Pigeon Army
Posts: 14611
Joined: 29/1/2006
From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: matty_b
OH LORD, WILL THE "WHY DUZ EVRY FILM HAV 2 B AN OSCAR WINNAHHHHHH?" COMPLAINTS EVER CEASE?
On another forum I frequent (sacre bleu) a member wrote up a 2000 word screed on what good criticism is - it was amazing, but I think this paragraph is particularly appropriate here -
quote:
There are a lot of misconceptions in common society about what a critic does and does not do. For some reason, people think that critics don't like movies because they're not all Oscar-bait dramas like The King's Speech, which is the one everyone loves to brandy about this year when a movie they don't like gets panned. People don't seem to realize that a good critic will judge a movie against how well it holds up against other movies of its type. Action movies are judged against action movies, romances against romances, etc. If critics didn't like Green Lantern, it's because they thought it failed by the expectations set by superhero films, not because it's not a period drama. This is part of the anti-intellectual "us vs. them" attitude that the general public seems to have developed towards film critics.
This is also because on a failure of many critics' part to do their jobs. Being so concerned with tomatometer scores and poster blurbs, modern day film critics are forgetting that their job, in part, is to act as an interpreter between filmmaker and audience. Every critic in the world loved No Country for Old Men, then the general public views it and gets angry because they don't "get" some of the themes and issues central to it. Someone on the Gen Chat thread a long time ago posted a description of this reaction much better than I can, but basically, there are some films which require a wide breadth of knowledge about themes, subtext, storytelling, cinematography, and general film history to understand and enjoy. A lot of "internet critics" are unwilling to put in the work required to have those qualities, and a lot of "real critics" are unwilling to put the knowledge they have to work. This is why Ebert is so popular. Someone described him earlier as the perfect midpoint between film fan and audience, and he really is. His commentary on films like Casablanca actually highten the experience of the movie, and give context that will cause more people to give the film a chance who otherwise wouldn't. It is your responsibility as a critic to add to the film experience. Most critics are too happy to simply give a plot summary and then a "I liked it!" without giving any reason or explanation.
On that same note, there's a problem with the readership, which sites like Rotten Tomatoes add to, where they won't actually read a review, but simply just look at a number and say "Oh, that must be objectively good." If they looked further, and the critic is doing their job, they might be able to say "Oh, well, Ebert liked this movie for X reasons, but that doesn't really seem like it would appeal to me." and then make a decision from there. Hell, it's even possible and common for one critic to give a positive review and another to give a negative review and cite the exact same reasons.
This needs to be in its own thread, locked and stickied, so everyone understands that what they are saying is not new or shocking. Every complainer rolls out the same complaints every time and every time they are invalid.
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rinc
She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though
quote:
ORIGINAL: MonsterCat
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army
Stop being mean to Deviation
No.
|
Printable Version
RE: Your star ratings are screwed - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread