By ASHISH SINGH
As a modest individual and a native Norwegian, Kristoffer Tangård’s passion for movies transcends national boundaries. We’ve been talking about cinema for over a decade. Since 2004, Kristoffer has been writing reviews of every movie he has seen—interestingly just for himself. He wrote the following after I asked him to describe his journey…
It all started in 2004. I was 16 years old and fresh on my first voluntary period of studies, following mandatory regular school. I had on a hair’s breadth chosen to go Media and Communication instead of general studies; it would turn out not to be a disappointment. Already then I knew film was my premier interest, at least making amateur pieces for myself. In Media class I could also do it as part of my studies! Writing reviews, however, would turn out to be the dominant outlet for my hobby.
My method was simple from the start: I watched a movie, and hand-wrote a short text followed by a numerical rating (at first using a variation of the “dice throw” span which I would later formalize into the entities 1, 2, 2+, 3, 3+, 4, 4+, 5, 5+ and 6). In other words, this was not just a movie diary with the hard facts like date of viewing, title and production year, but a document of opinions, much like the massive film-review books I loved: Halliwell’s, Leonard Maltin’s, and the original entry that got me hooked: Norwegian Tormod Bakke’s FILM MAX 1997.
A bit incidentally, I wrote my first review – of Woody Allen’s MANHATTAN (getting the grade of 5 where 6 was the best; later I would up it to 5+ when I realized what a masterstroke this movie really was), and then just kept going. My early reviews are in hindsight a bit cringe-worthy and furthermore pretty short, in a way both more analytically superficial and more to the point (and perhaps a bit one-note on the superlatives if I was writing about a “classic”) than I would later become.
For many years I strived to write the reviews as soon as I finished watching the movie, and would even be reluctant to wait until the next day in fear of “forgetting” my impression. You may say that, this ensured that my perspective was always fresh and to the point. But it was also something of a compulsive thought, and an inflexible attitude at that – one which I long resisted breaking loose from. When that finally happened, there were times where I hardly bothered to get a review in at all; maybe the motivation subdued or time seemed pressing on other issues; but I at least I tried providing the said numerical rating when the text itself failed to appear.
Conversely I could also come around to abandon the rating and focus on the text. Some years ago I was on a heyday, writing page-long reviews – or maybe you could say they were more analytical pieces than “consumerist” articles – that is: whether or not the movie was good or bad did not seem so much of an issue anymore. This might of course have been a long-winded result of me being enrolled in the Film Studies Bachelors programme at NTNU in Trondheim. Here I became more conscious of so-called “academic” writing, a mode that only intensified during my following years studying Library and Information Science at HiOA in Oslo.
In later times, I have found myself less concerned on how to write a review, and more on what movies to prioritize and watch. There was only this much time and so many movies to watch– so should one focus on the all-time masterpieces, personal whims, a specific genre, or era? In the long run, a watchlist-focus could sharpen my identity as a film critic, maybe provide the groundwork for a book – or provide a meaning and focal point in my own life as a passionate film enthusiast. I have in the recent months, maybe insanely, been of the thought to watch all movies I come by in a strictly chronological order (provided I make lots of practical exceptions due to availability, of course).
This has some precedence, as I- during film studies – started watching some early silents – culminating with Louis Feuillade’s excellent serial (the TV equivalent of the 1910s) Les Vampires. But I didn’t follow through so much after that, although there were times when I would see a lot from perhaps my favourite decade: the 1930s – where sound cinema started to be a “thing” (although the 1950s might be the strongest decade for movies all over).
As you can see, I have been a sucker for old movies since “forever” – meaning I don’t have any aspirations on being a critic for the “actuality” press, being set to review all of the recent releases and getting less time to watch the other stuff. In my opinion a good critic is also a knowledgeable historian, being able to draw lines from the movie in question to other movies old and new; to being open to “extreme” content, “demanding” form, and also not let prejudice forego the conclusion on a “blockbuster” or “audience-pleaser”. My favourite film might be a film that perfectly balances the eccentric with the available – bringing something unique to a foundation of familiarity.
In my current job at the public library of Moss I have managed to partly find an outlet for my film reviews, writing and talking about movies in form of articles and podcasts; so maybe that is my premier arena for reviews at the moment. But I still keep that diary active – now providing a ranking- instead of a rating-system. The whole system of ratings and rankings should, however, be a discussion for another article. With plenty of film examples, of course.
(Ashish Singh is a social and political scientist.)
