Did Harry Knowles Sit on Traditional Film Criticism?
2006-Jun-21 by Laughcalvin
Now here's a topic that we can sink our teeth into. Is it the democratization or degradation of film reviews? James Parker of the Boston Globe thinks the latter:
"The pontifical voice of the old-school critic grows faint; his insight, his syntax are no longer required. No time now for elaborate intros or long retrospective glances. What editors want, according to Kehr, is capsule reviews, eye-catchers, quick reactions, recycled celebrity gossip, and chatter about ``the industry." Personality cults, of the sort achieved by the swaggering Pauline Kael at The New Yorker in the `70s, are out: The writer should sound, if possible, like a reader who has just strayed onto a computer terminal."
Hmm, what do you think? Even though biased, I partially agree with him BUT I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. It puts the onus on folks who want to understand a movie better to do the work themselves. Will they? Many who view movies as disposable pop culture want their reviews not much deeper than that. If you love film, the story is much different. Anywho, sound off. Very curious about this one..
2006-Jun-21 - <i>Untitled Comment</i> Posted by Anonymous
owwwww, that would hurt! harry, lay off the doughnuts! (and for a guy who is criticizing the lack of intelligent reviews, he sure does have a lot of pop culture movie posters in his (tiny) office)
its a sign of the times. this is what the readership wants, or, its all they're really able to comprehend, and that's what the publishers give them. i think its unfortunate.
to address some of your comments:
["It puts the onus on folks who want to understand a movie better to do the work themselves"]
---if that's your logic, why read any reviews at all? heck, the studio's hook would tell as much as you need to decide whether you want to understand it better. anyway, i dont think a good review should help you to understand a film better, but rather give you a sense of its general themes, and how creative/effective the fillmakers were at presenting it. from that, you can make a decision if it will be worth your while.
["Many who view movies as disposable pop culture want their reviews not much deeper than that. If you love film, the story is much different."]
i agree. i think it just boils down to each of us will have our favorite reviewers whose opinion we value, based on what are sensibilities are. given mr knowles premise, if your sensibilites are set at a certain level, you're running out of reviewers you can follow - and soon, you may not have any.
in general, my opinion is that reviews are just way too soft nowadays. as an example, take Roger Ebert. If you go to his website and read early reviews they were much deeper and "crtically" written, now the old fart gives everything a great review. King Kong, Crash, and just about any other big movie that comes out seems to get a great review from him. has he sold out? or is he just getting old and forgiving? or maybe, i'm just getting more cynical. either way, i used to value his opinion, now, i find myself cringing at it.
Edited by BlogMaster on 2006-Jun-22 at 08:51
Permanent Link
2006-Jun-22 - Hmmm...
Posted by BlogMaster
I read many reviews but only pay real close attention to the reviewers who I respect OR are excellent writers. Big ones, Mahnola Dargis, indie ones, David Lowery, Chuck Tryon, etc. I do try to keep an open mind whatever my pre-concieved notions may be, and look for a deeper analysis or things I may have over looked in my viewing.
Like most aspiring screenwriters, I also what to see what works and what does not in the movie from a critical view.
With the net, all things have opened up and with that you get a muddying of the waters that worries some pro purists; but not me. You also get some blindingly clear work as well. Just got to find it.
JB
