Second Viewing
An essay on the benefits of watching a movie twice.
You are entitled to watch and experience movies any way you want, and many people only like watching movies once. I can respect that. Critic Pauline Kael was rather famous for only watching movies once and only on one occasion did she note watching a movie twice. New York Times critic AO Scott also prefers to only watch a movie once. However, if I may be so bold: only watching a movie once, especially for a critic, is rather silly.
The argument goes: if the typical audience member only sees a movie once, then a critic should form their opinion from only one viewing too. The issue with that line of reasoning is the false equivalency made between the audience and the critics. Critics (and filmmakers in general) are trained professionals who have a deeper knowledge of film making than the average moviegoer. Furthermore, the audience is watching for mostly for entertainment and story, reacting on a purely visceral level. Critics have to react to movies on an emotional and intellectual level, and it can’t happen at the same time.
The audience goes into a movie thinking: “I wonder what’s going to happen?” The critic goes into a movie thinking anything from: “not another superhero movie,” or, “I wonder if director ‘X’ has done it again and made another masterpiece.” The level of preconceived notions is much higher with professionals who must watch everything regardless of their own preferences. If an audience member goes to the newest Avengers movie, chances are it’s because they like superhero movies and are already primed to enjoy it. This is why audience scores on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB are often higher than critics (when it comes to major Hollywood productions).
For a critic to think that their first viewing will be anything remotely close to a regular Joe’s first reaction is a bunch of malarkey. Let's get something else out of the way: humans are terrible at multitasking*. While watching a movie you don’t get to experience it from both an intellectual and emotional position at all times. Every person switches back and forth between those perspectives, a critic can do so quickly and with greater accuracy, but there is still a feedback delay that can’t go away. It’s a fact of our monkey brains, you are bound to miss things. It’s even harder for a critic, who has to consider a movie on multiple levels and replicate a regular audience member’s experience in one viewing. It’s easy to see why so many good movies have gotten panned critically over the year and likewise with okay movies getting more critical attention than maybe deserved. Perhaps if Ms. Kael bothered to watch Raiders of the Lost Ark or A New Hope again she might’ve found what some many others have.
I have great respect for professional critics who constantly have to be watching and writing about movies. Opinions formed on a first viewing is often a necessity. My issue is when someone completely discounts any possibility of watching a movie twice and never wants to give something a second chance. For those that have the option of watching a movie twice (audiences and critics alike), there is merit to being open to revisiting a movie.
Another bit of psychology to consider: humans overestimate their competence*. AO Scott said: “I need to experience the movie in the way everyone else will, but also, simultaneously, to reflect on that experience, to analyse my responses while at the same time allowing myself to have them.”* That great New York Times critic is probably one of the best in the world at doing that right now. I’ll also say that anyone who thinks they can mentally multitask while watching a movie is almost certainly not as good at it as they think they are.
A confession: despite having seen thousands of movies and being well trained technically in the making and criticism of them, I’m pretty terrible at watching them the first time around. Like most audience members, I bring plenty of assumptions and ideas about the material going into any screening. These assumptions affect my reaction to viewings to the point where I frequently shift my opinion radically on a second viewing, and most of the time I will like a movie better on a review. I’ve found that my second opinion is always the consistently correct one upon further viewings. Classic movies like Stalker (1979), L’Avventura (1980) and the recent release The Farewell (2019) have all greatly benefited from second viewings.
The first time you bring your baggage into the experience. While personal biases are important to any critical reaction to a film, they are more often a hindrance when trying to look at it from a simulated “objective” perspective. If you watch Inside Llewyn Davis (2013) and you don’t like the music style, the first viewing might be skewed by that. Any little element of a movie could throw you off from a neutral position, one moment you’re engaged the next you’re zoning out or feeling more negative. Especially for a critic, it is critical that you come to a movie without being overly influenced by personal hangups. It maximizes the movie’s chance to do as it was intended. Some people are better at this than others. But, just like trying to publish an article without proofreading it, it would be presumptuous to not watch a movie twice before locking in your opinion forever.
A review written by someone who watched a movie under the total influence of their personal biases is useless to other people. A review written by someone who moves past those initial assumptions and reactions will be infinitely more generally applicable, and it’s far easier to do that having a second viewing under your belt. A good rule of thumb (for everyone) is that a movie that doesn't hold up a second time, probably wasn’t a really good movie on the first watch and you just didn’t notice. And any movie that is just as good or better on a second viewing will prove to any viewer that their first reaction was an honest one.
Audience members and critics will probably only see the movie once, and while they may all be watching the same images they’re each seeing a completely different movie. Therefore, to eliminate the singular perspective that a single viewing offers is to broaden the potential utility of your criticism to more people. On the second viewing, you will notice something that your friend noticed the first time around, and now your opinion is more broadly applicable. Maybe you were so wrapped up in trying to follow the plot you missed an emotionally engaging moment. While a re-view doesn’t eliminate individual perspective entirely, it rounds it out and can give the viewer a broader position to write from. For me, as a general rule of thumb, an opinion formed from two viewings is almost always more trustworthy than an opinion formed from one.
References:
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95256794
https://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/overestimate
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2015/jan/29/should-critics-see-films-more-than-once-inherent-vice