Okay, I didn't think about that, but people in the inbox did. Here is a definition of terms used for any film festival stuff around here.
Film
Director
Writer
Stars
Awards
Genre
These are all pretty obvious. For some documentaries 'writer' is replaced with 'editor' because of the way some filmmakers do their documentaries. Awards are in there mostly out of curiosity. From the perspective of this consumer, if it's not an Oscar, who cares? When it comes to movies that are fiction, my approach toward genre categories has been described more than once as Ridiculously Irritating. I blame society.
The good stuff
The plot
The plot holes
Again, all pretty obvious. I do tend to use 'plot hole' as an umbrella for anything that was really off base, even if whatever the problem was technically has nothing to do with the plot.
The issue or The topic
The approach
These sections are only used for documentaries. 'Issue' is what they're trying to tell you about, 'approach' is how they go about telling you this thing. It's surprising how many documentaries clearly define the issue/topic, but then completely screw up how they go about it. As far as documentary genre categories go, to me all documentaries fall under four genres - Nature, Social Justice, Anthropology and History. Every documentary ever made anywhere basically fits one of these four.
Music
Music matters in a film. Usually it's too loud. Usually it's too obvious. Usually it's used as emotional shorthand. More and more I prefer minimal soundtrack.
Application of the first rule
The first rule is Above All Else, Do Not Bore. It doesn't matter what type of product we're talking about - movie, book, television, fiction, nonfiction. The first rule is to entertain, and if I have handed over money for something that did not entertain me as the creator intended, the people involved in creating that thing failed. ('As the creator intended' because sometimes a work is entertaining for reasons that are Not Good. Take Armageddon for example. For me that movie is a fantabulously perfect action flick that I could watch it all day long and find nothing wrong with it. To others that movie is an idiotic travesty providing endless hours of entertainment due to all the things about it they claim can be easily and viciously mocked.) A friend has a different term for the exact same thing, calling his the Here We Are, Now Entertain Us rule because he's a music freak.
Application of the Sledgehammer Rule: Best described as "I have a MESSAGE. I am going to deliver my MESSAGE via this film. I am going to use this slegehammer to BEAT YOU OVER THE HEAD EVERY FOUR MINUTES OVER THE COURSE OF TWO HOURS just to make SURE you UNDERSTAND my MESSAGE. I am doing this FOR YOUR OWN GOOD because I can tell from here that YOU ARE STUPID!!!" Usually this one is only applied to documentaries, though sometimes it's applied to fiction. For example, during the inbox cage matches last year Crash got a Thor-sized sledgehammer, hands down. But when it came to Brokeback Mountain we split into two camps. Those of us on the side of light clearly understood that the SR is not a factor in this movie. The idiots vehemently disagreed. (Air kisses, dah-links!) This went on for weeks and weeks. Eventually we agreed to call it an impasse.
Reaction of 13-year-old boy who is my inner essence
This is part joke and part true. How would a hyperactive 13-year-old boy mostly interested in explosions, car chases, fight scenes and Star Wars respond to this work?
Application of Julia Phillips rule
There's a part in her book where she talks about the difference between movies and television as being the size of the screen. In other words, a movie made for the big screen *will* lose part of its power/impact when you see it on television or dvd. This rule lets you know if you must first see the movie in the theater, or if it's okay to wait for the dvd or cable run. (A lot of documentaries don't need to be seen on the big screen for them to still work. Same with chick flicks. But I have yet to encounter an action, sf or f movie that did not lose a bit of itself when scaled down to the small screen.) It should be noted that her book first came out back in the days when elaborate home theater systems were rare, so this rule might be moot if you've got a huge plasma telly on the wall hooked up to surround sound and everything.
Die Whitey index
How race stuff is portrayed or explored. This category isn't always applicable.
Hotness index
Sometimes you just want to see hard-bodied men blow shit up, preferably while shirtless and glistening with sweat. Alas, that doesn't always happen, so then you're just looking at the general appeal of the cast. Perhaps this is the most subjective of all the categories. For example, around here the LoTR movies are among the best ever, but they have a very low hotness index. Weaving and the voices of Lee, McKellen and Rhys-Davies are the only reasons it gets a rating at all. Millennium has a very high hotness index because of Lance Henriksen's voice and Terry O'Quinn. The thing I'm going to go see at PAFF tonight shouldn't rate, but probably will because it's narrated by Chuck D. The minute Joe Frank showed up in Galaxy Quest for like three minutes, its index jumped from zero to medium. (I have this thing for good male voices.) Anything with Denzel automatically has an index rating of One Billion, even though he has yet to be shirtless and oiled up in a movie.
Was Quentin there?
This is a joke based on truth, and I only use it for stuff I go see at Magic's theater. There are some movies I go see at the Arclight or the Grove, then I go see them again at Magic's spot. It is known that Tarantino will go see certain of his movies at Magic's theater, probably for the same reason others of us do that. When I told a back-east friend about this, the very first question he has asked EVER SINCE is Was Quentin There??? and he's always bummed when I tell him No.
Random tidbit
Usually has nothing to do with the movie, but sometimes it does.
