Views on the value of film critics and their reviews differ, naturally; some people don’t read critics at all (bad idea), some read reviews after seeing the film (good idea, especially when you find that you violently disagree with Critic X’s complete drubbing of “A.I.”) and some read reviews before seeing the movie (sometimes ok, but mainly so if you don’t plan on seeing the film). Some only look at the point scale as indicated by a point out of 10 or on a four star scale. Often people who actually read the reviews don’t read the whole text but only the opening and closing paragraphs to get the gist of the review.
My main gripe is, at least for the moment, with those who don’t read critics at all. It is mainly the attitudes and motivations of those people that I’d like to take a brief look at. “Who cares what a critic has to say?” these people might ask when prompted as to why they don’t bother reading reviews. People seem to think that, because they can watch a movie just like anyone else, and everyone ends up seeing the same film, their opinion is set in gold and topped with Nubian rubies. According to this view, a splinter of that rather annoying thing called relativism, is that dope-smoking, binge-drinker Joe-Bob’s views on Coppola’s latest are as valid as the views of esteemed “Time” critic Richard Schickel on the same film.
“My opinion is true”, says Joe-Bob, wiping some spittle off of his chin, “because it is true for me.” For me. That’s just not good enough. This “It’s true for me/ it works for me”–view is the view of the Ignorant. How else to explain the moderate success of some recent mediocre titles such as “Sydney White and the Seven Dorks”? I’m not saying that “Sydney White” should be judged and deemed an awful film by everyone who sees it; my point is that the opinion of the Joe-Bobs of the world is, most of the time, uncritical, uninformed and inadequately motivated. By those standards, Joe-Bob, you are a misguided self-deluded fool. (Disclaimer: my use of the name Joe-Bob is meant to exclude any reference to that truly entertaining and informed critic of drive-in cinema, Mr. Joe–Bob Briggs, whose views on splatter and schlock cinema have enriched pop culture appreciation for some time.)
The notion that everyone’s a critic has become a horribly twisted line that seems to suggest to the viewer that s/he can say anything and it’ll be valid – if you can think it, you can say/write it, and therefore it’s valid. It’s not. Consider the medical doctor. The doctor studies for seven straight years to enable him (I’m dropping the gender-neutral stuff from now on) to give you the best possible view on what might be wrong with you, seeing as your stomach hurts. You disagree with the professional diagnosis – that you have an acute stomach lining infection – but you take the prescribed medicine and enjoy two days’ bed rest. After two days, you feel better. Notice how, although you disagreed with the diagnosis – you thought that it was the funky sushi that had simply upset your bowels – the doctor’s assessment was far more valid than your own. His diagnosis was informed and motivated by a sensible argument, while yours was not. You simply reacted to the fact that you didn’t like the stomach pain, i.e. you didn’t enjoy it. The doctor was the one, however, to correctly evaluate the condition.
When asked about the architecture of certain buildings or the precedents of certain art styles, people are (at least in my experience) careful not to let on how little they might know about architecture or art history, so they don’t say much. Both are often considered to be “expert fields”. Of course, those people can still have an appreciation of good architecture and Portchie (if that’s your thing), but those people never seem to realise that appreciation (for current purposes, appreciation has to do with the enjoyment factor attached to a text) does not equal or replace an informed reading of something.
An informed reading involves a critical reflection of the film, an awareness of its dynamics or mechanics – much more than “I liked it!” or “I didn’t like it”. Consider:
I like movies.
“The Hottie or the Nottie” is a movie.
Therefore I like “The Hottie or the Nottie”.
No awareness, no reflection. You can show some people anything on a screen projected at 24 frames per second and they’ll be happy. (That’s really true – that’s how Rob Schneider’s career has made it so far).
Note that the amount of movies watched is not indicative of how informed the reading of the film is. If the viewer is not conscious of an own life, is not examining existence and all its dimensions, then how can that person, who sees 52 movies a year (let’s go with the one-a-week example) really read a film in an informed manner? Roger Ebert, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Chicago Sun-Times film critic, has seen tens of thousands of films, but that’s only one part of his ‘qualification’ – his interests include cosmology, great literature, evolution and a variety of other stimulating topics. Without name dropping or being conspicuous about it, he regularly evokes some philosophical, moral or ethical notion related to a certain film. It helps that he is an incredibly gifted writer. Ebert gave “The Bucket List” a single star out of a possible four. Because he rated the film so low, I will avoid it until it gets shown on the public broadcaster late on a Sunday night and I have a compulsion to see all Morgan Freeman films. Does it mean that the millions of people, who did enjoy “The Bucket List” and who will give it at least 2½ stars out of four, are wrong? Of course they are.
While film enjoyment is utterly subjective (I recently joined Bruce “The Chin” Campbell in his second trip to the cabin in the woods courtesy of Sam Raimi and enjoyed the living dead out of it), it’s more difficult to make a case for quality in the same way. Quality is not really subjective. People can enjoy “The Bucket List”, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good movie. Following this, it’s difficult to “enjoy” Michael Haneke’s films, yet his movies are generally brilliant.
Someone who is able to deliver an informed reading is someone who can clearly articulate his thoughts and base an opinion in a sound conceptual framework. Most people are unable to do this – bloggers and Facebook users in particular. “Awesome” and “great” are just some of the pointless terms thrown around by would-be critics in an attempt to show others that they pose no threat to actual film critics. Enjoying movies is everyone’s game. You should be free to watch what you like, I guess (though that’s another essay). But leave the criticism, assessment and evaluation for those who have seen beyond “10,000 BC” and read beyond Dean Koontz, such as…
… these strongly recommended film critics:
o Roger Ebert – classy, cultured, always highly readable. Consider his response to a reader’s advice that he, Ebert, should watch a season or two of “Sex and the City” on DVD: “I regret, Ian, that I will never have the opportunity. Wild horses could not drag me to the opportunity. SATC is so definitely not my cup of tea that, for me, it is not tea at all, and does not come in a cup.” I could not have said it better myself.
o James Berardinelli – straightforward and to the point. www.reelviews.net
o A.O. Scott – very articulate.
o Jonathan Rosenbaum – not one to go with the flow.
o David Poland – runs moviecitynews.com, had major problems with “Passion of the Christ”.
o (The late) Pauline Kael – see her reviews of “The Sound of Music” and “Last Tango in Paris”.
o Outlaw Vern – loves Steven Seagal movies, thinks Lundgren is good on occasion.
o David Bordwell – has seen every film ever made, has written a book on Ozu.
o Jim Emerson – has a great blog by the name of Scanners (link there via www.rogerebert.com) Glenn Kenny – writes for the American Premiere magazine.
No comments:
Post a Comment