It may be too visceral for critics (also like United 93), but film lovers should definitely seek it out.
What does it mean that a film might be “too visceral” for critics? Why does there exist the perception that critics are not lovers of film themselves?
Of course, this is merely one commenter on a site not known for a high level of conversation among its users. But the attitudes expressed here are not at all unusual. What should -- or shouldn’t -- critics be doing to counter such ideas?
6 comments:
I don't know - I personally see most film critics as being ALSO film lovers. I'm a film lover and not a critic and I was totally unable to bring myself to see United 93 because I feared it would be, yes, too 'visceral'. I don't know if I'll ever be able to watch that movie. But I did read many, many reviews of it, and all the reviewers had thoughtful things to say about it (be the review positive or negative).
So I don't see film critics shying away from difficult films. That said, I have read reviews by certain critics who seem to enjoy trashing movies just a little bit too much. Then again, I bet it's way more fun to write a creative review about a movie you hate.
Maybe that's my own personal assumption then: Film critics love films, in general, but they also love to hate some films because it's so much fun to write a bad review.
Well, I take issue with with film critics when they tend to consider a critique of the message(s) of the film, or at times the book upon which it was based, as equivalent to evaluating the film itself. What I'm looking for in a review is how well this particular creative product works as a film, and ideology is only one of many elements that come into play when making such an evaluation.
It seems to me that critics often experience movies differently from the way ordinary viewers do, and come to hate many of the same qualities most viewers seek in a movie. It's a bit like the gap between restaurant critics and average patrons.
Many food critics seem mystified by the popularity of franchise chain eateries. They don't seem to realize how much most patrons crave consistency, and want to know exactly what to expect for their dining out dollars. From the Olive Garden to Subway to McDonald's, the successful chain provides that consistency, even if it is mediocre or worse on any absolute scale.
Most restaurant critics can choose to stay away from McDonald's, but few film critics can avoid the McDonaldesque fare of mainstream movies, such as the predictable feel-good movie in which decent people suffer nobly only to triumph in the end. So it's understandable if movie critics come to hate the mediocre fare they are forced to endure over and over again, and to crave, more than anything else, something truly different, with real surprises, and thought provoking plot twists.
Sadly, real surprises are the diametric opposite of what so many ordinary moviegoers seek.
I personally think that critics of all kinds should have different standards than that of an average enthusiast. If there's a new gangster movie coming out, I'd like to think that a critic will be able to reference The Public Enemy or The Godfather as appropriate.
But as it has been stated above, critics have to see a lot of movies that may not be to their personal tastes. We, the movie-going public, go to see what already appeals to us. We don't have to see everything else.
So I don't think it's a surprise when a critic's review differs from the fans' of a specific movie type or genre.
In the summer, you get to see a lot of things blow up - all in a row. In the winter, you get to see a lot of ART! back to back to back. That has to affect perception somewhat.
@Victor Plenty I think you might be on to something in the idea that most moviegoers want McDonald's, but people who see more than a few movies a year get sick of McMovies pretty quickly.
Nonetheless, I still don't think film criticism and film love are incompatible at all. My friends and I love to tear movie down to their components, even / especially movies we love. If anything, or love of movies gives us the tools to analyze and critique films at a much deeper level than more casual filmgoers, and more than once people have assumed we hated a movie because we sat at Denny's afterwards for two hours picking it apart. On the contrary, if it sucked, we'd spend a lot less time thinking about it and move onto something more interesting. B)
I'm less interested in the meaning of "too visceral" and "film lovers" (of course we're film lovers; otherwise, why bother?) and more in how the IMDB commenter relies on that rusty old standby of defending one's own opinions with "well, critics don't know anything, but I do." It's a defensive position I never quite understood, even when more commonly used to discuss more "popcorn-y" fare. It shows a sort of "you think you're better than me?" snide attitude that's rather obnoxious.
(There are two ironies here: one, the commenter is saying one of that year's best reviewed films won't be appreciated by critics; and two, the very act of posting an IMDB comment review makes him/her a critic.)
Post a Comment