So... how do YOU handle criticism?

[Wilbur Eddings]

This is specifically aimed at Directors and Producers who pour their heart into something creative.

I was thinking about this today when I read some scathing reviews of a friend's animated movie, a passion project almost 5 years in the making.

The belittling comments aimed at Phillip Bloom nudged me to ask the question because I am genuinely interested in how other Directors handle the onslaught.


My first major production was a stage play which was very well attended but had mixed reviews. There wasn't much in the way of internet coverage back then so it was mostly newspapers and magazines that did the reviewing.

Jump to a few years ago when I directed my first feature and the online critics ripped me to shreds!

I honestly thought I was ready for it - prepared myself for a lambasting after reading reviews of similar genre movies and watching them get trashed too - but I was not.
I had worked so long and hard on that project that every critical sentence felt like a knife in my soul. And believe me, there were a lot of reviews, very few kind.

The mature side of you takes every sentence as either creative opinion or constructive criticism but that inner child who was so eager to show the world his sand castle feels every blow!

"It's the internet", I know. "Your movie probably sucked", I know. "Just make a better one next time!" Amen brother!

Still, I handle each review and criticism differently, depending on my emotional state at the time.

Nothing quenches my resolve to make a better movie each time, but Iam very interested in how others experience it.

How do you handle it?
How do you watch your work get trashed by multitudes of opinions without letting it get to you in that moment?

Am I the only one who gets that little pang of discouragement or are there others out there who have to deal with the same stuff?

 

[john threat]

who cares what they think - as long as you had fun and made some money!
if critics knew what they were doing - they'd be making stuff instead of being a critic

 

[D.Mur]

who cares what they think - as long as you had fun and made some money!
if critics knew what they were doing - they'd be making stuff instead of being a critic

I agree with this.

For me it starts by first setting standards for myself. More often then not, if I'm not meeting my own standards for excellence then someone else's criticism is really only re-enforcing what I need to do to get better.

 

[Cassius]

I think about them. My mind works in a very logical way when I need it to, and in that case I decide if I should accept the criticism or not. If I should keep in mind for next time, if not I asssume they're morons and move on. But your right, that inner child is there, in a part of me wants to show off and have everyone be impressed- and some people are, so I let those positive responses satisfy that part of me. And, most importantly, move on; once you're working on something else it doesn't matter. If there aren't any positive reviews, just keep in mind that failures are totally necessary for success. It's hard to accept, but it needs to be done.

 

[Rolf Silber]

Am I the only one who gets that little pang of discouragement or are there others out there who have to deal with the same stuff?

There are only a few ways, imho, that help coping with the venom which at times gets dumped onto directors.

I have an agreement with my wife: She reads first and tells me if:

a) I should read that now because I can learn something from it.
b) I should read it later because it contains some interesting things but may also hurt me.
c) I should use it as toilet paper.

Having said this, I realize that today - in the time of the internet - it's rather inadvisable to wipe you behind with your laptop. And this applies more to "professional" critics who get paid for making at times mince meat out of us. With professional critics I got help in coming to terms with them from a rather strange German actor/philosopher/comedian/bonvivant (yes, people like that have been around) who died some years ago.

It was his take that a lot of professional critics believe - after they have accepted Walter Benjamin's historical dictum that film is the highest form of art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction- that by criticising this highest form of art they themselves deserve the emperor's crown of intellectualism. Which, in consequence, leads to a second even graver wrong conclusion that they themselves are more important, have more "soul of the art", a greater scope of knowledge and wisdom about film making than the ones who actually do it. Which makes them even greater. They are, he said, like referee's who believe deep down in their heart, that they are more important than the players.

The really strange thing about this is that while there are critics around who do an interesting job in analysing what we are doing and sometimes even can help us - this cloak of being the emperor of intellectualism can also be wrapped around a writing moron, a fool, a venomous idiot who uses the costume for just letting his aggressive affects off the leash. And we have to accept that in the days of the internet this has multiplied. Every numb nut that can hardly shoot a video with his cell phone can now kick directors or writes or cinematographers around and can wrap himself if not into the intellectual emperors cloak than at least into the "duke-of-shallowness'es" dirty old handkerchief and spit at those who expose themselves with a piece of work.

Everybody who creates has the right to be treated at least with some respect first. And everybody who creates has the right to look for mechanisms to protect himself from the dirty little mutts that bark only to give the pack the direction where it may find a victim. The hard part is telling apart which criticism - even when t times negative - may be helping and which is just a negativity festival. So have someone sort it out for you.

 

[sean90291]

Criticism is very painful. It always will be.

The only time when I can take criticism very well and even relish it is when it's from someone I both admire and who I know otherwise admires/respects me and my work. We all want to know we're respected and look for confirmation that we have enough talent to make the process worthwhile. So if I have a critic who has seen some of my work and generally loved it, I know that I have at least that much covered--s/he thinks I'm talented, and they want me to make good work. So I can take their very harsh criticism--I love hearing that they hate something, because I know they have appreciated previous work and only want to like this latest work just as much. It will only make me want to make the work better, and I listen to every word.

But as for taking the critiques of strangers or people with no vested-interest in me or my work, I think it gets a little easier with time. But only a little. I've concluded the pain (it is pain!) is just part of the territory. And you just have to take some consolation from the fact that critics are destructive, while artists are creative (they add/create for the world, rather than destroy). And no matter what you have created, even if really "bad," it is much better than being destructive, no matter what the work's faults are! At least you have channeled your passion into something constructive, adding to the experience of the world, rather than trying to shut it down and destroy it (which is the only thing critics/criticism can do).

 

[Wilbur Eddings]

There are only a few ways, imho, that help coping with the venom which at times gets dumped onto directors.

I have an agreement with my wife: She reads first and tells me if:

a) I should read that now because I can learn something from it.
b) I should read it later because it contains some interesting things but may also hurt me.
c) I should use it as toilet paper.

Having said this, I realize that today - in the time of the internet - it's rather inadvisable to wipe you behind with your laptop. And this applies more to "professional" critics who get paid for making at times mince meat out of us. With professional critics I got help in coming to terms with them from a rather strange German actor/philosopher/comedian/bonvivant (yes, people like that have been around) who died some years ago.

It was his take that a lot of professional critics believe - after they have accepted Walter Benjamin's historical dictum that film is the highest form of art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction- that by criticising this highest form of art they themselves deserve the emperor's crown of intellectualism. Which, in consequence, leads to a second even graver wrong conclusion that they themselves are more important, have more "soul of the art", a greater scope of knowledge and wisdom about film making than the ones who actually do it. Which makes them even greater. They are, he said, like referee's who believe deep down in their heart, that they are more important than the players.

The really strange thing about this is that while there are critics around who do an interesting job in analysing what we are doing and sometimes even can help us - this cloak of being the emperor of intellectualism can also be wrapped around a writing moron, a fool, a venomous idiot who uses the costume for just letting his aggressive affects off the leash. And we have to accept that in the days of the internet this has multiplied. Every numb nut that can hardly shoot a video with his cell phone can now kick directors or writes or cinematographers around and can wrap himself if not into the intellectual emperors cloak than at least into the "duke-of-shallowness'es" dirty old handkerchief and spit at those who expose themselves with a piece of work.

Everybody who creates has the right to be treated at least with some respect first. And everybody who creates has the right to look for mechanisms to protect himself from the dirty little mutts that bark only to give the pack the direction where it may find a victim. The hard part is telling apart which criticism - even when t times negative - may be helping and which is just a negativity festival. So have someone sort it out for you.

Great reply.
I once read a very fair review of my work where the reviewer balanced his view with both positive and negative points. I was so impressed that I actually commented below his review, thanking him for having the thoughtfulness and maturity to present all the facts. A review like that is very useful in righting your wrongs on your next project.
In that case, the referee is definitely worth his whistle!

The average internet reviewer though... At first I thought that it would only be art movies that would qualify for a half decent review but then, after reading one debilitating review of The Pianist, I realized that most critics are simply cruel, devious simpletons who use our creative work as their own sand pit.

It should not bother me, and truthfully I handle it pretty well most days, but on the odd day when you are exhausted by the petty politics in film financing, long hours of production and all the other reasons we LOVE film making, some things sting a bit more than they should!

you just have to take some consolation from the fact that critics are destructive, while artists are creative (they add/create for the world, rather than destroy). .

Wow!
Very wise words!

One of my closest friends used to play rugby for our national team. We were discussing the similarities between couch referees and film critics and he quoted his coach:
"Don't worry about the critics, they have to go back to their crappy day jobs tomorrow".

 

[Rolf Silber]

but on the odd day when you are exhausted by the petty politics in film financing, long hours of production and all the other reasons we LOVE film making, some things sting a bit more than they should!

Yes. And that's where we need some kind of thick skin to protect us. The basic conflict can never ever go away though. At times we can learn something from the guys who are sitting on the couch. And at times it may be even good for us that they have a different perspective. But we can not solve or get across this intrinsic antagonism that we do it and they tell us what we should have done differently. I do not object so much against them because they have not done "it". I mainly try to object against clearly unfair attacks. And, even worse, complete ignorance.

I recently had a critic attacking me viciously for the - as the critic saw it - daft and primitive stump-dialogue of two characters of a movie - which was funny because they were kind of the equivalent to oldish working class guys from mid western plains or the Appalachians, stranded in the big city and working their little kiosks as competitors in the same block. Low talking, laid back, not very well educated Waldorf & Stadler type. And yes, indeed, their dialogues where appropriate.

The critic attacked me in full Tasmanian-devil-mode for not being able to write consecutive and structured dialogue. Now, would he have written that he just did not like the dialogues because of a, b, c, or d.... I would have shrugged it off. But attacking my abilities as a writer per se? This I do not take lightly. To be a critic is no excuse for trying to annihilate my existence. And my wife could not hold me back of writing back. Oh boy. Since then I have again another new "friend" on the side of the critics...... ;-)

 

[Nuno Dias]

I believe that you should always be your own 'worst' critic. This is not being negative, it means that you should be completely honest about your work. If you succeed at this, no matter what comes, you'll know if that has some truth or not. And therefore learn from it, or not. You should also not get high on good reviews, and therefore not get low on bad ones. No matter what comes, keep it emotionally distant. Being a critic is a very difficult job and like everything else, there are very few good ones. It's their job, to criticise something, based on God knows what what, or what point of view.

In the whole world there are only about 5 critics I really trust, and even they slip up from time to time, and these good one often admit they did (some time later). So your best chances of getting something of any real value from criticism is to be your own most honest critic, and then balance off what other 'outside' critics say about your work. Otherwise whats the point?

 

[LiamR]

Criticism is just another opinion, and to be completely honest, I would rather have someone who is not labelled a critic to comment and give me sincere feedback on my film than a critic, they think because they get a fancy label next to there name they get to lash out and be over critical.

I would also hate to be Tommy Wiseau, a critics dream.

 

[Denialorcoped]

Here's my take:

You have to be willing to accept the possibility that they are right. Once you do that, you need to determine which criticism, if any, you should pay attention to in order to improve your future projects, and which is just garbage. Also if audiences like your film, but critics don't, that's a sign that maybe you shouldn't pay too much attention to critics. If both hate your film, then you gotta problem.

A lot of great films, in my opinion, get trashed by critics. Usually comedies. Kung Pow is an example. Ebert even refused to review it. I think it's hilarious.
But many critics are experts so they can give some great advice. You just gotta know when to listen to them and when not too

 

[Wilbur Eddings]

You have to be willing to accept the possibility that they are right.

Horrible and true.

Blehh.

Is there anything worse upon this blessed planet of ours than a gloating bastard being right about your weaknesses?



That's it, I'm gonna make a movie about a serial killer who hunts down film critics!

 

[RockmanX3]

Criticism is very painful. It always will be.

The only time when I can take criticism very well and even relish it is when it's from someone I both admire and who I know otherwise admires/respects me and my work. We all want to know we're respected and look for confirmation that we have enough talent to make the process worthwhile. So if I have a critic who has seen some of my work and generally loved it, I know that I have at least that much covered--s/he thinks I'm talented, and they want me to make good work. So I can take their very harsh criticism--I love hearing that they hate something, because I know they have appreciated previous work and only want to like this latest work just as much. It will only make me want to make the work better, and I listen to every word.

But as for taking the critiques of strangers or people with no vested-interest in me or my work, I think it gets a little easier with time. But only a little. I've concluded the pain (it is pain!) is just part of the territory. And you just have to take some consolation from the fact that critics are destructive, while artists are creative (they add/create for the world, rather than destroy). And no matter what you have created, even if really "bad," it is much better than being destructive, no matter what the work's faults are! At least you have channeled your passion into something constructive, adding to the experience of the world, rather than trying to shut it down and destroy it (which is the only thing critics/criticism can do).

Agreed. I'm very prideful in my work and it's always hard to take criticism at first.

It's much easier to take it from strangers and people you don't know, but it's incredibly difficult for me take it from close friends (I have quite a few very opinionative friends, especially the one in my sig).

It get easier to accept and move on with time, but in the end, the only thing that should matter is what you think of your work and using the criticism to help. I still admit, the first instance of it HURTS.

 

[Wilbur Eddings]

who cares what they think - as long as you had fun and made some money!
if critics knew what they were doing - they'd be making stuff instead of being a critic

I wish I had your view on this.. haha.

Dude.. is that you on a cloud in your avatar? LMAO!

 

[J Michael]

A common refrain is that a critique is just an opinion. In some cases that's true such as an expression of "like" or "don't like". But critique that is just an opinion has little value. A critique with reasoning may have more value, such as an analysis that says what didn't work and why. That at least may provide something that might be useful on your next effort.

 

[Kholi]

It's pretty easy for me: if my work doesn't match up to a multi-million dollar production then I'm the worst critic regardless...

No one's going to be worse than I am. >=]

 

[Wilbur Eddings]

It's pretty easy for me: if my work doesn't match up to a multi-million dollar production then I'm the worst critic regardless...

No one's going to be worse than I am. >=]

I assume by your comment that you are unaffected by external criticism of your work?

Being one's own critic is a minimum requirement for any kind of creative success.

Even those multi-million dollar productions get nailed to shreds by critics, I am just inquisitive as to how everyone here handles external criticism of their work.


For example:

Joe Wright's 'Hannah' was an awesome movie in every way, yet a lot of critics shredded it, same with Snyder's 'Sucker Punch'.

I enjoyed both movies in different ways but there are a lot of people who loved one and hated the other. (Interesting article and debate here http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenandhollywood/archives/joe_wright_sticks_it_to_zack_snyder/)

Although I do not run to the shower and hug my knees in grief every time I read a nasty review of my work, it still stings a bit and one certainly tries to improve oneself at each new opportunity but I would love to know what happens in Zack Snyder, Joe Wright, Michael Bay, Kholi and various other film maker's minds when the odd public toasting occurs...

"After my small role in The 13th Warrior, I said to myself, 'Let us stop this nonsense, these meal tickets that we do because it pays well.' I thought, 'Unless I find a stupendous film that I love and that makes me want to leave home to do, I will stop.' Bad pictures are very humiliating, I was really sick. It is terrifying to have to do the dialogue from bad scripts, to face a director who does not know what he is doing, in a film so bad that it is not even worth exploring." Omar Sharif

Can you imagine having that kind of thing said about your movie?
I actually LOVED The 13th Warrior and have watched it countless times, which scares the crap out of me when I read stuff like that because that is possibly the kind of criticism I am destined for even when I reach the peak of my film making abilities.

I think harsh criticism is par for the course in our industry and figuring out how to deal with it in a healthy way might be more important than we think...

 

[Wilbur Eddings]

A common refrain is that a critique is just an opinion. In some cases that's true such as an expression of "like" or "don't like". But critique that is just an opinion has little value. A critique with reasoning may have more value, such as an analysis that says what didn't work and why. That at least may provide something that might be useful on your next effort.

Vesry wise words. (I had to squint to read them but very wise indeed... haha.)

 

[pennyroyal]

Stanley Kubrick's stuff was often panned by critics. Same with Led Zeppelin. Critics hated Moby Dick.

In short, critics' opinions don't ****ing matter in the long run. If I feel I've done something artistically legitimate then I could care less what critics think. I didn't make it for them.

 

[Wilbur Eddings]

In short, critics' opinions don't poo pooing matter in the long run. If I feel I've done something artistically legitimate then I could care less what critics think. I didn't make it for them.

LMAO! I love your attitude!

(The direct mail notification includes the original profanity which in this case made your comment far more entertaining than the 'poo poo' version, still very cool.)