What's new

Film critics vs. general public (1 Viewer)

george kaplan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
13,063
[trying to tread carefully]I think some people are giving Medved too much credit for deep thinking. His belief is that most critics are 'intellectuals' (read: at one end of the political spectrum that he disagrees with). His whole treatise is just an attempt to attack those he disagrees with politically. And I use the word treatise lightly, since if he really did put together a well-thought out essay, he'd be acting like one of the 'intellectuals' he despises.
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060
Film critics.
Not an attack David, but I find most critics are actually quite kind when it comes to reviewing movies. For example, Ebert (to consider just one widely read critic) praises far more movies than he pans. He has written that he (almost) always finds a reason to give a movie at least a single star, considering the difficulty in making any movie, even one for which he does not care.

Similarly, consider another (non-mainstream), Chicago film critic, Jonathon Rosenbaum, with a four star system. His two-star rating is a ‘film worth seeing’, hardly a non-recommendation, and his one-star rating means that the film has ‘redeeming features’, which would approximate to Ebert’s view. On balance, I think that most critics encourage their readers to see movies, not to stay away.

The fact that many critics do not populate their yearly ‘ten best’ lists with box office smashes does not mean that they did not like (and praise) films such as TTT and most other hits (Ebert even praised Harry Potter, hardly the art house favorite).

For almost any film you will be able to find differing opinions. And this is what we should expect. But this is as true of independent, art house movies, as it is for mainstream ones made for the majority of viewers. Personally I would be disappointed it all movies designed for the mass market were generally positively reviewed, just as I would be if all small, art house movies were well reviewed.

I think that your initial premise that seeing a lot of movies does not necessarily mean that that opinion is more refined or that taste is of a higher caliber, is correct. However, it is also true that a wide background in having seen movies allows for a perspective that most of the general public does not have. For example, many things that are considered innovative today were done by Griffith in 1916. A person with a wide, historical perspective in films understands this and correctly assess a film made today given nearly 100 years of filmmaking. Most do not have that perspective and necessarily are at a disadvantage in making complete assessments.

I do disagree with your conclusion that movies are about having fun for the audience. Some are. Some are not. All filmmakers want their films to be viewed by an audience. But they do not all make all of their films so that the audience has fun. Very few documentaries are made (Michael Moore a notable exception) so that the audience has fun. Even the best storyteller of current filmmakers, Stephen Spielberg has made films such as Schindler’s List and The Color Purple, where the audience is clearly not supposed to have fun.

Of course you may disagree.
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060
Be careful George. Your use of the word ‘treatise’, betrays you as an intellectual, whose opinions, analysis and (especially) conclusion should be regarded with suspicion. :D
 

Mark Zimmer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
4,318
George and I don't agree on much but we do agree about Medved. One can be conservative and still issue reviews without an agenda, but Medved very much has an agenda and an axe to grind.
 

Dan Rudolph

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Messages
4,042
I don't see how saying movie critics see a lot more movies than most audience members implies that critics are somehow better. I can see how it woudl change someone's tastes quite a bit. Conventions are going to be much more tiresome to someone who sees them every other week than to someone who sees them every few months.
 

Chuck Mayer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
8,515
Location
Northern Virginia
Real Name
Chuck Mayer
Clearly, based on reports of the GG's, many folks in the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY (and that's what it is) have an opinion/agenda. We are just stuck listening to the ones we shove microphones in front of. Medved is no different than the winning actor/actress who spouts off their personal beliefs, as educated or uneducated as they may be (I imagine Medved is at least more well-read than most award recipients, but that's not the point). But going any further down that road is a no-no, and rightfully so. I just didn't want Medved singled out as having an agenda in Hollywood.

The remainder of the article was interesting, if not enlightening. As long as the critic lets the reader/watcher know where they are coming from, they can review til the cows come home. Some serve the industry. Some serve themselves. Some serve some notion of intellectualism (which is a joke...you are reviewing Kangaroo Jack :p) ). Some serve film itself as a medium. And some actually serve their customers (viewers, readers, etc.). Some serve more than one of those (Ebert, who I often disagree with, does seem to support film AND filmgoers - I appreciate that). The problem comes when thinking all critics are the same. Some blowhards are everything David describes. Some are mouthpieces. A good many are actually experts in film, if not filmgoing.

I've given up on most, just as some of them have given up on us. NO BIG DEAL. They are critics. We pay the bills :)

Take care,
Chuck
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060
I don't see how saying movie critics see a lot more movies than most audience members implies that critics are somehow better.
It does not, nor have I noticed anyone making that implication in this thread (but to be honest, I may have missed something that someone wrote).

What some of us have said, it that seeing a many movies does give those who have seen many a base for comparison that those who have seen only a few do not have.

Further, that having seen a number of films from other eras provides a knowledge base that those who have not seen these films do not have.

This is pretty much true of anything: those who have listened to a lot of rock have a broad base from which to compare new music that those who have only limited listening experience do not have; those who have look at many paintings are able to make comparisons that those who have not, cannot make and this holds true for almost anything you can think of up to those who have eaten a wide variety of apple pies have a broad base from which to judge a new, freshly baked apple pie. It says nothing about the person’s ability to properly judge an apple pie—they may have very deficient taste buds. But all things being equal, the one with the broader taste experience will have the most valid opinioni.
 

Ken Chan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 11, 1999
Messages
3,302
Real Name
Ken
Medved goes off the track in at least a few places:

When the Los Angeles critics select Edie Falco in the painfully obscure Sunshine State as their best supporting actress, they send a message to the general public that says ''we know something you don't know,'' or at least declares that ''we saw something you didn't see and almost certainly never will see.''
Never? What about video? Certainly the critics help by pointing out stuff that might not have even been shown in town.

More importantly, was that their motivation? If all these critics saw the movie and that's their opinion, what are they supposed to do? Pick the best actress "in a movie that the public has probably seen" instead?

//Ken
 

Chuck Mayer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
8,515
Location
Northern Virginia
Real Name
Chuck Mayer
Taking away his Medved dislike, that's a great piece by Poland. He has very quickly become one of my favorite film journalists. His style is inclusive of his reader and filmgoers, and his love of movies is evident.

Thanks for that link, Mark. I don't always check MCN.

Take care,
Chuck
 

Lew Crippen

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
12,060
Thanks for the link Mark. It is much appreciated. I’m with George in deciding that some of my real comments would violate forum rules. Mr. Poland is under no such restriction.
 

Dennis Pagoulatos

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 3, 1999
Messages
868
Location
CA
Real Name
Dennis
A thought just occurred to me...isn't Medved the guy who was accused of "rigging" his movie reviews a few years back (paid by studios? lobbyists? I don't remember, but there was *something*...)

-Dennis
 

Jay E

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 30, 2000
Messages
2,483
Since I revile Mr Medved more than any critic in America, and I use the word "critic" here very loosely, it was hard for me to get through reading his article. I don't know about other people, but his views really scare me. It always seems as if he's one step away from endorsing censorship...I can just picture Mr Medved on that fire engine in Fahrenheit 451.
 

Ray Chuang

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 26, 2002
Messages
1,056
(Throwing my in €0.02 :) )

I think while many of you will denounce Mr. Medved because of his political leanings, I think he does have some valid points in regards to critic's tastes and moviegoer tastes diverging.

Take for example The Sound of Music. When it premiered in 1965 it was heavily denounced by critics, yet the public loved the movie. After the movie made US$69,000,000 in US box office revenues (US$69,000,000 was a lot of money back in 1965! ;) ), many movie critics were forced to eat their words and had to re-evaluate that film on why the public loved it. It's small wonder why that movie won multiple Oscars.

As for the Annie Hall versus Star Wars situation in 1977(where Annie Hall won the significant Oscars), it is NOT as much as triumph of a smaller movie over a wildly popular film as people think. Annie Hall was actually very popular with both critics and the movie audience, and this movie did make a significant profit. I still consider Annie Hall as among the finest movie Woody Allen has ever done (the other one being Manhattan).

The last time I can remember clearly where a very popular movie with both critics and moviegoers got serious accolades was 1994's Forrest Gump. I loved the movie because despite Gump's lower mental capacity he shows a level of wisdom that far exceeded those of the people around him that had higher mental capacity. :emoji_thumbsup:

I am not surprised that critics' choices and moviegoer choices are frequently divergent. Critics get to see many, many more movies than the average moviegoer--mostly because professional critics get to see the movies for free. Moviegoers don't see so many movies per year, mostly because of the high cost of even a matinee ticket (which has reached US$6 per ticket or higher in the larger USA metropolitan areas :thumbsdown: ) or the relatively high cost of movie rentals.
 

Jun-Dai Bates

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 16, 1999
Messages
148
I know that the two terms mean essentially the same thing in common usage, but perhaps for the purpose of defining the ethical imperatives of the profession, we should use two terms for writing about film: 'criticism' and 'reviewing'.

When one criticizes a film, one is scrutinizing it based on it's artistic merits or flaws, what it says about society, what is original about it, what use it is making of its medium, etc. Popularity can play into criticism, but the goal of criticism is not to mirror the popular opinion of the film, it is to guide the reader into thinking more about the film and possibly better understanding the film. We can read criticism of a film to determine whether we think we will like a film, but the goal of a critic should not be to determine whether or not we will like a film, but to tell us why we should give a certain film a chance, or why a certain film isn't worth our attention.

A reviewer, on the other hand, should be writing with a different goal in mind. She should be writing to give us enough information about a film that we can make an informed guess as to whether we will enjoy a film. Is the film slow and artistic? Is it riveting and action-packed? Is it a tear-jerking melancholic drama? These things a reviewer will tell us, but she will also work hard to ensure that she does not reveal surprised hidden in the film.

Generally speaking, I think that reviews should be read before watching a film, and criticism after. Unfortunately, almost all reviewers/critics fall into both camps. They make a living writing reviews, and they try to work their criticisms into their capsules. As a result, criticism has fallen by the wayside (how many critical essays can you find about recent films, like Spirited Away or Far From Heaven?), and people ignore the reviewers because they are too snobbish and far-removed from popular taste, and instead choose their films based on adverts and previews.

In any case, I think the writer of that article missed an important point. Critics(/reviewers) are becoming farther removed not because they are becoming more obtuse, but because the mainstream movie audience is changing. 40 years ago, most film-goers were adults, and they were well-represented by the critics/reviewers that wrote for them. Starting about 25 years ago, more and more of the film-goers were younger than twenty. With the advent of home video, almost all the theater-goers are teenagers, because watching films in the theater is an opportunity to get away from home; adults, on the other hand, are more inclined to settle in with a video. Thus the big numbers in box office receipts are driven by adolescents and teenagers, but critics are almost exlusively adults, and they write primarily for adults. This alone is sufficient to explain the wide gap that is now present between the critics and the popular audience. It also explains why crap like Scooby Doo and Tomb Raider get the kind of money they do. Personally I didn't like the Lord of the Rings, or Titanic, either, but adults have at least some responsibility for the success of these films (they are still teenage-driven products). There are few, if any, films these days that are marketed towards people over 25 that make more than $200 million, but there are plenty that are marketed towards people under 25 (or even people under 15).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,788
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top