new and old films



When i watched Anchorman during this period i completely missed the point and thought it was about as funny as cancer.



But about 10 months later it was on the BBC late one friday evening, and on giving it another go found it fantastic!



"you are a smelly pirate hooker" was my message tone for months afterwards!

Trust your original instincts, Mark. Certified Copy is DIRE. Terrible script. Badly shot. Utterly pretentious. So pleased with its own ability to converse in three languages but unaware of the fact it had nothing interesting to say in any of them. That second viewing is another 90 minutes of you life you can never get back.

A review can be helpful but it is really just an opinion of the person who wrote it. The thing I find frustrating sometimes with critics is I think they can lose their wonder of a film as they see so many and it is "a job". I am sure they love what they do, I would love to watch hundreds of films.



Your mood, who you're with etc, does play some part in how you view a film for sure. Sometimes you want arty and are really in the mood for it, but other times you want to laugh, switch off and watch rubbish. It does not mean it is bad. Festivals are so high brow now that I think the films themselves have been lost. It is too much about the red carpet and dresses!



I like the screen in the TV show Friends when there is a discussion about what is Rachel's favourite film "Dangerous Liaisons" is the answer, then they say what is Rachel's REAL favourite film "Weekend at Bernie's"!! I think people can get caught up with the Film Snob factor and cannot possibly admit to liking or loving a bad film. Just because a critic said it was bad. I love "While you were Sleeping" and I am honest when asked. I cannot see the point of lying. If you enjoy something, then you enjoy it.

Just went to see Certified Copy yesterday and I've got to admit, I was more than a little disappointed.

It gets off to a promising enough start, with some interesting ideas being thrown about, some wonderful long shots, beautiful locations and two characters that, although seeming quite odd and disjointed, feel as if they are building up to something. There seems to be potential as if they are moving both physically and conversationally towards something interesting.

However as soon as their role play/revelation (depending on which was you look at it) starts the whole film stops making much sense. Neither character behaves in anyway that is recognisable as real or natural, their meandering philosophies become more and more contrived and the entire film loses the sense of direction that it seemed to have at the beginning.

The acting is often quite patchy. Schimell is ok when he's quiet and thoughtful but his outbust in the restaurant is one of the worst acted tantrums I've seen all year.

Binoche is good and she can clearly work her way through a large variety of emotional responses. It's just a pity that most of the things she was saying and reacting to, didn't make a lick of sense. If this was really the best female performance at Cannes this year then it must have been a poor year.