My new column at Liberties magazine: First up: acting and film criticism and how the twain meet

I have some exciting (to me) news. I’ll be writing a regular column for Liberties – the website for the quarterly magazine – host to a daunting lineup of writers!

I launched my column with a piece about being a film critic with an acting background. I’ve spoken about this a lot but never sat down and actually wrote it all out. Editor Celeste Marcus suggested the subject and I had fun exploring it. I discuss Actors Studio sessions, Hamlet’s musings on acting, Ballets Russes, the film “canon”, auteur theory, the Twilight franchise, my aunt Regina – the example to me when I was a kid of what it looked like to have an acting career – and how I moved through acting to writing and how I make sense of it. I’m really excited for this new opportunity. I’ll be writing about all kinds of things, and I have so many ideas.

Here’s my first piece:

The Question

This entry was posted in Movies, Personal, Theatre and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to My new column at Liberties magazine: First up: acting and film criticism and how the twain meet

  1. mutecypher says:

    I enjoyed that a lot. “What are you working on” sounds like an excellent way to approach a movie, or pretty much any artwork.

    • sheila says:

      Yes, it applies to all sorts of things! To interpersonal relationships too.

      Thanks so much for reading! This should be fun!

  2. Lyrie says:

    Very exciting indeed!

    “What are you working on” is a great question. As I’m spending more time around writers lately, I’m learning how to get better at giving feedback – the right mix of technique and intuition too. And although I hadn’t articulated it that way, I am always mindful of trying to understand if the text does what the writer intends to do – whether their genre or style is my thing or not is irrelevant (I’ve gotten several times notes that boiled that to “I wouldn’t do it that way,” and while receiving feedback is ALSO a skill to work on, I think I’m not doing too bad at not being defensive but this one annoys me to no end because BITCH, I wouldn’t write your stuff either. That’s kind of the point. That feedback is useless.)

    Anyway, looking forward to reading more from you, always.

    • sheila says:

      Lyrie – hi, and thanks for this! I love to hear people’s thoughts on this.

      // I am always mindful of trying to understand if the text does what the writer intends to do // This is so cool – I think it’s so important!

      // I’ve gotten several times notes that boiled that to “I wouldn’t do it that way,” //

      This happens so much in acting classes too. It’s like, “well, you’re not the one up here – I am. You do the scene your way when you have the chance. In the meantime, I’m up here so let’s talk about what I did.”

      // BITCH, I wouldn’t write your stuff either. That’s kind of the point. //

      lol. I know!!

      I also just think it’s a much richer experience to be like “okay what is this person trying to do?” you’re getting into their shoes. You’re actually trying to think like someone else. “If I were a tween girl, how would I like this?”

      You can take this too far – because identity groups are not monolithic – and there has been many times when it’s assumed all women will like a movie, or whatever – and well-intentioned men drone on about how this is a feminist masterpiece, etc.

      “What were you working on?” is a much better approach – because you’re actually grappling with the work itself, what you see right in front of you.

      Thanks so much for reading and responding! I appreciate it!

    • Jessie says:

      congrats on the new column, an enjoyable read and intro to your perspective! Martinet is such a fun word. There seems to be an interesting tension in this kind of reviewing where you have to both background and foreground the self (to be open, but also discriminate) and I find that when it’s done effectively that’s when you really see the reviewer. Specificity is so important to me. Even a well-written vitriolic pan (or celebration) will at least come from a specific place rather than false omniscience.

      I give feedback on creative writing drafts semi-regularly and I SHUDDER to remember how appalling I was at this many many years ago. Literal rewriting. I should have been hit over the head! I think I still have a way to go to be very skilful at it to be honest. But it’s a lot of fun to try to help someone get closer to what they’re trying to achieve. I hope you’re having fun Lyrie!

      • sheila says:

        Thank you Jessie!

        // where you have to both background and foreground the self (to be open, but also discriminate) //

        this is a great way to put it!

        I think this kind of thing was really drummed into me in my years of acting classes – where saying “I didn’t like that” after someone does a scene or a monologue is generally seen as so unhelpful you might as well just not say it. and saying “If I were you, I’d try it this way” is also not helpful – unless maybe it’s a director trying to show you a new approach. Being critical means to have clarity of sight – like WHAT is the issue and how can we FIX it? It’s not about how I would do it, it’s about what THEY are trying to do.

        The thing about being an actual critic writing about actual movies – “how can we FIX this” is also, in general, something I try to stay away from, even though I have IDEAS. lol. But in general you have to deal with what you have in front of you!

        // Even a well-written vitriolic pan (or celebration) will at least come from a specific place rather than false omniscience. //

        This is really interesting – it’s been on my mind because the Lauren Olyer “discourse” this past week has been intense – If you’re not aware of it : she just came out with a collection of essays called No Judgment – which has been getting some pretty bad reviews, and then some people respond to those reviews – leading to a general overall discussion of what criticism actually IS. Olyer gave an interview with Interview mag and people are hating on it – with some reason, I suppose, but I still think it’s an interesting conversation (she lists the words she refuses to use in her writing – or maybe has forbidden herself to use – I have a similar list, words to stay away from!). Olyer is controversial, and it’s pretty obvious she means to be. Her writing is not exactly my cup of tea – but I honestly think some of the points she’s made in her famous “pans” are well worth at least considering. She’s not a “hater”, I don’t think. She’s not afraid to go against the grain.

        I thought mine was a minority view – everyone is super mad at her right now lol – but I came across a couple of pieces analyzing the situation – these were thoughtful pieces, conceding ground if necessary but also taking ground – using the Lauren Olyer situation as a jumping off point to talk about the general landscape of criticism in this algorithm driven world – the kind of stuff I like to read. Not too hot-headed!

        it’s been an interesting week for critics and critic-speak, that’s for sure. Lots of conversations which is probably only interesting to the small circle of people involved but I find it interesting because it makes me think about what I’m doing and what I want to do.

        Like, how DO we talk about the problems in such and such a work without saying “it’s a worthless piece of trash”? and if it IS a worthless piece of trash then … how do we SAY that?

        I’m thinking about my (our?) prolonged agonized response to the last four seasons of SPN and how it was so obvious to ME what should be done to FIX IT. hahahaha I had a list with about 10 items on it, and if they would just LISTEN to me then, boom, we’d be back to what it should be (or what I thought it should be). CLEARLY, they were “working on” something – and something very specific – and it made sense to them – even though it alienated me. I just had a very hard time being like “okay, so, clearly you’re going for a more ensemble type thing, and clearly you don’t like the motel room motifs, and clearly you think Rowena is super important so … that’s what youre doing right now, cool”.

        If I had been doing professional re-caps for Vulture or whatever, it would have been an endless stream of “Why isn’t this show doing what I think it should be doing?”

        and – that’s fine when we’re just talking amongst ourselves – as we were clearly doing for four years!! – but not so much in a professional setting. I don’t know -other people handle this kind of thing quite well. I pay attention to them, so I can learn from what they’re doing.

        • Lyrie says:

          // that’s fine when we’re just talking amongst ourselves – as we were clearly doing for four years!! – but not so much in a professional setting. //

          Ok, there were “working on something” but… even when you get what someone is trying to do, how do you address… quality? I get that we make choices, but sometimes… how do you… while staying… professional… how do you talk about it???

          Sometimes I yell at my tv “NOBODY TALKS LIKE THIS” (and other horrors). And yeah, sure, sometimes it’s a stylistic choice. But often it’s just clunky writing. Not only am I too dumb to be a critic, I’m also not tactful enough. As my IG private posts on the last seasons of The Walking Dead have recently proven, haha.

          Jessie! Always so nice to hear from you!

          // Literal rewriting. I should have been hit over the head! //
          Ha ha, it is hard! I’m enjoying it, yes – in a why-am-i-doing-this-to-myself kind of way. I’m enjoying meeting new creative people. There was a cool chick in a poetry workshop, and a few weeks later, I emailed her out of the blue – I just had a good feeling. We met on Zoom, and what did we end up talking about? For pretty much a whole hour? Supernatural.

          • sheila says:

            // ven when you get what someone is trying to do, how do you address… quality? I get that we make choices, but sometimes… how do you… while staying… professional… how do you talk about it??? //

            yeah it’s hard, but the best way to handle it is to just come out and say it. sometimes “what they are trying to do” is so unclear that noithing else can proceed. OR, “what they are trying to do” is … basically put out a cliche, paste together stereotypes and hope no one notices. and if that’s the case as you see it, then you just have to say that.

            Or let’s say you feel, for example, a new showrunner is betraying the spirit of the original … or pivoting to a whole new genre (from horror to YA fantasy, for example) – then you can just point out why it doesn’t work. Like, when did this show become a YA fantasy? I think one of the jobs of the critic is to have a MEMORY and to provide context from that memory. I really value people who do re-caps of shows – just for example – who really KNOW the material, and can discuss what happens when a show goes off course. they speak from memory and context.

            // Not only am I too dumb to be a critic, I’m also not tactful enough. //

            I mean, some critics are the opposite of tactful! lol

            “Nobody talks like this” is a completely valid criticism!!

            and a critique like that goes back to the “what were you working on” thing. If it’s SUPPOSED to be people talking in a weird way – or if the language is SUPPOSED to be unique and different (see: Deadwood) – then you have to factor that in. But stuff like awkwardly handled exposition – you just have to point those things out if you clock them. Handling exposition so an audience doesn’t notice it is one of the marks of a good writer. It’s so challenging!

          • sheila says:

            also, tbh, sometimes it doesn’t MATTER “what they were working on”.

            If it doesn’t work for you, it doesn’t work for you. again, I am thinking of the Dabb years. It was obvious “what they were working on” – deconstructing the original premise, focusing more on “found family”, creating an “ensemble” which could then do the convention circuit since JA and JP weren’t going to (at least not like they used to) – and pumping up ancillary characters like Fetch or whatever his name was – these tiny one-offs became regulars, etc. – for story reasons, maybe, but also because of convention concerns – and also casting around for a spinoff – it was obvious throughout what Dabb was working on. I could see it.

            and I hated it!

            “what were you working on?” “Here is what I am working on.” “Thanks for sharing. I hate it.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.