Posts Tagged ‘movie critics’

Is our judgment of a work of art based solely upon whether or not it delights us in some way?

De gustibus non disputandum (There can be no disputing over matters of taste). – Latin dictum

When it comes to art in general people have been trying for thousands of years (basically since the time of Aristotle) to make heads or tails of why people think the way they do. Are there certain innate likes and dislikes that are embedded in every person, and if so then how can we explain the occasional anomaly? If each person’s taste in art, whether it be concerning architecture, sculpture, paintings, or movies, is unique, how can any consensuses be made about anything? Could such consensuses, if they happen, be considered happenstance or indicative of that certain work’s true value? Should we base our likes and dislikes of works of art on whether or not we apply personal value to them? Are there consistencies and/or patterns that can be discovered in the ways each person applies value to various works of art? Read the rest of this entry »

Film criticism is approaching a crossroads that may not allow future critics to have the great influence that the likes of Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert had. That's two thumbs way down.

The 21^st century has not been very kind to the field of film journalism thus far. Critics in particular have had to endure the brunt of the damage that has been dealt by the increased popularity of social media outlets like MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and an innumerable array of blogs.

The CNN article by Todd Leopold that we recognized and commented on earlier this week which questioned whether film criticism was becoming passé is just the latest instance proving that concern for this issue is growing. The advent of the internet and its subsequent rush towards essentiality sparked fear in all fields of journalism that profited from the lure of exclusivity or privileged resources.

But while the entire journalism industry wont be killed off by the internet and its communicative capabilities, the future of the field of film journalism and criticism appears much less certain. Read the rest of this entry »

Would critics like Rolling Stone's Peter Travers be as influential if his reviews weren't published before the release dates?

In thinking of what kind of strange changes could be made to drastically alter the movie industry, I tried to think about how different things would be if we simply changed the time at which movie reviews were allowed to be published. Obviously most of them are written and published before the movies they judge are released into theaters, but some studios decide every so often to not hold critic screenings for some of their films. When this happens it is usually taken to be an indicator that the studio is not confident in its product and therefore wants to spare the film in question any bad publicity for as long as it can, which is up until the end of its first weekend.

What if, though, there were no preview screenings for critics period? Some might say this would completely change what most people take to be the function of a movie critic, which is to act as a sort of consumer reporter that evaluates the quality of a product and relays its findings and opinions to the public. No one wants to go to a “bad” movie for obvious reasons – it’s a waste of time and money. Right? So if there were no advanced critic screenings then how would people know which movies are worth their time and money, and which ones aren’t? Moviegoers would be forced to rely more on their friends, family, and general word of mouth. This may seem hugely inconvenient, but some studies show that people already put more stock into word of mouth than in movie reviews (this Variety article proves very enlightening on this topic). Read the rest of this entry »