Before I see a movie, I always check the reviews of it beforehand to see what the professional "critics" thought of it. If the reviews are positive, I tend to view the movie favorably when I watch it, thinking that if a critic was impressed by the movie, then so should I. Similarly, whenever the reviews are negative, I tend to look down upon that movie. Occasionally, I don't even see a film due to his low ratings.
But then I started thinking. Why do we often presume that the critic's view of the movie is the "correct" one? Why do we even have critics? If everyone has a different intensional mindset, then we shouldn't rely upon the judgment of others in deciding whether to see a movie or not. For example, I never saw the movie 300 because its reviews weren't very positive, so I went to see another movie instead. But of course many of my friends loved it.
It extends to many other fields as well. What about food and wine critics? How can someone else taste something the same way that I would?
I realize that we sometimes rely upon critics to provide at least a baseline judgment about something, but don't we take it a bit far sometimes? The wine critic, Robert Parker, is so powerful that if a wine receives below an 75 from him, it's often doomed.
What should the role of a critic be?
-Eric W.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
When we go into something blindly, we need as much guidance as we can get. Critics begin to outline territories on our maps before we draw them in permanent ink. When we read reviews, we've already been exposed to a bias and enter the situation with preconceived notions. This is similar to the peer editing we did in class for our term papers. Mr. Lazarow didn't want us to tell the reader anything so as not to prevent them from reading with fresh eyes.
Critics should either cease their reviewing or keep their opinions out of the public eye unless asked to do otherwise. But, after studying Hayakawa, we know that this is impossible. It is impossible to put a limit on language and its inherent bias. It's our choice on whether we listen to critics or not. We decide how to interpret what they tell us. As far as that goes, the ball is in our court.
(Sam Maliha)
Reading critics' reviews of a movie is a task performed commonly by many curious individuals. Yet as you have said, relying on another's views of a movie, whether they be a friend's views or a professional's, as an indication of whether or not one should see it oneself is quite unnecessary, since each individual has his/her own opinions. How can one simply assume that, because someone else thought that a movie was terrible, that he/she will not enjoy it either? One would clearly overlook many movies with this mindset. In addition, as Sam mentioned, preconceived notions are undesirable in certain situations and would be best left unstirred by others' critiques.
I agree with Sam that the responsibility of judging the value of a critique is but our own. The role of a critic is simply to give his/her opinion to add to the pool of critiques which must be recognized as nothing more than a compilation of parts of others' inherently-biased views. It is then our role to judge for ourselves and develop the respective parts of our own views, which we compare with those in the pool. Only then can we judge the value of others' critiques and add our own biased views to the pool, and hence play the role of the critic ourselves.
(Janet Lee)
Well, I think that there is a difference between how a critic judges a movie and how we judge a movie. I think we judge a movie based more on how we enjoy it, while a critic judges a movie based on certain elements, such as plot and characters. Although, I do admit that a critc's personal taste can have a role in the review for a movie. So I guess a critic's review can be useful, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the movie will be good or bad, especially since it is dependent on one's taste in movies.
Taking the movie 300 for example, it probably didn't get a good review from the critics because there really wasn't a lot of plot development at all, just a lot of killing and gore. On the other hand that just may appeal to a certain group that doesn't really care about plot development, but like the action that the movie provides.
The reason critics continue to have influence on the public is that they mutually establish their pathos when they publish their reviews. Any published work is likely to have certain degree of pathos to it because the readers assume that the publisher is an well educated authority with an honest voice. They hold a misconception that a published work is likely to be proofread and well-supported based on evidence and research. Therefore, movie critics, especially those who write for more popular sources, can easily sway people's minds.
In regards to Robert Parker's case, I think some extent of mob mentality is applied. Robert Parker might have tasted a lot of wine before and also studied wine for a long time, but because others agree to his opinion on taste, people believe that he is right all the time. People do not dare to object to a renowned scholar's viewpoint because they do not wish to humiliate themselves.
Jennifer Park
If you think about it, we all play the role of the critic whenever we see a movie or read a book or go to a restaurant. Or maybe that's just me... I like to discuss my thoughts regarding what I just saw, read, or ate. We are all human, therefore, to a certain extent, we like to voice our opinion. Critics just get lucky: they can voice their opinion (as we all can), and they get paid for it.
What Mary said is right: "...there is a difference between how a critic judges a movie and how we judge a movie." To extend that further, I would say that every individual judges movies in a different way. Some look at the morals (or lack thereof), others look at entertainment, while others look for plot/character development. Critics are reliable in that they generally give their critique from the same angle. Regarding movies, critics tend to focus on plot, character development, etc. If we want to know how well a movie fulfills these, we tend to look to a critic. In the end, though, it is only the viewer who can decide his own critique of a movie, no one else can do that for him.
Emily T.
Just a thought, but sometimes critics' reviews remind me of the whole elitist complex that was developed around poetry in the last century. After all, what do you think of when you think about movie critics? Chances are, your mind immediately drifts to Oscars - the epitome of critical analysis of movies.. Supposedly.
Now, true blockbuster movies rarely fare well at the Oscars. They might pick up a few awards in the more technical categories, but the rarefied Best Actor/Actress and Best Picture awards constantly elude the box-office heavy hitters. It seems to imply the same underlying statement as the elitism surrounding poetry - the masses can't judge art correctly. If critics review a film favorably (i.e. Rachel Getting Married), chances are, the general populace didn't enjoy it. Of course, there are exceptions such as Slumdog Millionaire.. However, for the latter film, it seemed like much of the hype around it was Oscar buzz.. So what comes first: the critics/Oscars, or the American people?
While I agree that critics can be elitist and even a little snobbish and condescending, I still think that they play a role in the movie industry.
Obviously, the American media, and the movie industry as a result, sees any coverage as good coverage. Critics provide previews either good or bad, which catch the attention of potential audiences. Of course, some will be deterred by bad reviews, but others will remain interested in the plot and see the movie anyways. So while good coverage beats bad coverage, bad coverage is still better than none at all.
Also, critics play a role in defining "classic" (with extreme quotes) movies. Critic favorites that are well received by the box office (Lord of the Rings is one in recent memory) often make it into the Hall of Fame, so to speak. On the flip side, if a movie only receives praise from one part of the system, it often fails to have the necessary enduring qualities.
Post a Comment