"End of an era" for film critics...

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/27/08 at 12:30pm

No, I don't mean to talk about Ebert & Dweebert leaving their show. Although, that's what triggered this article on CNN.com.

I think they're right with this.

People have always paid more attention to word-of-mouth than critics, but now that "word of mouth" is published on the Internet, there is little room for so-called "educated" critics in our society. I always hated that "educated" qualification anyway, as if because someone studied books or went to more films or shows, their opinion somehow "counted" more than mine did. I'm afraid only their arrogance did. Not that I didn't learn from them, if they bothered to go into any historically relevant details. But "like it" or "hate it" never swayed me much.

An opinion is an opinion. Or as some wise old sage put it... "Opinions are like a$$holes. Everyone's got one."

I would say it extends to theatre, art, fashion and even restaurant reviews. Everything. People can Google around and get a consensus now. They don't look to one revered self-appointed saint to tell them how to think.

Which basically leaves these folks looking for jobs in the not-too-distant future.



CNN Link

[uncageg]

Posted: 7/27/08 at 12:54pm

I have noticed that in the past 4 years or so, I no longer watch Ebert and Dweebert (I like that name!) unless I happen to stumble on it while it is on. I also have stopped reading reviews in my local paper for film. I will come to this site and others and read what people have to say about movies but ultimately, I will see a movie if it interests me. As far as theater is concerened, yes, I read reviews. But again, if the show interests me, I will see it regardless of the reviews. I did that with Hot Feet and the word of mouth and reviews were pretty much dead on. (It was not a good show!) But I like Earth, Wind & Fire and just wanted to see the show. I do read restaurant reviews as well as depends on recommendations from friends. Or I will try a restaurant simply because I have viewed the menu and there is something I want to try on it.

[Jane2]

Posted: 7/27/08 at 12:58pm

Yup, that article is right on. I never was affected by anyone's else's point of view anyway, but I'm in agreement with the sentiment of the article.

[KrissySim]

Posted: 7/27/08 at 12:58pm

I think this is true. The most a film critic could ever do for me is to characterize a film in such a way I could decide if I wanted to see it or not. Their personal opinions mattered little.

With word of mouth and the internet you can find people with similar tastes and whose opinions you respect, whether you always agree or not.

The idea of a critic having control of the film's success, or critics being "wined and dined" by producers, given free trips to shooting locations, being put up in the same hotels with the stars, etc. never sat well with me. Fun for the critic perhaps, but there's that power of influence.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 7/27/08 at 1:22pm

RIght. Film critics are pure evil, they should all be hounded from their jobs and be sent to the gutters where they belong, opinion-mongering scum that they are. How dare they try to pretend that they know anything at all. I'm never affected by other people's opinions at all, I'll only ever think what I think right now, and nothing will ever change that, certainly not someone who happens to know more about a specific topic than I do.

Die Manohla Dargis, die!!

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 7/27/08 at 1:30pm

This "end of an era" rather saddens me. I think critics serve a essential part of an ongoing relationship with any art form.

I don't really trust "word of mouth" reviews. If I did I'd never see a Sondheim show or a Kurosawa film. I'd be relegated to reading THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY and missing CRIME AND PUNISHMENT.

I like to know what educated people.. people who has spent their lives studying, absorbing, appreciating an art form have to say about the latest work.

Pauline Kael, Frank Rich, Michiko Kakutani have all given me "ways of seeing" that no college classroom ever did. They have enabled my own thinking about film, theatre and literature more so than Myrtle at the check-out stand simply saying.. "oh yeah, that was a cool movie, go check it out"

I often find that a good critic can take something I've seen...say a turkey of a movie... and magically salvage my wasted two hours by saying just the right things that provokes thought and deepens my own understanding of how I personally about things. Thus a good critic can turn a bad experience into a lesson about myself. I value that.

A good critic too can challenge me. I don't think SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE would be around in minds of people today if Frank Rich hadn't championed it relentlessly during its initial run.

I've investigated dozens of books, plays, films that I might otherwise have missed because a thoughtful, intelligent and passionate critic suggested them. Some worked; some didn't. But it was RARELY,if ever, a waste of my time.

I frankly feel this is just another sign of your cultural dumbing down. Great criticism never sold tickets, but we put it in a prominent place to spark conversation and intellectual advancement.

Today so-called criticism is simply just another way of marketing a piece for public consumption.. with a "yay" or "nay" tacked on the end to give it the impression it has been reviewed.

Do we need critics? Well, from a marketing point of view...probably not so much. We know that KUNGFU PANDA will be a hit or flop with the kiddies regardless of what The Times think.

We humans will never get rid of the sharing and expression of opinions. So If I'm going to listen to someone, I'd rather listen to someone who can communicate the intangible experience of one's reaction to art with intelligence, depth and understanding.

"Yeah, that show was cool." Just doesn't cut it for me.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 7/27/08 at 1:38pm

I don't really care about critics, but I do care that BIG FAT BLONDE is back!

[Weez]

Posted: 7/27/08 at 1:41pm

Critics can still have a life writing about things, but they need to go in a different direction, I feel. One of my favourite people on the planet is a TV critic. I don't read his column and go "gosh, I should watch that!" (because he writes about things that have been on rather than things that are coming up), and nor do I read his column and think "damn, I should have watched that!". I merely want to read his opinions because his opinions are so goshdarn entertaining.

But then, even in the days of getting consensus from the internet or blogs or friends or whatever, his words do still carry some weight. Because I laugh at his jokes, get his points, understand his humour, seem to share a similar outlook on life, if he says a TV show is good, then I'll give it a watch. He has yet to disappoint me.

Damn, I think I just fangirled instead of contributing to a discussion. Bum.

[Weez]

Posted: 7/27/08 at 1:50pm

Actually, I think I've figured out what I wanted to say. Huzzah!

People no longer turn to critics for opinions on "should I see it or shouldn't I see it?" but critics can still live on as long as they offer proper commentary in a witty and entertaining style instead of just "I liked this, it was good".

[KrissySim]

Posted: 7/27/08 at 1:56pm

BFB is one example of a person whose opinion I respect even though I don't always agree. I think critics will always be around, who else will announce an opening other than the biased advertising? But I do think that word of mouth and the internet have a strong(er?) influence now.

In the real world (offline) I know artists and film people and film buffs who can characterize a film better than most critics. Often they know more about the background of a particular subject than a professional critic who is one day on one subject, the next day on another.