Here we are in a class on film criticism and there's a whole bunch of folks saying the concept is dead.
Take a look at the article and let us in on your thoughts. Agree? Disagree? Think they're way off base?
What do you say?
EBS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lauren Smith ---
ReplyDeleteThere's definitely some merit to this article. Any Joe Schmoe off the street can be a "movie critic" so long as he has a handle on good graphics and witty writing to attract followers. Is that a bad thing? Not really, because it's the uneducated masses that watch and experience films. Their perspective is incredibly relevant. For too long film critique has been the exclusive domain of the educated elite, using terms and ideas the average person can't relate to.
That said, I don't think movie critics are going anywhere. Their demographic hasn't really changed. There are still folks in liberal academia who don't want the opinion of just anyone, but someone who has studied film and can give a more educated review. The people who read and viewed critiques from these people will still seek them out. Those who are looking for a more refined approach to movie reviews will still check out Roger Ebert's column.
Over the weekend I used Fandango to buy tickets to Toy Story 3 (yeah yeah I know, I'm the mom of the class) and used the Fan Review and Critic Review features. what I found was that Roger Ebert's review wasn't as favorable. When I saw the movie, I felt what the fans had written about. It was only upon further dissection that I began to be interested in what Ebert was saying. My point is that there is room for both the every day emotional response and the critic's response. Both are valuable and I don't think either are going anywhere.
To the average person, knowing whether or not a movie is good is all that is really needed. The average human being could care less about the artistic moments of a movie. People are apathetic now-a-days and they want a simple answer fast. Anyone can be a critic really, but just because its so prosaic doesn't mean its dead.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of expressing ideas will never go away and there will always be people who express their ideas more clearly and are more entertaining, but the mediums that are used to express ideas are always changing. Film criticism isn't any different. Sure critics may have to move away from print, but people will continue to value or devalue their opinion. Though more people are more able to put their opinion out there, it doesn't mean that others are willing to listen, and it doesn't mean that anyone can be a good critic. We've always had pencils, but not everyone can draw well. And the internet as been an open forum for more than a decade, but certain people or websites will get more attention.
ReplyDeleteOn the rare-occasion I decide read a film review it is on the internet on a theater’s website or a blog. I’m accustomed to the internet culture of easy access information and getting to share my ideas anywhere. If critics have blogs and respond to comments or have places for other users to share their ideas then that would be a space that I would want to read a film review. I rarely buy the paper, and the article points out that there are tons of people on the internet so moving away from print seems important if critics would like to reach more people and build a fan-base.
Popular culture is always changing—movies haven’t stayed the same-- so why should critics of something that is ever changing be stagnant?
--- Robert L.
I think that film critisism, just like film is obviously moving in a more digital direction; just like you can now watch movies via the internet, you can also get reviews for that same movie from the internet. that being said, you are more likely to have a better experience watching a movie in theaters just like you are more likely to find a better, or at least more thought out in terms of technical critique, review from a published or telivised source.
ReplyDeleteAs far as professional, published/televised (vs "posted") critisism dying out completely, i dont think that will happen anytime soon. Because while it is nice to get the quick response "see it!" or "save your money!" i think there will always be room to hear a more educated or at least well thought out voice. becuase a well thought out critique, can add another layer of appreciation to a great film, by the critic picking up things you may have missed, or even re-assure you with more reasons why "that movie sucked!" And it is alot easier to find that sort of voice in the paper or on T.V. than the vast canvas of the internet
Noting that there are more detailed critics on the web than the ones just throwing out the one-liners i've already mentioned, i think they are the ones really pushing the popularity of film critisism on the internet. But ultimately, whether or not critics will only use the internet as their medium, is up to the public. And for now, there may be a generation of bloggers and internet savy people who want it all online, but there are still many who want the good ol' newspaper or T.V. to get all of their info.
In this day and age to everyone it should seem digital media is taking over that of the traditional print which is just showing a sign of the times. Digital media and social networking systems are not only quicker in today's society, but it makes it easier to access a broader variety of opinions rather than just those in newsources by print critics.
ReplyDeleteAs for the article, Doherty is right on the money addressing the web as the new wave of film critcism. I agree that the knowledge and experience of print critics is being overlooked and essetially discarded when it comes to the public's movie choice, but I am by no means saying that this is what I prefer to happen. Today's bloggers and complainers seemingly have no idea about what they are talking about. There is so much more to a film rather than liking or disliking its overall presentation; from experience, "web critics" rarely touch on the critical aspects of a film and its production that we are learning about in our class and that prove to be essential to the success of a movie.
It is sad to know that such specialized professions that were once so valued by society can easily be overthrown and forgotten in the matter of a few years. Thanks to some of the production aspects introduced in our class so far, I will most always lean towards the the traditional form of film criticism (that is as long as it manages to remain available).
--Paige M.
I agree with the previous posts in the sense that the new trend of movie critiquing- internet blogging by the average individual, sometimes with schooling to back it up, but most often without- is becoming the preferred way to critique. I also am of the opinion that this is a good thing. The review by the average person is easier to relate to, and sometimes more valued by the reader, because when it comes down to it, more often than not the reader just wants to know if the flick will be worth the 10 bucks or so to see it than whether or not it's going to be the next Oscar winner. At least, that's how I feel when I look at reviews.
ReplyDeleteAs Aaron mentioned, I too believe that the art of film critique, as well as the profession, will definitely not die out anytime soon. There are still many people out there interested in the artistic qualities of films, and those who are will be able to access those critiques despite the majority being written by peers with strong opinions.
So really, the switch to digitalized critique is neither bad nor good; It's just the natural course that film critique has taken in light of our culture today.
-Danielle Dye
Based on very limited anecdotal evidence I believe older individuals who have intentionally and successfully made the transition from print media to electronic media sources probably rely heavily on user freindly platforms such as Yahoo and Aol to get their news. They can find professional Movie reviews, and also consumer reviews within these websites under the entertainment or movie sections. Unfortunately for the "serious writers" the article speaks of, those platforms are limited and not necessarily preferred by a younger generation with a much shorter attention span that would probably rather get there review from an app on their IPhone. Film criticism, as it used to be, is dead.
ReplyDelete-Adib Musawwir
There are some really great comments here. For the most part, the Internet has triggered two significant changes to how we get information (likely hundreds more, but I am just going to focus on two).
ReplyDeleteFirst, as has been pointed out by all here as well as Professor Doherty, anyone with a desire to become an "expert" now has a blank slate on which to write his/her musings with no prerequisite to earn their place via time on job, being hired based on serious credentials, etc. Anyone with a keyboard can put themself up to the world as an expert, on this massive media.
Second, newspapers have started to become extinct and we may someday see that all form of media morph into applications of Internet technology. Films are being made just for the Internet, music being recorded that is only available on iTunes, and books are sliding into the eBook world with no thought of ever going print. And, by the way, these books are published often by the author, eliminating the typical editor/publisher route.
What is missing from this equation is any real form of credentialing. It becomes difficult for readers to discern who is an expert and who is not an expert. I suppose that over time, readers will migrate toward writers, musicians and critics who they find themselves agreeing with, enjoying and generally believe in.
Finally, I have never placed much faith in film critics in the first place. Too many times, Jan Wahl or Roger Ebert would slam a film I loved, or vice versa. So I never spent much tome or energy in looking for their reviews.
Film criticism is only "dead" if everyone agrees that it is. Trends are cyclic, like movements in art and fashion. Just because things change it doesn't mean that no one values the opinions of well versed critics. However, a lot of reviews matter very little... a film is a film is a film. However, film is a relatively new medium and recently made widely popular films are mostly cognitively and ideologically exciting. Critics follow the same trend in that they can't really criticize something successfully that is inarguably stimulating, well made and produced and edited carefully. There will always be critics in every area of study, just like there always has been. But will people care to read online or elsewhere about these criticisms? I will, but as for everyone else, I have no f*ckin idea.
ReplyDelete--Margaret Carpenter
This article allows me to bring up a point that everyone can be a critic but it doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone gives good criticism. More conservatively, your constructive criticism will be acknowledged more, depending on who you are, and what you know. Film criticism is taken more seriously from people who study film and know the game on how to sell and market a film. People who criticize with valid, precise, and specific details pertaining to the films positives and negatives are always taken into consideration more than just vague opinions. “This movie sucked because it wasn’t realistic” or “I hate this movie it was stupid, It was so boring and lame”…..statements like these are vague and examples of bad criticism
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, I would absolutely agree with the claims purposed throughout. Because of the immediate, fast paced life style, and lack of critical thinking among today's younger generation, the overall meaning and art of film critiquing has been undermined and simplified to an offensive level. I can relate to the "serious writers" frustration; the intellectual creativity and skill once needed to properly critique a film has been degraded. Now a days, anyone can post a blog on an accessible website about there personal opinions and reflection of a film, education, skill, and experience are no longer a requirement.
ReplyDelete