A Critique of the Critic
what’s with “the critic?” where did this idea for a ‘job’ come from, and more importantly, how much money do these folks actually get paid for the ‘work’ they do? Man, I wish I could get paid to go see movies and concerts, or to eat food (ALL for free!) and get paid for it. what a life.
i was reading a newspaper the other day and noticed a review of the movie SALT, starring angelina jolie. [note to reader: i am IN this movie, singing in a choir, so my take on this issue is slightly biased. as opposed to all my other posts here. ;-) ] anyway, the movie reviewer’s expected headline reads, “salt adds little flavor to the action drama.”
immediately, i’m put off by this, as this might affect my residual check from columbia pictures. but, if i can remove myself from the equation and be slightly more objective, might i ask: why should we trust what this person has to say? i have never met this person before, and therefore know absolutely nothing about him. have any of you, my readers, ever read a review and been influenced by what the writer was saying? (p.s. i’m speaking of movies specifically from this point on, but this applies to movies/plays/concerts/food/etc. in general—whatever gets “reviewed” on a regular basis.
i would hazard a guess that if you have already been to the movie, you will either agree or disagree with the reviewer. for this scenario, i ask, why read the review? what’s the point? you can’t change this person’s mind if you disagree with him/her, and if you agree, well then congratulations on having your own opinion of the performance seconded. now you can speak your opinion to everyone and call it TRUTH! (“well, so-and-so reviewer from the so-and-so paper feels the same way as i do, so i must be right....”)
however, if you HAVEN’T been yet, then don’t you think you are taking a big chance if you trust what some random person has to say? i would think that you can trust a critic/reviewer if and only if you have seen many of the same movies, and realized that he/she is spot on for YOU most of the time. but, then wouldn’t we simply find ourselves gravitating only toward critics who like the same types of movies that we do, and shunning those who don’t? this is tantamount to only having political discussions with folks who share your views, and doesn’t really lead to the type of personal growth one can experience through dialogue with those who think differently.
why should we trust movie reviewers? or critics in general? is it because we need to be told whether or not to go see something? i have read 2 reviews of SALT this week. one was fabulous (giving it 4 out of 5 stars) and the other was dismal (giving it a C-). the C- was from the reviewer in the raleigh news and observer. so, an entire market of movie goers have now been told, in effect, not to go see this movie. i know that being a critic/reviewing is perfectly legal, but doesn’t this seem like a form of libel? i mean, this one individual, whose own soporific, predictable review (“a movie that’s so tiresome, i think it depleted me of iron”) seems bent on telling people not to waste their money on this film, is actually affecting the livelihoods of hundreds of actors and/or crew (those who might get a residual check from the film such as myself—for if this potential blockbuster lives up to the hype, many hard-working folks in the entertainment industry who AREN’T in the upper tax brackets would actually receive royalties, which might make the difference in whether or not the rent can be paid a few months from now. obviously, angelina jolie’s bottom line won’t be hurt so much, but i hardly think she needs the money as badly as some of the rest of us.)
in effect, if you trust a critic, there is a chance you will miss out on a movie you might really enjoy—or even a movie that might change your life! there are usually mixed reviews for most movies, right? which review will you come across? i heard very mixed reviews (both from critics and friends) for the movie “the matrix” many years ago. this movie absolutely changed my life, and became the philosophical foundation for my master’s thesis at UNCG. had i listened to my friends who said “don’t waste your money,” then i would have missed out on much intellectual, philosophical—even spiritual—growth.
the bottom line is this: don’t trust anyone to tell you whether or not you should see a movie. judge for yourself. you don’t have to spend $10 on it—eventually it’ll be on HBO or netflix or whatever. but do fancy yourself capable of forming your own opinions. otherwise, you might miss out on something that could have a profound impact on you.
as for the review of SALT in the news and observer? well, i called my mother to ask her if she still had the paper at her house (which i read there before coming to the beach for vacation) so that i could quote it directly. to which she responded, “no, i think i used that paper to drain bacon grease.” at least the review was good for something.
anyway, we found it online. to be fair, here it is, if you wish to read it:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/07/23/591859/salt-adds-little-flavor-to-the.html
i suggest you read it, so you can see what a ridiculous review looks like. if the “industry” won’t hire me to be a film critic (which i would, shamelessly, jump at the chance to do), then maybe i can make a living being a critic of the critics!
but then, to be fair to SALT, here’s a more favorable review—although equally ridiculous. aren’t they all?
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2010/07/20/2010-07-20_jolies_salt_is_a_flavorful_spy_thriller.html
which reviewer do YOU trust to speak for you?
i’ll make up my own mind.
i was reading a newspaper the other day and noticed a review of the movie SALT, starring angelina jolie. [note to reader: i am IN this movie, singing in a choir, so my take on this issue is slightly biased. as opposed to all my other posts here. ;-) ] anyway, the movie reviewer’s expected headline reads, “salt adds little flavor to the action drama.”
immediately, i’m put off by this, as this might affect my residual check from columbia pictures. but, if i can remove myself from the equation and be slightly more objective, might i ask: why should we trust what this person has to say? i have never met this person before, and therefore know absolutely nothing about him. have any of you, my readers, ever read a review and been influenced by what the writer was saying? (p.s. i’m speaking of movies specifically from this point on, but this applies to movies/plays/concerts/food/etc. in general—whatever gets “reviewed” on a regular basis.
i would hazard a guess that if you have already been to the movie, you will either agree or disagree with the reviewer. for this scenario, i ask, why read the review? what’s the point? you can’t change this person’s mind if you disagree with him/her, and if you agree, well then congratulations on having your own opinion of the performance seconded. now you can speak your opinion to everyone and call it TRUTH! (“well, so-and-so reviewer from the so-and-so paper feels the same way as i do, so i must be right....”)
however, if you HAVEN’T been yet, then don’t you think you are taking a big chance if you trust what some random person has to say? i would think that you can trust a critic/reviewer if and only if you have seen many of the same movies, and realized that he/she is spot on for YOU most of the time. but, then wouldn’t we simply find ourselves gravitating only toward critics who like the same types of movies that we do, and shunning those who don’t? this is tantamount to only having political discussions with folks who share your views, and doesn’t really lead to the type of personal growth one can experience through dialogue with those who think differently.
why should we trust movie reviewers? or critics in general? is it because we need to be told whether or not to go see something? i have read 2 reviews of SALT this week. one was fabulous (giving it 4 out of 5 stars) and the other was dismal (giving it a C-). the C- was from the reviewer in the raleigh news and observer. so, an entire market of movie goers have now been told, in effect, not to go see this movie. i know that being a critic/reviewing is perfectly legal, but doesn’t this seem like a form of libel? i mean, this one individual, whose own soporific, predictable review (“a movie that’s so tiresome, i think it depleted me of iron”) seems bent on telling people not to waste their money on this film, is actually affecting the livelihoods of hundreds of actors and/or crew (those who might get a residual check from the film such as myself—for if this potential blockbuster lives up to the hype, many hard-working folks in the entertainment industry who AREN’T in the upper tax brackets would actually receive royalties, which might make the difference in whether or not the rent can be paid a few months from now. obviously, angelina jolie’s bottom line won’t be hurt so much, but i hardly think she needs the money as badly as some of the rest of us.)
in effect, if you trust a critic, there is a chance you will miss out on a movie you might really enjoy—or even a movie that might change your life! there are usually mixed reviews for most movies, right? which review will you come across? i heard very mixed reviews (both from critics and friends) for the movie “the matrix” many years ago. this movie absolutely changed my life, and became the philosophical foundation for my master’s thesis at UNCG. had i listened to my friends who said “don’t waste your money,” then i would have missed out on much intellectual, philosophical—even spiritual—growth.
the bottom line is this: don’t trust anyone to tell you whether or not you should see a movie. judge for yourself. you don’t have to spend $10 on it—eventually it’ll be on HBO or netflix or whatever. but do fancy yourself capable of forming your own opinions. otherwise, you might miss out on something that could have a profound impact on you.
as for the review of SALT in the news and observer? well, i called my mother to ask her if she still had the paper at her house (which i read there before coming to the beach for vacation) so that i could quote it directly. to which she responded, “no, i think i used that paper to drain bacon grease.” at least the review was good for something.
anyway, we found it online. to be fair, here it is, if you wish to read it:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/07/23/591859/salt-adds-little-flavor-to-the.html
i suggest you read it, so you can see what a ridiculous review looks like. if the “industry” won’t hire me to be a film critic (which i would, shamelessly, jump at the chance to do), then maybe i can make a living being a critic of the critics!
but then, to be fair to SALT, here’s a more favorable review—although equally ridiculous. aren’t they all?
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2010/07/20/2010-07-20_jolies_salt_is_a_flavorful_spy_thriller.html
which reviewer do YOU trust to speak for you?
i’ll make up my own mind.
Comments
Time is the only thing you may invest in a what a reviewer has to say. It's like cultivating a friendship with the person (or not). You either come to trust what they say or you don't.
Now, reviewers come to the table with qualifications, well, at least they do at reputable news outlets. I think the best reviewers are the ones who, regardless if they're a fan of a specific genre of film style of writing, subject matter, music, play, etc, they can somewhow put that all aside and lunge toward the meat of the matter and determine whether the fans of this particular genre are getting a fair shake — yes or no.
Another quite valuable talent is for said reviewer to be transparent — remove themselves from the review and let the piece shine for what it is. Okay, my insomnia is fading and so am I. Good night.