Just what ARE critics good for, anyway?
Chuq Von Rospach
> >with the average movie viewers is that reviewer really providing a service by
> >reviewing movies?
> My general feeling is that a reviewer should say how he/she felt about it,
> and that's it. This provides the following service:
> readers/viewers/listeners read/watch/listen the reviews of several different
> critics. They go to see films and compare their reaction to that of the
> reviewers. When they find a reviewer who seems to agree with their opinions
> a majority of the time, they start reading this person's reviews regularly.
> Reviewers who they don't agree with have their opinions ignored or
> discounted.
Well, I sort of mostly agree with Moriarty, kinda. I've been doing a LOT of
research into what makes a good review for my fanzine OtherRealms. I've just
published an article called 'How to Write a Review' in the latest issue
aimed primarily at book reviews, but many of the comments are just as valid
for movie reviews.
I think it is MORE important that a reviewer discuss WHY they liked or
disliked a work than whether or not they liked it (or not). You need to
help your reader understand the limits of your objectivity (reviewing is
objectively a subjective operation) so that they can compare that with their
own limits and decide whether or not to agree with your review.
A strong key in this is consistency -- anyone who reviews a number of
works needs to define a common ground between themselves and their
readers, and make sure the reader knows when that common ground is
left. If you normally hate SF movies or hate rock music soundtracks or
are having an affair with Sly stallone or hate graphic violence or sex
or whatever the reader needs to know it because these prejudices affect
your overall review. If your reader loves rock and you don't, you'd
probably pan Tommy while they'd love it, and it is up to you to help
the reader understand these limitations.
As far as I'm concerned, a reviewer that I disagree with consistently is
just as useful as one I agree with completely. There is a certain critic
on a certain syndicated movie review program that I KNOW if he pans a
certain class of movie I'm going to enjoy it. I also know that if he pans
other movies (where we tend to agree) they need to be avoideds. But the fact
that he hates some movies that I tend to like is quite useful to me, since
I can still use him as a reliable filtering mechanism. that, of course, is
all a reviewer is -- a way for readers or viewers to decide whether to
invest the time and money in the complete item. The worst reviewers are the
ones that review for their own benefit and not the readers, since they are
out for ego gratification and not to get information out to the people that
need it.
chuq
--
:From catacombs of Castle Tarot: Chuq Von Rospach
ch...@sun.ARPA FidoNet: 125/84
{decwrl,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!chuq
Somehow, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore...
Mark Brader
> I think it is MORE important that a reviewer discuss WHY they liked or
> disliked a work than whether or not they liked it (or not). You need to
> help your reader understand the limits of your objectivity (reviewing is
> objectively a subjective operation) so that they can compare that with their
> own limits and decide whether or not to agree with your review.
>
> A strong key in this is consistency -- anyone who reviews a number of
> works needs to define a common ground between themselves and their
> readers, and make sure the reader knows when that common ground is left.
I agree completely. When a movie that generates strong opinions
appears, net.movies suddenly gets flooded with reviews of the form
"See it! It's great!", from people who ordinarily never post here.
Folks, net.movies is not a poll. 10 "It's great!" and 5 "It stinks"
messages add up to nothing at all.
The next level of article is "It's great, I loved the action and humor."
I'm sorry, but this is really no better, unless the movie has
had very little in the way of promotion. There are many types of
humor, and action means gore to some and car/subway chases to others.
The best way to say what something is like is usually to say what it is LIKE.
Book publishers caught on to this long ago... you know, "In the tradition
of Agatha Christie", "more suspenseful than 'The Day of the Jackal'",
that kind of thing. We are used to ignoring this when it's just hype,
but expressions like this serve very well when used in an objective review.
We don't all have time to be Mark Leeper, Peter Reiher, etc. (Sometimes I
wonder how Mark Leeper has time to be Mark Leeper.) We do, perhaps,
have time to say, not:
BRAZIL was the best film I have seen for a long time
but:
BRAZIL is both a dramatic story of one man's rebellion
in a world much like that of "1984" (1984), and a
hilarious satire on that world -- a mixture of absurdity,
subtlety, and occasional grossness in the Monty Python
tradition. Not for all tastes, nor for children, but some
people will like it a lot.
That's my actual opinion, by the way. My numerical rating is $10 (Cdn).
Mark Brader
Suspicion breeds confidence. -- "Brazil"