# critics



## Saeltari (Jul 10, 2006)

The majority of movie ctitics seem to have an intense belief that they are actually literary critics. They seem to be out of touch with entertainment, enjoying only putrid drek that is akin to medicine; some people may think it is good for you but mostly it just tastes horrible.
 An opinion is good, but if you are not enjoying the movies why would you be a critic? 
 Out of all the movies I have seen I think I agreed with a critic maybe twice. Do people really value their opinions when choosing to see a movie?


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jul 10, 2006)

Saeltari said:
			
		

> Do people really value their opinions when choosing to see a movie?



Depends on who the critic is and what I know about how that individual feels about certain kinds of films.  I will read critics, but I won't let them turn me off of a movie if I want to see it.  On the other hand, I'll go see a movie sometimes that I wasn't planning on seeing if it gets a lot of good reviews.


----------



## speedingslug (Jul 10, 2006)

I like good old Johnathan Wross !
He's straight talking and speaks his mind.


----------



## ravenus (Jul 11, 2006)

Well some of the polarity between critics and audiences is IMO due to the aspect that while people are willing to give books, painting, sculpture etc. the benefit of being considered as art forms that may sometimes not be the most obvious, movies bear the burdern of being, if you will excuse me, everybody's bitch. If a painting proves elusive, a person is likely to think "Well, maybe I can't get what's about or maybe this painting isn't for me" while with a movie the person is more likely to think "This movie sucks and whoever made it is out of touch with what movies SHOULD be"

The truth of the matter is that the so-called mainstream movies are getting more and more dumbed down and obvious all the time, the public willing to spend less time absorbing subtleties or, heavens, being "forced to think" by a "movie" (somehow even the phonetics of that term suggest a necessarily less cerebral experience than a book or a painting, while "film" is more accomodating) of all things. The role of a critic thus becomes difficult, because he is not only supposed to reflect public taste but with the help of his greater experience also inform and enlighten it. Otherwise why bother with a critic's opinion, you might just ask your friends and neighbors.

I have no problems with popcorn movies but entertainment shouldn't necessarily mean leaving yor brains at the door.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 11, 2006)

Well, I was going to jump in here, but Ravenus said pretty much what I'd intended to say, except for one thing: The time when a critic is best at doing "literary" style criticism on film, is when he (or she) takes a good film and finds new aspects to enjoy in the film. A thought-provoking review can sometimes make someone take a second look at a film, and even find that they really like a film they had dismissed before. But deliberately picking obscurantist films or dry "high-brow" just because it is such (as with the films of Kenneth Anger, for instance) is simply snobbish elitism of the worst -- and most inspissated -- kind.


----------



## Saeltari (Jul 11, 2006)

ravenus said:
			
		

> ....
> I have no problems with popcorn movies but entertainment shouldn't necessarily mean leaving yor brains at the door.


 
Entertainment doesn't mean leaving your brains at the door, however if you want intellectualism, you want to be inspired, moved and brought to a new level of enlightenment... read a book or go experience some life. 
Movies are meant to give those who can't or don't want to exercise their brains the chance to escape, to live vicariously. In general, television and movies tend to suck the thoughts right out of your brain, sending them twirling away into an oblivion where they fade into unfulfilled opportunities. The whole point of the type of entertainment that movies or tv represent is that they don't really require your brain to be in much more than first gear.
Having said that I want to state that I do enjoy movies and some tv, but I know going in, a brain is not really required.
Many critics seem to take the idea that a movie must require you to use your brain for it to be worth anything, they seem to miss the whole point of the movie and television system. The images have already been chosen for you and then presented to you. If I want to expand my awareness, a movie will not be my first choice. If I want to be entertained while putting my mind in neutral then a movie is it.
Agree? Disagree?


----------



## Cobolt (Jul 11, 2006)

Saeltari

totally disagree, sorry but there is tv out there, Lost is one example whereby you need your brain in gear to follow the plots, there are talented writers out there whose objective is to make you think. Entertainment can also be intelligent if done correctly. 

Films are different, X Men, Blade etc which are pure "leave brain at home" films but there are those where you leave the film asking questions. Bladerunner is one example.

As for critics, they tend to be biased, if they hate Sci-Fi then whats the point in them watching the movie, thay cannot provide a true comment on the film. the same goes for any genre. I tend not to read critics anymore as they have in the pst caused me not to see a film, only to watch it on DVD and regret not getting the Cinema experience.


----------



## ravenus (Jul 11, 2006)

@Saeltari:

Putting it mildly, you're talking utter unmitigated crock. Film is as much of a legitimiate medium of expression as any other, with as much of a right to produce a work of art as any other medium. Just because YOU have out of thin air conceived this notion that films should only constitute empty easy pleasures, don't blame the film-makers or the critics for it. I stopped watching TV almost a decade ago when I saw that hardly any program shown at the times convenient for me to watch TV was anything even halfways engaging.

In any case what is your problem really? The mjority of films and TV programs that are made cater perfectly to your requirement. Obviously, and to me sadly, whichever critic is trying to persuade the public to cultivate a taste for more stimulating cinema, isn't having any success at it.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 11, 2006)

While despising mindless films with a passion, I would say there's room for both. (Neither do I like much of the pulp fiction of the 20s, 30s, and 40s that has justifiably fallen by the wayside, such as Seabury Quinn, to pick a single example; it can be fun, but it's not something you can go back to and enjoy again.) A lot of people -- my roommate, for example -- like "dumb comedies"; the stupider, the better. Me, I'd rather have my teeth drilled without anaesthesia. But as far as movies (or television) having, in some way, to be this way, or even (with movies) through the majority of their history predominantly aimed at this goal, that's nonsense. *Citizen Kane*, *The Day the Earth Stood Still*, *The Haunting* (1963), *Casablanca*, *The Killing Fields*, *2001: A Space Odyssey*, *The 7th Voyage of Sinbad*, *Last Year at Marienbad*, *The Golem*, *Metropolis*, *The Big Parade*, *City Lights*, *The General*, *Bringing Baby Home* (a slapstick, but very intelligent, comedy), *Jacob's Ladder*, *Pink Floyd's The Wall*..... not to mention things like *The Others*, *Ringu*, *Cries and Whispers*, *The Seventh Seal*, *Fannie and Alexander*, *Solaris* (Tarkovsky is what I'm thinking of here) ... all of these are entertaining films, and don't even begin to scratch the surface of the number of such films out there throughout the history of cinema; and each is a textured film one can visit time and again and be enriched by as much as any book or symphony or sculpture or painting. (And I say this as someone who is almost excessively wedded to the printed word. At one point -- before having, for various reasons, to sell a huge chunk of my library, I had well over 7000 books, all but a handful of which I'd read.)

So, no. This is as valid an art form as any other, and has many bright while entertaining people in it as well. There may be more idiots in this than in, say, published books (though a good sampling of bestsellers from any period would tend to cast doubt on that), but there is no reason why it must be so _inherently_.


----------



## ravenus (Jul 11, 2006)

True, like with every other medium, there's space for the easily entertaining and for the engaging at a different level stuff. And of course easily entertaining will always be in a huge majority. It's the other stuff that needs active encouragement if it's to atleast keep its fringe existence and not be consigned to oblivion.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 11, 2006)

Critics are supposed to criticize:  to evaluate, analyze, make intelligent and informed judgements.  That's what the word means; that's the job description.  They aren't there to provide advertizing copy for the studios (although their praise is often used that way) and they aren't there to make us feel better about our own tastes and choices.

A competent critic not only gives an opinion, but gives reasons for that opinion.  What the rest of us do with that information is up to us.  When I read a review, I consider the source.  Does this reviewer tend to like the same things I like (and for the same reasons)?  When they say something like, "this movie is historically accurate" would they know historical accuracy if it hit them in the head?  (In most cases, no.)  Are they huge fans of an actor I find unbearable -- or do they always say horrible things about an actor whose performances I've always found excellent? Where I know that the local reviewers and I usually disagree, I'm going to take anything they say on these points with a grain of salt.


And _what_ the critic chooses to praise or disparage can make a difference in whether I decide to see the movie or not, regardless of how he or she actually rates it.  If reviewers praise the movie for its realistic and unrelenting depiction of brutal violence -- I'm staying home, even if the movie gets five stars across the board.  If reviewers are bored because the characters in an adaptation of a novel by Dickens are too Victorian to appeal to contemporary audiences and the story too complicated and rambling, I might very well ignore their tepid two star reviews, because I happen to _like_ 19th century novels just the way they are and don't care to see them modernized.  

It's not the critics' function to tell me what I'll like (or what I'm supposed to like); just to say what _they_ think and why.  It's only when they rationalize their opinions with (in my view) faulty logic, misinformation, or ill-informed preconceptions that I get annoyed.  Otherwise, they're welcome to their opinions, even if I disagree.


----------



## Saeltari (Jul 11, 2006)

ravenus said:
			
		

> @Saeltari:
> 
> Putting it mildly, you're talking utter unmitigated crock. Film is as much of a legitimiate medium of expression as any other, with as much of a right to produce a work of art as any other medium. Just because YOU have out of thin air conceived this notion that films should only constitute empty easy pleasures, don't blame the film-makers or the critics for it. I stopped watching TV almost a decade ago when I saw that hardly any program shown at the times convenient for me to watch TV was anything even halfways engaging....


 
 I did not mean to give the impression that film or tv is not a valid medium of expression, they certainly are. Every opinion is also valid, even if only to the person stating it, even a critics. 
 However, I do stand by my point that film and tv is not as mind intensive as other entertainment activities. The reason I say that is because, the images are already created for you. In film and tv more than half the equation is already filled in for everyone. Yes, the specific film or program may require you to think to understand it, but once more, half the coloring book is already filled in for you. 
 Again, I didn't state that it constitutes empty easy pleasures, my point is that much of the criteria that many critics try and use to value or devalue a movie is invalid or innapropriate for the medium. That does not mean all critics do so, just seemingly the vast majority. I often wonder, what they are really thinking. 
 I am not saying film or tv is bad. Like you I really don't watch much television, but I do enjoy films quite a bit. 
 Still disagree? Agree?


----------



## Saeltari (Jul 11, 2006)

Cobolt said:
			
		

> ....As for critics, they tend to be biased, if they hate Sci-Fi then whats the point in them watching the movie, thay cannot provide a true comment on the film. the same goes for any genre. I tend not to read critics anymore as they have in the pst caused me not to see a film, only to watch it on DVD and regret not getting the Cinema experience.


 
 I certainly agree with you here.


----------



## Thadlerian (Jul 11, 2006)

Saeltari said:
			
		

> In film and tv more than half the equation is already filled in for everyone. Yes, the specific film or program may require you to think to understand it, but once more, half the coloring book is already filled in for you.


I disagree. You could just as well say that half the equation is filled in when reading a book; you usually get to know what at least one of the characters _think_. In a movie, you have to find that out by analyzing dialogue and body/facial expressions, as well as context.


----------



## Saeltari (Jul 11, 2006)

Teresa Edgerton said:
			
		

> Critics are supposed to criticize: to evaluate, analyze, make intelligent and informed judgements. That's what the word means; that's the job description. They aren't there to provide advertizing copy for the studios (although their praise is often used that way) and they aren't there to make us feel better about our own tastes and choices....
> It's not the critics' function to tell me what I'll like (or what I'm supposed to like); just to say what _they_ think and why. It's only when they rationalize their opinions with (in my view) faulty logic, misinformation, or ill-informed preconceptions that I get annoyed. Otherwise, they're welcome to their opinions, even if I disagree.


 
 Your job description is the ideal, I haven't really found one that lived up to it. Bringing up my other point, they tend to treat each film as if it must equal the standards of a literary treasure, they often seem misinformed about what a film is really supposed to be or to do. I think that most critics are often using the standards of another medium when they review a movie.
 I agree with your last point.


----------



## Saeltari (Jul 11, 2006)

Thadlerian said:
			
		

> I disagree. You could just as well say that half the equation is filled in when reading a book; you usually get to know what at least one of the characters _think_. In a movie, you have to find that out by analyzing dialogue and body/facial expressions, as well as context.


 
True, but a book is more of a paint by numbers or a coloring book where you have to stay within the lines. It still requires more imagination and activity on your part. However a movie is more like a coloring book that somebody has already half colored in for you.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 11, 2006)

Again, I'll have to take issue with this. A painting (or a sculpture, for that matter) is something where "all" the picture is colored in ... yet art of this nature can be both enriching and challenging, and can have a different effect on one each time one looks at it. Any form of art consists of the artist trying to convey an abstract of what they see in whatever situation they depict. There are no ways to do "the entire picture" because no one sees the entire picture... All we see are what each particular mind abstracts from the substance of reality. Therefore, any effort to depict that can be, but is not necessarily art. What makes it art is a combination of honesty in trying to present that abstract and what it means to the artist, combined with great talent and skill, and conscientious effort and much practice, and a good eye to begin with. The problem with so much of the "popcorn" movies is that they are _not_ honest about human emotions -- and, let's face it, for all the _sturm-und-drang_ in life, no few things about it are absolutely hilarious, when you think about it, so there's no lack of room for humor. They're entertainment, but not art. Nothing wrong with that, but confusing the two muddies what we're trying to say to each other here, I think. The closer any artist, be it painter, writer, sculptor, director, what-have-you, comes to an honest presentation of life with as full a presentation of genuinely human character and emotions as they possibly can, the better the work is in whatever medium; and such great works actually satisfy much more richly than those that go for the quick belly-laugh. They are what can enrich and be visited again and again. The other is pabulum. It's hokum. Again, it's an honest enough trade to just entertain, but it is not something that should be confused with art ... nor is pretentious crap that's presented as art just by being obscurantist, difficult, or just downright bad. Fun these things can be, certainly. And for anyone who enjoys them, more power to them. As said, I think there's room for all sorts of things. But I do think that a conscientious critic's job is to try to separate the wheat from the chaff here, and to give a head's-up to anyone who might be inclined that there really is something out there that's more worthwile than the latest installment of Freddie-Meets-Jason-Meets-The-Girl-Next-Door-On-A-Road-Trip.

And there have been such critics. You may not agree with them, but they are out there -- they're just seldom published in the high-circulation newspapers, because editors in general, just as producers often do, tend to "dumb down", to deliberately go for the lowest common denominator, to support their subscription/sales needs and keep their particular job from going down the drain. But if you look outside the mainstream media, you can find plenty of thoughful, conscientious critics who do their level best to give honest, insightful, thought-provoking reviews that are not only intended to warn away from bad films, but to help viewers find new levels to enjoy good films.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Jul 11, 2006)

Personally, I have had little use for critics. I've never read them, watched them, or had any interest for them. I just read and watch whatever seems to be interesting. I'm always looking out for new sci fi/fantasy story plots, and some regurgitated ones that are pretty decent (Dr. Who, Battlestar)....The new ones are harder and harder to find. Besides, some of my fav movies were never well liked by anyone but me: Conan, Red Sonja, Warrior and the Sorcoress, Lady Hawke and Flesh and Blood---there is a theme to those movies I love, I suppose. But, few people other than me ever really loved them.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 11, 2006)

Funny you should mention _Ladyhawke_ -- I was all agog to see it when it first came out because our local newspaper published such a rave review.  

I think it's too easy to judge all critics on the basis of (in most cases, certainly in mine) the very small number of them whose work we have sampled.  Unless we are film buffs, like ravenus and Foxbat, and actively seek out movie criticism.  Mostly, I just read what is printed in the newspapers that come to the house.  (We get two, and it's fun to compare what the different reviewers have to say, because the Chron and the Argus almost never agree.)  If I am very, very interested, I'll look up reviews online, at some place like Rotten Tomatoes, but by the time I exert myself to do that my mind's usually pretty well made-up that I'm going.

In the SF Bay area (it must be those initials!), the critics are generally quite favorable to SF and Fantasy movies.  From what other people say, it appears this is not true everywhere, but I can at least vouch for the fact that not _all_ movie reviewers dislike films in those genres.


----------



## ravenus (Jul 12, 2006)

On an aside, for reviews of films in the SF and Fantasy genres I almost exclusively depend on this site:

http://www.moria.co.nz

The site is currently not updated because the sole guy running it is having some problems with hosting and bandwidth, and he's in negotiations with somebody to relaunch the site on another domain or something. But there's still a HUGE log of films lovingly reviewed and miutely anlyzed. You may not always agree with his opinions, but there's no denying the love and attention he gives to these genres.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 16, 2006)

Related to this subject, a series of letters to San Francisco Chronicle movie critic Mick LaSalle, which I just read this morning (and immediately thought of this thread):

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/16/PKGDOILULL1.DTL

I don't alway read Mick LaSalle's reviews, but I do enjoy his Sunday column.


----------



## Shoegaze99 (Jul 17, 2006)

Saeltari said:
			
		

> Entertainment doesn't mean leaving your brains at the door, however if you want intellectualism, you want to be inspired, moved and brought to a new level of enlightenment... read a book or go experience some life.



This is absurd. It really is. Cinema is a valid artform that can be as thought-provoking, moving and artistic as any only, but in a way unique to cinema. Through symbolism, composition, structure, style and much more, film can be as intellectually riveting and challenging as anything else, and can do it in a way that other artforms can not. That you so casually dismiss it as throwaway entertainment - which despite your later 'clarifications' is exactly what you do in this - explains exactly why you don't like film critics. Because they see things you're either unwilling or incapable of seeing. And there's nothing wrong with that, really. There is a language to film, and if you don't know the language, all you'll see are moving pictures. It's fine that that's all you see ... but it also doesn't make you right.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Jul 17, 2006)

Sometimes a movie with some message or history (Shawshank Redemption, The 3 Stooges) is great to watch. But, on the other hand, I like to watch a movie for the sake of watching a movie. I don't want to think about it. I spend 12 hours a day THINKING. I just want some mind numbing idiocy to make me laugh, cry, swoon, shock, go to another reality, be scared. I love to watch crap movies (Cube, Chupacabra, Waiting, Freddy vs. jason) because I just want to watch a movie.


----------



## Saeltari (Jul 28, 2006)

Shoegaze99 said:
			
		

> This is absurd. It really is. Cinema is a valid artform that can be as thought-provoking, moving and artistic as any only, but in a way unique to cinema. Through symbolism, composition, structure, style and much more, film can be as intellectually riveting and challenging as anything else, and can do it in a way that other artforms can not. That you so casually dismiss it as throwaway entertainment - which despite your later 'clarifications' is exactly what you do in this - explains exactly why you don't like film critics. Because they see things you're either unwilling or incapable of seeing. And there's nothing wrong with that, really. There is a language to film, and if you don't know the language, all you'll see are moving pictures. It's fine that that's all you see ... but it also doesn't make you right.
> [/color]


 
 I think you missed my point. In general, which takes more effort on your part; to read a book, or watch a film? 
 It is very hard to determine what another person sees or does not see, dismisses or does not dismiss. You have assumed you know what I am capable or incapable of seeing. That is pretty neat, because many times I don't even know until I have done it. However, I fully agree with your last statement. Just because I have an opinion it does not mean I am actually right, even though I think I am .


----------



## tiny99 (Jul 29, 2006)

I agree with speedy, Jonathan Rossy is the man......You the man Rossy.


----------



## Thadlerian (Jul 29, 2006)

Saeltari said:
			
		

> I think you missed my point. In general, which takes more effort on your part; to read a book, or watch a film?


Depends on what you mean by "effort". If you really want to catch subtle messages, references, etc. in a movie, you have to pay close attention all the time, or you might miss something. In a book, you can take your time; if you miss something, you just go back, read it again, sit idly thinking it over for as long as you wish. In movies, this freedom of movement can only be achieved with a dvd or media file, and even then, it's much more of a hassle.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 29, 2006)

Saeltari, Shoegaze said "unwilling or incapable" of seeing, and I think you've pretty much told us what you're unwilling to look for in a film.  Which is fine.  But why this apparent resentment of critics who _do_ look for something more?  Are they wrong to view movies according to any criteria but yours?  

If you want to watch movies that you can just sit there and absorb without any mental effort, there is nothing wrong with that.  But  in that case, why read what critics have to say in the first place?  You're not looking for insights that will help you understand or appreciate the film.  And there is no way that a critic can tell you whether you'll _like_ the movie or not, because that sort of thing is totally subjective.  So what are you hoping for when you read a review?  Is it just a validation of your own likes and dislikes?  That's unnecessary, too.  You don't have to justify your feelings about a movie, and it's darn certain that nobody else needs to do it for you.


----------



## Saeltari (Jul 30, 2006)

I think we have ended up debating two issues here; 
1) Critics and 2) how much concentration or effort does it take to watch a film. 

1)
 Teresa, good question. No, a critic is not wrong to review a film using different criteria than I. My disagreement is with critics that take a movie and devalue or value it because it does or does not meet their across the board criteria or change their lives. Instead of taking a movie and viewing it, then basing their value judgements on what the movie was trying to put across and how well it succeeded or failed they appear to value a movie using criteria that seems inappropriate to the given movie. For example, we watch Bambi and then review it basing our comments on the requirements for good haiku. To me that would not be a valid or useful critical review. When and if I read a critics review of a movie, I am trying to get a feel for what the movie is about, gathering information to help me decide if I want to see a movie. I try and read between the lines to gather the information that seems useful. However, I often find myself sad at what a critic will write, many times the review itself seems to be based on some esoteric set of criteria that would require a film major to really have an impact. To me, it seems that if a person is going to be a film critic, then the job is to review a movie while giving an opinion on whether the film is good or not. I may have the wrong view of what a critic's job is. I thought they were to help people decide if they want to see a film, to give a review based on what the general public may be looking for and then to provide their opinions. Many critics seem to skip everything else and just give their opinions on why the film is great haiku or has horrible pentameter.
 Validation is not my issue. If I like a movie I like it. If I don’t, I don’t. You are right about not needing to justify our feelings about a movie. I don’t believe anyone needs to do that. I guess it comes down to what you think the job of a critic is.


----------



## Saeltari (Jul 30, 2006)

2) 

 Thadlerian,
 I agree with you that with a book you can go back and forth but it is harder to do that during a movie. It just seems to me that with a book you have more to do. You have to create and animate characters, breathe life into images and bring forth another reality and pay attention. With a movie, you have to pay attention. The imagery, has already been created for you. The reality already brought forth and animated for your pleasure.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 30, 2006)

Now we're getting somewhere. I think the problem comes in not defining terms, not the requirements of the job of critic. What you're referring to, Saeltari, is a popular review, which is one branch of criticism, true; but there is another that is designed to analyze in depth; when the two become confused -- that is where the trouble starts, I'd say. The best way to avoid that is to note which journals publish which types of critical articles, and read them accordingly. Both are valid, but have differing purposes.


----------



## Saeltari (Jul 30, 2006)

Teresa Edgerton said:
			
		

> Related to this subject, a series of letters to San Francisco Chronicle movie critic Mick LaSalle, which I just read this morning (and immediately thought of this thread):
> 
> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/16/PKGDOILULL1.DTL
> 
> I don't alway read Mick LaSalle's reviews, but I do enjoy his Sunday column.


 
 Teresa,

 I liked that. Some of his answers where pretty good.


----------



## Saeltari (Jul 30, 2006)

j. d. worthington said:
			
		

> Now we're getting somewhere. I think the problem comes in not defining terms, not the requirements of the job of critic. What you're referring to, Saeltari, is a popular review, which is one branch of criticism, true; but there is another that is designed to analyze in depth; when the two become confused -- that is where the trouble starts, I'd say. The best way to avoid that is to note which journals publish which types of critical articles, and read them accordingly. Both are valid, but have differing purposes.


 
 What type do you think the major news programs should have?


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 30, 2006)

Saeltari said:
			
		

> What type do you think the major news programs should have?


 
On something that's designed for mass consumption, I'd say a more general review would serve the purpose better. Intelligent and informed, but not too analytical.

On the other hand, for some of the higher class journals, a blending of the two approaches; and for more academic journals, the more analytical approach is probably the best.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 30, 2006)

Saeltari said:
			
		

> I thought they were to help people decide if they want to see a film, to give a review based on what the general public may be looking for and then to provide their opinions.



Then I'm still not sure what you are asking for:  Do you want critics who set out to predict public opinion (a tricky proposition at best, because public opinion is fickle)?  Critics who are willing to subordinate their own opinions to that of the masses?  As for the first, movie studios employ people to do just that -- if the movie is playing at your local theater, you can pretty well figure that a group of experts in public opinion have given it their thumbs up -- so for a critic to do the same thing would be redundant.  As for the second, wouldn't that be dishonest?  Perhaps you are saying that those who hire the reviewers should choose critics whose opinions usually reflect the likes and dislikes of the general public?  But then shouldn't you be disgusted with the newspapers and tv stations that employ the critics, rather than with the critics themselves?   

Besides, there is a very good way to gauge whether a movie (or a book, for that matter) is in line with what the general public is looking for, and that's word-of-mouth.  By the time that gets going, it's too late for a review but not too late to go out and see the movie.  If you want to know what the general public thinks, better to get the information from the general public itself, rather than some representative who will, at best, merely be guessing what other people are going to fall in love with this week.

Mick LaSalle (rapidly becoming my hero) had another interesting column this morning.  Or at least, his answer to one letter was interesting in the context of this discussion (and another conversation that was going on a few weeks ago in the General Book Discussion forum), and he said something that, in my opinion, pretty well summed up the whole question of popular taste versus that of people with slightly higher expectations.

The short version is that a reader was taking him to task because he didn't like the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie, defended the movie as something designed to appeal to the inner child, and implied that LaSalle could use psychiatric help.

LaSalle replied that his inner child was alive and well, went on to explain how much he loved his life and his job, and then admitted that someone like his father, whose life was pretty much poisoned by a job he hated, probably would have loved to escape into a movie like Pirates 2.  

Here is the passage that I really loved:  "For me, there's no pleasure in generic escape.  The movie has to be genuinely worth escaping into.  The point is, if your inner child is already awake, you don't need a bad fantasy movie to jump-start it.  Therefore, no one should assume that someone is Scrooge because they don't love 'Pirates 2.'  The opposite could be the case."

To me, this says that the popular image of the crabby, misanthropic critic who hates movies (or books, or stage plays, or whatever) because he hates everything else is completely inaccurate.  Critics with high standards are people whose lives -- and whose experiences of whatever medium they are criticizing, whether it be books, movies, or some other art form -- already provide so much pleasure and entertainment that they don't have to get those things from second-rate productions.  

Also, film critics usually see a whole heck of a lot more movies than the general public does.  Whereas the general public may genuinely lack the time and energy to seek out the best, and needs to settle for what it can get, the critic is in the fortunate position that he or she doesn't have to _settle_ for anything.  If today's movie is only so-so, there is sure to come along another one before the end of the week that is really worth watching.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jul 30, 2006)

Another, related, thought.  Because a critic not only sees more movies, but in the course of writing a review has to give thought to why he/she likes the movie, and why that is a good or a bad thing, any professional critic is bound to become more picky, sooner or later -- it's just a function of doing the job over an extended period of time.  The only way to get around that would be to fire the critic as soon as he/he shows signs of becoming an expert on film, and then hire someone else whose opinion is unsullied by too much thought and too broad an experience -- or to just dispense with professional critics altogether and publish random man-on-the street reviews.

Personally, I'd rather read what someone with a certain amount of expertise has to say.


----------



## Shoegaze99 (Jul 30, 2006)

.


			
				Saeltari said:
			
		

> It just seems to me that with a book you have more to do. You have to create and animate characters, breathe life into images and bring forth another reality and pay attention. With a movie, you have to pay attention. The imagery, has already been created for you. The reality already brought forth and animated for your pleasure.





			
				Shoegaze99 said:
			
		

> There is a language to film, and if you don't know the language, all you'll see are moving pictures.


 .


----------

