Informed Refusal Form: Fill & Download for Free

Audiences don’t love movies.I know, I know. Bear with me.There is a widespread opinion, voiced in another answer to this question, to the effect that critics are uptight, anhedonistic pricks who are incapable of enjoyment.This is simply not true.I used to be a film reviewer. I know film reviewers. Nobody ever became a successful film critic who didn’t love movies—with the possible exception of John Simon.But critics see lots of films. They have opinions about them. If they’re good critics, they know a lot about film and and they have coherent opinions, meaning that they don’t just dribble their immediate reaction to a movie into the form of a review, but they process the reaction a bit and think about why they think what they think.For example, last night I watched the movie Stan & Ollie, starring Steve Coogan as Stan Laurel and John C. Reilly as Oliver Hardy.It’s a sweet and enjoyable movie, and Coogan and Reilly did a wonderful job of evoking the presence of Laurel and Hardy. Coogan as Laurel, always more serious and more preoccupied, conveyed a great sense of Laurel being the ideas man of the duo: Laurel was the one of them who constructed their gags, and he spends a good part of the movie chasing after a better deal for them, while Reilly as Hardy is content to let his partner do the creative heavy lifting, knowing that the real laugh comes more from his own exasperated reaction to Stan’s behaviour.There’s a nice moment that dramatises just how much Hardy was the one who was able to grab a laugh without doing so much hard work: in one scene, Hardy, wanting to buy his devoted wife a bracelet but not being able to afford it, places a large bet on a horse. The next day he hurries to read the race results and learns with exasperation that he’s lost the bet; he balls up the newspaper and thrusts it into a rubbish bin, swearing under his breath, but then notices that a group of English schoolgirls have recognised him, and in order to dispel the image of himself being angry in public he immediately turns on the beaming Hardy smile and does that little flip of his tie, which makes them laugh.But one of the things I noticed about the film was Rolfe Kent’s score, and I don’t think I should have noticed it, because from fairly early in the film, it seemed to be in every scene, softening moments which could have been chillier and darker. Earlier in the film, Laurel and Hardy are touring the UK and playing to largely empty theatres, and the score emphasises how sad this is, which had the paradoxical effect (I thought) of making it less sad; it prompted us to expect that things must surely get better, which indeed they do, mostly.But there are two things at work here. One is that, in real life, Laurel & Hardy’s 1953 tour of music halls in the UK was much more immediately successful than it is in the film. But that would have made for less drama. Another is that if the film had been more melancholy than it is, it might well have been less popular. It did well at the box office ($26m off a $10m budget) and has gone down as a success.But this is one of the ways that critics tend to think about movies: you watch a film and then you analyse your own reaction to it, to see if your reaction can make the reader think about the film in a new way.Individual audience members may well do this, or they may not, but in general the audience either mostly liked the film or mostly didn’t like it. The audience can’t and doesn’t have a big conversation with itself in which it analyses its own reaction. Most people watch the film and they decide afterwards whether it was worth it or not—and then that’s the end of their interaction with the movie.Because the audience doesn’t love film, the way critics do.When you love something, to the point that it obsesses you, you can’t stop thinking about it.Audiences go to movies and have a good time, or not, and then it’s over.It doesn’t bother them that they’ll never think of that movie ever again.It doesn’t bother them that millions of dollars and thousands of hours were spent on making that movie happen, and the result was something that did nothing more than keep people in their seats for a couple of hours.Why should it bother them? That’s all they want from the movies.But those are the kinds of movies that audiences ‘love’ (read: spend money on and probably forget about it) and critics hate.Because critics have to watch those kinds of movie over and over again.Consider the well-known phenomenon of the movie that critics love, but audiences don’t. The 2016 German movie Toni Erdmann is about a rather uptight corporate strategist, Ines (Sandra Hüller), who gets visited in Bucharest by her elderly father (Peter Simonischek), who decides to make it his business to get his daughter to enjoy life more.It has a 93% critics score on Rotten Tomatoes but only a 73% audience score, and the audience score reflects the sentiments of those critics who thought that it was a pretty good movie which is far too long. It’s 162 minutes, two hours and forty, but in my opinion it needs to be that long because it’s not just a comedy of embarrassment with a daughter suffering the wacky antics of her eccentric dad. In order for the ending to feel earned, Ines has to suffer her dad doing weird shit for a long time, so that the scenes make sense.Late in the film, Ines decides to throw a birthday party which will also function as a corporate team-building exercise. Minutes before the party begins, she can’t zip up her dress, so she decides to wear a different one. She takes it off, but then the doorbell of her flat rings. Ines is so torn, at this point in the film, between the responsibilities of her life and the creeping feeling, inspired by her dad, that it’s all kind of ridiculous, that in a fit of half-despairing fuck-it-let’s-just-do-this, she answers the door to her friend Steph in just her underpants. Steph is rather taken aback and offers to help her get dressed, but Ines refuses. When the next guests arrive, they too are startled to see that Ines is so underdressed but she, freestyling in her deadpan way, explains that it’s a ‘naked party’ and proceeds to remove her panties.The scene proceeds, with some guests rather obediently stripping off too and others just being baffled, but then the last guest arrives, completely concealed in a full body traditional kukeri costume, appearing like a giant shaggy beast.This is the cue for the climactic scene in the movie, which I won’t spoil here (and which the movie poster itself spoils a bit), but if the movie hadn’t been so long, this would have been simply a scene in which Ines has something like a nervous breakdown, instead of being the weirdly primal thing that it is. The ‘naked party’ scene is one of the most memorable in the film (matched only by Ines’ extraordinary, excruciating performance of ‘The Greatest Love of All’) but it works on a lot more levels than just naked people being funny.But if all you want out of a film is a good laugh for ninety minutes—the filmic equivalent of a Big Mac—then Toni Erdmann’s unexpected German three-course meal is too much to take in.Film critics love movies. So do those members of the audience who are genuine connoisseurs. They, too, love movies.But, in general, audiences don’t love movies. They just like hanging out with them.

This subject is far more complicated than your question implies. The short answer is that Federer was finally forced to change mentally, while Nadal was forced to change physically.Tennis fans have watched Federer search for answers to solve the Nadal puzzle since their very first match in 2005.While he added features to his game like the drop shot, more serving and volleying, and the SABR, the defining obstacle for Federer to overcome was not about tactics, it was about his mental approach.But both Federer and Nadal had to make significant adjustments in their games after suffering declines in their games (no Slam titles for Federer since 2012 Wimbledon, no Slam titles for Nadal since Roland Garros 2014) followed by the injuries that wiped out the second half of their 2016 seasons.I wrote in depth about this subject over a year ago in analyzing the 2017 Australian Open: Lon Shapiro's answer to How did Roger Federer win Australian Open 2017?Six months ago, I went into more detail in response to a question from Nadal’s perspective: Lon Shapiro's answer to Why can't Nadal beat Federer anymore?Here’s a quick summary of those articles:#1: Federer had to change mentally from “if I play my game I will win” to “if I don’t take chances on the big points, I can’t win.”“For most of Federer’s career, he was so good he could play a little safe against just about anyone in the world and still win. If you look at his career percentages, Federer always had trouble winning break points because he chose to chip his backhand return and play his own brand of amazing defense. He just accumulated so many break points, eventually most players crack under the pressure…”But he couldn’t do it against Nadal:“who was always able to break down the Federer backhand with his high topspin crosscourt forehand. And when Federer actually played a good offensive point on a break point, Nadal seemed to raise his game and hit other worldly passing shots.”#2: The breakthrough came when Ljubicic became Federer’s coach at the end of 2015, and it finally paid off in the 2017 Australian Open:“It was only under Ljubicic that Federer made the technical and mental improvements in his high backhand and off the backhand serve return that he finally committed to taking more chances…“Federer took chances by stepping in and driving his backhand on the return and in most rally shots. From a psychological standpoint, Federer finally got to a point where he had nothing to lose, and did the one thing he hadn’t done in all their previous matches…“By refusing to let Nadal create and then dictate long points, Federer was not beaten down physically. By having confidence in his game plan, he accepted the risks he was taking and didn’t get down or doubt himself, as he has in the past.”[NOTE: I think if Federer did not have that historic run of success from 2003–2007, he might have made these same mental adjustments much earlier in his career. Or, if he had come up a few years after Nadal was already #1, these psychological dynamics would have also changed: Lon Shapiro's answer to Federer is 5 years plus older than Nadal and Djokovic. What if he were 5 years younger? How would the Slam totals change?]#3: Nadal was forced to make physical adjustments that ultimately affected him mentally.But let’s be clear that Nadal is a different player now than he was from 2005–2013:“As I outlined in the article about the AO 2017 final, Nadal has had to change his game (bigger serving, more aggressive points, flattening out his ground strokes) in order to save his body. You can see those changes since Carlos Moya was added as a coach.”#4: The 2017 Australian Open Final really showed how much Federer’s rise did not happen in a complete vacuum.In 2017, Federer reinvented himself for a number of reasons (which are explained in detail above and in the linked articles. For the sake of clarity, let’s call this new and improved version Federer (17).Similarly, Nadal has been on a long road to regain top form by hiring Carlos Moya in 2016, and working on shortening points by hitting harder, flatter shots, and especially by stepping inside the baseline to attack off his backhand. For the sake of clairty, let’s call this more efficient version Nadal (17), while the old Nadal who hit huge topspin, and played deeper in the court Nadal (13), which was his last great season as the #1 player in the world.A huge part of this competitive dynamic played out in the 2017 Australian Open finals, in which Federer (17) won the first and third sets against Nadal (17), and lost the second and fourth sets against Nadal (13):“There was a great graphic on TV [during AO17] which showed that Nadal’s average forehand reached 4′ 1′’ after the bounce in the first set, then improved to 4′ 11″ in the second set. When Nadal went into his classic defensive mode in the second set, Federer was once again uncomfortable, hitting shoulder- and head-high balls off the backhand.”To start the fifth set, Nadal (13) went up a break, serving at 3–2, 40–30, but missed a winning forehand that hit the tape and went out. The cumulative efforts of this match and the five-hour semi-final match against Dimitrov finally wore down Nadal, allowing Federer (17)’s attacking game and risk taking on second serve returns to pay off:“Unfortunately for Rafa, he used up his last reserves in those early games of the fifth set. I think the first two service games took about twenty minutes. Federer’s ability to stay aggressive on his backhand serve returns and groundstrokes put tremendous pressure on Nadal. Instead of [Federer] getting thirteen break points in a entire match, he had fifteen break points in the fifth set, while winning two.”Nadal (13) simply couldn’t maintain the movement and passing shot brilliancy that he had when he was in his early twenties. Nadal made a forehand error, and Federer held easily:“Nadal started guessing on the location of Federer’s serve, a sure sign that an opponent has either cracked mentally or physically… He got aced twice and shanked another return in that game.”At 3–4 in the fifth set, Nadal’s body finally gave out:This was one of the finest games of the match, and matched the drama of some of the best matches in their rivalry, but seeing the greatest counter puncher in the history of tennis miss four running down the line forehands in one game made me think he had nothing left in the tank.#5: The physical changes in Nadal’s game helped him win the 2017 US Open title and regain the #1 ranking, but it changed his mental outlook:“…the psychological dynamic between these two players has completely reversed.“Rafa’s mentality was that if he played his game, Federer had to play perfect tennis to beat him… He has spoken many times about his willingness and ability to suffer on the court, and I think this speaks to the way he wears down opponents physically as well as mentally.”Nadal is now confused and frustrated against Federer (just like he was for a couple of years against Djokovic). Playing like Nadal (17) put the Swiss champion in his comfort zone. The result was Federer dominated him, winning in straight sets at Indian Wells, Miami, and Shanghai.On the other hand, if the Spaniard fell back into Nadal (13) mode, he was afraid that the toll on his body needed to beat Federer could ruin his body and affect the rest of his season. (Once again, Nadal couldn’t finish the season in 2017, withdrawing from three different events due to injury).#6: Federer regained a mental edge he had lost since the Wimbledon 2008 Final:“When you have two all-time greats playing each other over the years, their current ranking or play against the rest of the world doesn’t matter. It becomes the case where the guy with the edge just knows he’ll come through and the other guy has the tiniest doubt in his mind. This difference in mentality translates into the one or two big points that change the course of a match.“At Wimbledon in 2008, Nadal hit one of the most impossible up-the -ine running forehand passing shots I’ve ever seen, resulting in the service break at 7–7 in the fifth. At the Australian Open in 2017, Nadal missed four running forehands to lose serve at 3–4 in the fifth.”Conclusions:As evidenced by Nadal’s brilliant play this clay court season, he can still play the old way, but the toll it takes on his body is clear, based on the fear he expressed in describing the hand cramp he suffered in the third set of the French Open Final. It will make it impossible for him to play that way on grass or hard courts if he wants to play a full season.Nadal is not even sure he will play the Queen’s Club grass court tournament, because of his grueling clay court schedule. With no grass court preparation, he might suffer another early exit at Wimbledon.Federer, on the other hand, skipped the last two clay court seasons not only to rest his body, but to preserve the change in their mental dynamic:“Losing to Nadal on clay would give Nadal that familiar taste of victory, and restore him mentally for the rest of the season. (It’s like a basketball player who doesn’t make a shot the whole game, but finally makes a couple of free throws. Seeing the ball go through the basket breaks the cold streak, and often this same player will get hot or hit a game winning shot.)”The rest of this season will be fascinating to see play out. If Federer reaches the semis at Stuttgart this week, he will regain the #1 ranking. If Federer can stay fresh, can he win another Wimbledon?Given their current rankings, they could be on the opposite sides of the draw for the rest of the year, meaning each player would have to get to the finals in order to meet.I hope we get future matches between these all-time greats, but it could be unlikely as age and the wear and tear of playing on hard courts for the last half of the year could wear down one or both of them.Thanks for the A2A.

Thanks for A2A Brig Inee and Trevor Noble.I came to realize that I had encountered pure evil when I was still with the narc ex.In my case both my ex (malignant) and his mother (covert) were narcs.I don't know how to describe the feeling but the first day I met my ex and his mother I could sense something was off and I was bit uneasy around them but I couldn't place my finger on it though they were on their best behaviour. Later as time passed and the masks of fake goodness peeled little by little I could understand better but by then I was involved too deeply that I overlooked the subtle signs.So somehow in my gut I knew from the beginning I had encountered evil, call it sixth sense or gut feeling. Now I really want to kick myself if I could, I should have listened to my inner voice and ran the other way.I truly believe that as human beings we are great at sensing things so once our inner voice warns us about something we should listen to it.What I am trying to say can be explained properly by example l of Rodney Alcala, a serial killer who appeared on TV show “dating game”The participating girl refused to go out with him, as per her he gave her creepy vibes. Listening to her gut saved her life.That Time A Serial Killer Won 'The Dating Game' In The Middle Of His Murder SpreeThough the situations are not comparable, but encountering a narcissist is encountering pure evil on another level.So yes not only after becoming free but since the first day I could say I encountered pure evil.And now that I am narc free unfortunately the aftermath in form of trauma bonds and c-ptsd is a different ball game all together.