Once a film is labeled a “masterpiece,” its flaws are no longer questioned.
They vanish — not because they were resolved — but because we’re told not to look for them.
Aspiring filmmakers, students, and cinephiles are frequently introduced to “world cinema” with pre-programmed expectations. Before the film even begins, they are told what to feel, what to admire, and what to interpret.
This act — of prescribing understanding — is where I choose to diverge.
Let Me Feel It. Don't Tell Me How.
Cinema, by nature, is a subjective medium.
No one should dictate what I must extract from a film.
If you inject your interpretation into me before the first frame, you're robbing me of my own experience.
I am not here to repeat film school manuals or parrot academic opinions.
I am here to see what others don’t see.
And sometimes, what I see are flaws inside celebrated classics.
Case in Point: 12 Angry Men
Two moments from the film reveal what I stand for — and also what I stand against.
1. The Courage to Doubt
When eleven jurors are swayed by the pre-fed facts, one juror dares to say:
“I don’t know if he’s innocent. I just want to talk.”
He is uncertain — but open.
He represents the voice that won’t settle, the one that asks,
“What if we’re wrong?”
That juror is me.
In a film industry that bows to consensus, I speak for those who pause and probe.
Even if a film is revered globally — I will still ask,
“But is the screenplay truly flawless?”
2. The Weight of Prejudice — In the Film and In the Industry
12 Angry Men challenges prejudice within the jury room, yet ironically,
the film industry itself resists dissenting voices when it comes to “classic” cinema.
Raise a flaw in a beloved film and you’re told:
“You didn’t understand it.”
“That’s the beauty of the film.”
“It’s subtle — beyond you.”
But who decided that all of us must feel the same way about a film?
Why must we surrender our insight for the sake of legacy?
There’s a term for this: The Spiral of Silence —
where individuals suppress dissenting views for fear of isolation.
I refuse to be part of that spiral.
Flaws Are Not Attacks. They're Learning Opportunities.
Criticism is not cynicism.
To point out structural weaknesses in a screenplay — even in so-called classics —
is not an act of defiance but of growth.
If a screenplay fails to humanize the accused,
If it ends without closure,
If it repeats its debates without emotional escalation —
then these are not heresies to discuss.
They are essential learning points for emerging filmmakers.
Let Film Education Be Open, Not Orthodoxy
Instead of preaching, we should be asking:
What worked for you in this film?
What didn’t?
Can we admire the message, but still critique the method?
A true cinematic education doesn't worship films — it dissects them.
Final Word:
I am not here to rebel for the sake of rebellion.
I am here to think, to question, and to sharpen the lens through which I see cinema.
Because every time we blindly celebrate a film,
we train the next generation to do the same.
And that, I believe, is the greatest disservice we can do to storytelling.