Fascinating and engaging. Nicely done, jn!
Will chat about the content, but it's half-past midnight. . .perchance to dream.
ShogunRua wrote:Like, I could spend a few pages going over grammar and syntax issues, as well as ways that you could phrase and group your thoughts better. I could also talk about the entertainment quality of the piece, and how that could be punched up more.
I'm probably overly sentimental with criticker members, but I love the authentic form.
Bah. Fuck the quill-wielding editors, fumbling with their ink-stained fingers at the cum-stuck pages of The Elements of Style.
You are a sweetheart and positive personality, but writing with proper syntax and self-expression is something that I (and probably every writer) have struggled to improve over many years and hundreds of pages. It's one of the first and most important things you learn as a writer, and makes one's work vastly better. Amusingly enough, your own syntax, even in off-hand forum posts, is quite good. I doubt you attained that without a lot of hard work and revision yourself.
jnmovie wrote:Any feedback you'd like to give. I'm not really looking for specifics, just mainly looking to see what you get out of it as far as the ideas go.
I'll also be completely honest; I initially could only get through the first few paragraphs of the work. That wasn't because the ideas were bad, but because the technical aspects were so lacking.
Since this will help you for future articles as much as anything to do with ideas, I will point a few examples out;"Are people here with a genuine interest in experimental cinema?"
Not a sentence. I think you wanted to write something like "Do people here have a genuine interest in experimental cinema?"
At the beginning of a paragraph, you write "my most curious thought concerned the audience."
, which sounds awkward (and your thought isn't particularly "curious"), and at the end you noted "For me, it’s an interesting question to think about."
, which is unnecessary repetition.
In general, you use too many qualifiers, and too many "extra words" that detract from the content of your thoughts instead of adding to them. "Which essentially means
" can be contracted to "Which means", for instance.
A particularly bad offender was "Well, I’ll start by saying that much depends on the level of experimentation."
Why tell us about something you're going to say right before you say it? Just write "Much depends on the level of experimentation", instead. (Also, I would change "level" to "type", considering what you cover next)
Furthermore, why use a controversial terms like "mise-en-scene" (which we had a huge topic on and many people felt was a silly, pompous word because of how unnecessarily vague it was, and which its original coiners (among them Jean-Luc Godard) later repudiated as worthless or even non-existent), especially when you have to define it in parenthesis immediately afterwards? Just write something like "composition of a scene" or "cinemaphotography", especially since each is more precise.
Anyways, that's enough about the technical aspects. It takes years of practice and revision to master, and is the main reason why authors re-write portions of their books 20 times over.
As for the ideas, some were unclear. For instance,On the surface, it can be expected that the films resembling the experiences of the conventional narrative would prove to be most successful, yet the films with a more hallucinogenic approach still held their ground rather triumphantly.
"Held their ground rather triumphantly"? What does that mean, precisely? What measure are you using?
Are you judging this by audience reaction at the 50th annual Ann Arbor Film Festival? Critical reception in general? Box office receipts and profitability for these films? What?
Your last paragraph especially suffers from this. Also, where are you getting this assumption that experimental films are "successful"? Again, by what standard? Because a relatively small group of people are willing to pay a small fee to attend a regional film festival featuring such movies? Or something else?
The only clear idea you did present was something that Walter Murch wrote in a film book. And I agree; his idea is certainly an interesting one. However, it's not your own conception; it's his.
Beyond that, you wrote that you like experimental cinema because it's different than brain-dead Hollywood blockbusters. Yeah, me too, but so what?