2023-11-12 14:10:14
There is nothing that worries film critics more than the decline of the criticism movement, the scarcity of specialists, and the fragility of cinematic reception. These concerns were brought back to the forefront by the Film Criticism Conference currently organized by the Film Authority in Riyadh, which is considered the first of its kind in the world. It continues its heated dialogues to raise the profile of the film criticism movement and define the nature of the critic in light of modern changes.
Moroccan critic Dr. Hamadi Kairum, a professor of cinema aesthetics at Hassan II University in Casablanca, relies on the saying of French director François Truffaut: “Each of us has two professions: an official profession from which we make a living and the profession of a critic,” noting that the viewer depends on his taste in evaluating the film. He seeks to share his opinion out of a desire to join the “community of critics” with its rules, symbols, and methods.
He believes that social media has demolished the authority of critical institutions that monopolized “allowing speech” to one critic alone, so it gave the floor to everyone, and facilitated direct expression, sharing of film clips, and commenting on them. Thus, the concept of classic film criticism worsened, and the characteristics of the new critic began to take shape, as he is the one who is not in his power. Unless he is an “aesthetic human being” who puts sense, intuition, and knowledge between himself and the film. His words came during a lecture he gave at the conference entitled “Criticism between Profession and Knowledge.” Because aesthetics is the science of aesthetics, Kirum points out that this includes sensory awareness and emotional experience that the individual lives through art through pleasure and artistic creation.
A large presence of the most important film critics at the conference (Middle East)
Criticism between cinema and film
During a special intervention to Asharq Al-Awsat, Kirum spoke regarding the nature of criticism as a profession and practice, indicating the necessity of distinguishing between a critic and a journalist, and believing that there is a great deal of confusion between them. He adds: “A journalist may work on a film, and a critic may work on cinema, which confirms that there is a difference between cinematic and film criticism. In the first, the critic starts from the film and brings it into cinema and its history, crossing many continents. “What is difficult for a journalist?”
He continues: “Follow-up is very necessary for the future of the film critic profession.” When asked regarding the critical experiences in Saudi Arabia, where cinema is still modern and promising, and its launch did not exceed the first decade, Kirum believes that “film criticism is a global issue that is not linked to the nature of the cinematic movement in the country from which it emerges. There is no local critic, the critic is global in nature, and I see in Saudi Arabia great signs of the formation of a promising film criticism movement.”
Criticism is a “promise of happiness”
Although Kirum describes film criticism as “a promise of happiness,” he does not hide his pessimistic outlook. He says: “Film criticism is on its way to its death,” which is a harsh description that he justifies by saying: “The major institutions of criticism have ended.” Cinema was born in France, grew up in America, and then reached the world. France contained it intellectually and culturally, and today we no longer see a promising movement,” while he did not fail to point out electronic digital criticism as a new challenge due to the absurdity it carries and its distance from institutional work.
Introduction to prominent cinematic figures at the conference headquarters (Middle East)
Criticism in the age of social media
Kirum’s talk intersects with what was presented by film critic Shubhra Gupta, who is considered one of the most famous in India and a columnist for the Indian Express newspaper, in a lecture entitled “The Importance of Criticism and Film Critics in the Age of Social Media,” during which she addressed the most frequently asked questions regarding criticism. Today, from her perspective and position, she bears witness to the growth of Indian cinema. Among the most prominent things I discussed: What is the importance of film criticism in the age of social media? Is there a role left for the film critic? Most importantly, what is the difference between perceived criticism and logical criticism, and how can we bridge the gap between them.
Session on Saudi cinema and cultural influence (Middle East)
Critical analyses
The conference presents a daily dialogue session that discusses criticism of a famous film. Including a critical analysis session for the film “EO” by Polish Jerzy Skolimowski. Omani film critic Thabet Khamis presented a different analysis of it using a phenomenological methodology that relies on discovering cognitive processes and expressive and perceptual embodiment in cinematic spectacle.
This was shared by Iraqi film critic Qais Qasim, who presented a comparative analysis between the films “EO” and “The Destinies of Balthazar” by the Frenchman Robert Bresson. The two films were distinguished by their close treatment of a cinematic achievement in which the animal plays a major role, so that the directors’ view of the world is revealed through the animal’s view (the donkey), which adds strangeness to the cinematic treatment, and a renewal of the forms of dealing with serious topics that are concerned with studying human existence.
1699805231
#Film #criticism #Saudi #Arabia.. #great #signs #herald #bright #future
