Analysis of the made film — editing pace, compositional choices, lighting logic, narrative structure. Criticism examines the *how*, not just rating taste.
Looking behind the surface distinguishes professional film criticism from mere opinion. On set, you notice this immediately: a cinematographer who only says "that looks good" hasn't understood why it works. Criticism dissects the craft — it asks about composition, about depth of field as a dramatic tool, about editing rhythm that builds or destroys tension.
Film criticism operates on multiple levels simultaneously. First, there is the technical level: How is the lighting set? Which lenses were chosen and what perspectives do they create? A wide-angle lens in an intimate scene — that's not a coincidence, it's a decision with consequences. Then the narrative level — how does the editing structure the information? Which moments are prolonged, which are shortened? The rhythm of a scene determines what the viewer feels, not the music alone.
Formal analysis remains the core of any serious criticism. You look at how image composition and movement in space function. Whether the camera remains static or follows — that has purpose or lacks it. Whether the mise-en-scène supports or sabotages the plot. A good critic recognizes when a location wasn't chosen randomly but reflects a character's psychological state.
This is not about taste. It's about consistency and intention. A continuity error is objectively measurable. A lighting setup that undermines the plot can be argued. This distinguishes film criticism from subjective chatter. You might not like a film — but you can justify why directorial decisions work or don't work, regardless of whether you enjoy the story. Criticism asks: Did the filmmaker master their craft? Did they use it consciously?