Ouch.
Just got one of those healthy, humbling kicks in the pants that reminds me of why some artists say they don't read reviews, and it's got me thinking about rejection in general. Artists of any sort get a lot of that ouchy stuff and the hurt is probably deeper the more of yourself you put into what ever it is that is getting shredded--be it a painting, a poem, a performance...
I can't remember any especially bad reviews as an actor, so most of the rejection I associate with acting would be audition-rejection--not getting the part--which is a daily staple for most actors. There are so many factors that go into casting, so that kind of rejection is really no statement about the talent or value of the actor as an artist... it's more of a matter of fitting in. I can deal with that.
Rejection of a script can be similar, but since it takes longer to create a script than it does to secure and drive to an audition, I think the blow to a writer is a little bit more personal. Writers, too, have to remember that often the rejection of a script is a matter of not fitting into the line-up or tastes of a particular production company at a particular time (that's not to say that a writer shouldn't also consider the fact that the script may still need work, or may actually belong in the trash).
The jolt I got today was neither of those types. It was a full frontal assault on the most personal piece of work I've ever done. It wasn't a simple "I didn't like it" or "It wasn't my kind of thing..." but rather: "This was the biggest disaster of the festival... if people are telling you nice things..they are being kind…not truthful."
I wrote, directed, and produced a piece that I knew wasn't for everyone. I knew I was taking a risk and that there was a chance that I would be the only one who "got it," but on the off chance that there were others out there, like me, who longed for this type of film, I made it. When I read that review, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised. It was the bluntness of it that caught me off guard, though. I was raised on the Bambi philosophy of "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."
Don't get me wrong--I'm as opinionated as the next person (okay, maybe even more so), but I do always try to balance the blow with some kindness, some benefit of the doubt, some personalization of the "maybe it's just me" type. And this reviewer seemed to truly HATE our film--enough to put the energy in to rattling off his/her longest review of any in the festival. I think the review was actually longer than my script! [BTW, I found it interesting that he/she could dub something the "biggest disaster of the festival" so early in the line-up--there is a lot more to the festival than just the shorts. Who knows? there could be a 5 hour documentary on which direction one should hang a toilet paper roll! I do hope that Mr./Ms. Brave Anonymous Reviewer will expend the energy to come back and update the review if some later film manages to beat us out for the honor of the "biggest disaster"; however, since most reviews are basically hit-and-run, I don't expect and would be seriously shocked by such a courteous post script. But I can dream, can't I? I'll imagine the addendum of: "sorry, I spoke too soon; your film was actually the second worst disaster of the festival. It didn't suck as bad as _____." Ah, what relief!]
Before this review, I was already struggling with how to word my own comments on other films in the festival. I want to be constructive. I want to see filmmaking as a whole grow in artistic quality, but I also realize that much of appreciation is in the eye of the beholder. I want my words to encourage that which is universally good, beautiful, challenging, moving, entertaining and all that, but I also don't want to be a snob that derides things that I personally don't like just because it doesn't suit my particular taste. It's a scary thing to put your art out in front of others to be critiqued, but it's also daunting to be in the role of the one offering feedback. Sometimes I'm tempted to do neither and just crawl back into my cave and write. Sometimes I think I should become one of those artists who refuse to read the reviews and just create what they want to create... but I have a feeling I'll always be tempted to peek, and I'll always go through these emotional roller-coasters after doing so. To me it's part of being an artist. People don't walk down the street looking for artists to torture... it's something we do to ourselves. It may be painful for those who have to live with us to watch, but I think it does have some value in that it humbles us and it pushes us on to fight back--to reach even further next time.
Wow, Rebekah--thank you for this reflection on such a challenging experience. For what it is worth, I am always suspicious of a critic who labels something the "worst" or the "biggest disaster." That sounds so extreme. It makes me wonder what all the anger is about. That said, I am convinced that the hardest thing for artists is continuing to create despite all sorts of rejection. We need to be so resilient. To keep coming back and doing it better or, as you say, reach further. Keep at it, friend!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Coach Rochelle! I'm glad there are people like you out there nurturing community and encouraging the resiliency of artists. I firmly believe that great art thrives when creative people find inspirational and *safe* places where they are free to experiment.
ReplyDeleteSince I do find criticism that is specific and clear to be helpful, and because colleagues and strangers often ask for feedback, I'm trying to understand better the reasons that some approaches to offering criticism are effective while others feel like little more than so much graffiti on a brick wall that shuts off the true inner self.
ReplyDeleteMy approach has usually been not to even bother offering a critique if I dislike something so much that I realize the creator of the piece probably had no intention to make the sort of thing that I would appreciate. In such a case, what does it matter what I think?
If someone is trying to make a work with broad appeal, then he can benefit from the criticism of a broad range of opinions. However, it seems that people always interject their own personal goals and ambitions into their evaluation of the work of others... and sometimes such interjection will consequently be meaningless and of little value to someone whose goal the critiquer personally cannot understand.
Yet many anonymous internet critics go on with the assumption that their own pet aesthetic values are utterly transcendent--when I read reviews by these types who linguistically equate their opinions with divine truth, all I can see is their own blazing god-complex and any slivers of helpful insight they may have been able to offer are burnt up in the flames of their noxious breath. Why is it so difficult for people to simply admit that they don't understand something? or to temper the blow of their diatribes with a few simple words like: "I think..." or "In my opinion..."
As I see it, the hit-and-run critic has little interest in discussion or in anything living (the artistic community, innovation, experimentation, exploration...)
Thank goodness not every work is made for a broad audience! How incredibly boring would that be?
I remember exiting the theatre after a prescreening of Charlie Kaufman's directorial debut, SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK, and hearing comments similar to the critiques I just received for LIKE THOSE WHO DREAM. Some people just didn't get it. Actually many didn't get it, but these were divided into roughly three camps: (1) those who said they intended to watch it again, knowing that they would get more in subsequent viewings; (2) those who said it just wasn't their kind of movie, but acknowledged the fact that it's okay to have different types of films and all don't have to appeal to broad audiences, and (3) those who chose to project their own personal taste, values, assumptions, goals, etc. on everyone else, and thus readily launched in to rants about all that was "wrong" with the movie and how it would be improved if it would follow such and such a format, and if it were trimmed to a certain magical length, and if the through-line were made a little less confusing... Basically, they wanted to take the Charlie out of it. To me, that would be tragic.
ReplyDeleteI just stumbled upon this Charlie Kaufman interview, which I thought some of you (is anyone even reading this?) might find interesting (well, at least I find it interesting):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxps3oouNiQ&feature=related