| |
|
quote:Originally posted by The Flyboy:
But surely reviewer's aren't supposed to have "an attachment to the work" - not immediately at any rate?OK, my wording was lax. They're meant to have a reaction that goes beyond what comes in the mail on two sheets of paper with the CD. A reaction that's based on a decent listen/read/watching of the work, as opposed to a skate over it. Which seems to not really be in effect, a lot of the time. Obviously, criticism takes into account personal bugbears - but this should be tempered with the detachment to see the endeavour through to the end. Otherwise, it becomes a bit like dismissing books on the basis of the blurb on the back. Wilson? Paranoid hippie wank. Dostoyevsky? Russkie slummer. Hornby? Mid-life navelgazing. That's easy journalism, but it's not fair to the authors or the would-be readers, is it?
quote:although to be honest I don't think any music critic is paid enough to justify the horror of listening to, for example, the entirity of the new Limp Bizkit album before they pass judgment on it...Ah, but that's what critics are meant to do. It's what they're paid to do. Give a reasonable account. Any reviewer that hadn't listened to the complete length of any Sigur Ros or White Stripes or Einstürzende Neubauten or Wu-Tang Clan release would be considered to be useless if they dared to do the same thing, surely? Be fair; if they're meant to experience the product and give a thoughtful critical response - which is different from the 2-minute listening-post flickthrough - then they owe it to the reader to experience the whole thing, not just some truncation. People use critics as yardsticks, and what good is a yardstick who can't be arsed?
quote:Don't know about you, but it strikes me that on the contrary, most film critics are engaged in a losing battle against studio hype, big budget advertising campaigns, and toadying publicity puff-pieces masquerading as journalism.
In which case, how do you draw the distinction between which critic is being run with a footpump by Sony, and which isn't? Couldn't it be that ones suggesting "foreign" films are being primed by FilmFour, or whoever's investing in the screening of those flicks, to do so? It's kinda rare that anything foreign that gets an arthouse release gets reviews that are bad, isn't it - whereas blockbusters will usually get a pizzling. If they're meant to be detached, how come most film reviewers tend to come down on the side of the arthouse, and deny that occasionally, mindless fun can be good? It seems that the detachment you're looking for isn't in effect there.
The market for film has changed - or, rather, studios are making the sort of abysmal films that thrive on bullshit; I was merely suggesting that in terms of moviemakers who aren't necessarily treading that path (Soderbergh, for example, who on the director's commentary to The Limey refers continually to "that motherfucker from Premiere magazine" (I think)), criticisms are taken more personally than on a multi-director, final-cut-by-the-studio-anyway wankfest, which may not have the same investment of personal vision.
I find it interesting, too, that it's suggested that once someone reaches a particular level, it's permissible for it to be critical open-season; sounds like tall-poppy syndrome rather than the detached criticism that's advocated, too. I've no especial love for Ben Affleck, but surely the point of criticism is to applaud good performances; even if they happen to occur in big, mainstream, inflated movies?
I guess that what's emerged in the past couple of years is the "big studio is shit, little indie is good!" idea - to the extent that you get people hanging onto the coattails of indie while having full studio backing, in order for the beneficial press it brings. Hollywood does churn out a massive amount of shit; but it seems critics are predisposed to bomb it - perhaps unnecessarily - while other pieces are given an easy pass because of their niche-marketing angle. If criticism is meant to be about detachment and impartiality, I've not seen it lately. I just think that rather than give the punter the ability to make an informed choice, the critic seems to use their position to either take pot-shots or to score cool-points. Which has been going on for years, true, and is enjoyable to read, yes, but isn't exactly that helpful, unless you believe that you and the critic are of identical mindset. Which isn't always the case, I'd imagine.
[ 22-08-2001: Message edited by: Rothkoid ] |
|
|
