MOVIE REVIEWS--WORSE THAN THE MOVIES!
Not all that many years ago it made sense for a film fan to read the opinions of the experts before heading off to the theater. Not that we always agreed with the critic, but we could at least figure on a fairly reliable assessment of the pictures we wanted to see. Indeed, there were some critics whose opinions were almost always the opposite of ours. If Vincent Canby, as a case in point, did not like a particular flick, there was a better than even chance that we would. Similarly, if Rex Reed (who is still plying his trade, albeit less noticeably) was fond of a new picture, we were reasonably certain we would not care for it.
These days reading the film critics (of which there are seemingly as many as there are movies) is a tricky business. It seems that many of them know nothing more about the cinematic arts than we do. And their jobs now come down to little more than the offering of their opinions as to whether they like, or dislike, what they see. Rather than critiquing performances, plots, camera work, sets, etc., today's critic is content to tell you why he likes something, or why he does not. But in doing so he offers no insights in to the background for his opinions. In fact, quite a number of our contemporary reviewers seem intent, mainly, on attempting to ferret out whatever meaning they think they discern in a film. Indeed, give them something really chewy, like MUNICH, and they will write reams of stuff about the scriptwriter's motivations, about the Director's sympathies for the Olympic victims, and why the film, so many years after the events it depicts, is "timely". Take another piece, THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA, and we have reviewers telling us that C.S. Lewis's story is actually a biblical allegory. And they tell us that having no idea whether Lewis intended it that way. None of them, after all, got to interview him; and nowhere (that we know of) did he write anything to the effect that NARNIA was a religious story. Doubtless some Christians were heartened to hear that this film embodies Lewis's spiritual predilections, but we would have preferred a review which more honestly appraised the picture's merits or demerits as a piece of the film maker's art. We know, after all, that Disney (the studio behind the production) made the movie for entertainment and for money (scads of which they intend to earn from ticket sales). Doubtless they gave no thought to C.S. Lewis's rationale for writing the book; only that it would lend itself to (potentially) good cinema.
So, when we read movie reviews these days we have very little we can rely on. Reading Roger Ebert, or any of the other dozen or so well known critics, offers us no assurances that their opinions can be relied upon. Ebert, for instance, waxes eloquent about a lot of things (and sometimes he discusses the film he is reviewing), but as often as not it is actually difficult to tell whether he likes or dislikes the picture he is writing about. To glean that information you have to see how many stars he bestows; and that information seems to appear someplace different than the review. He is not vague on his TV show, but in print his commentary cannot be used to determine whether a particular flick should be seen or avoided. When he reviewed GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, as a case in point, his affection for the work was less apparent than his reflections on the situation it depicted. It helps that a reviewer is old enough to remember historical events when depicted in film, but telling us why a movie is good (or bad) is also essential to the critic's job. And, from our perspective, most of them are now missing that point. And the reason, we suspect, is because the art of print journalism has been obliged to take a back seat to less obvious but far more pressing issues. Newspapers, unfortunately, are not about the news anymore. They are really about selling as much advertising as possible. And journalists are hired not so much for their professional skills as for their willingness to work for mediocre money. No, we do not suggest that one as well respected as Roger Ebert fits in this category. But while he, and a hand full of others, endeavor to work as professionals, far too many more cannot spell "professional" much less define what professionalism is. And for that reason alone, the reviews we read are often worse than the movies they critique.
Garrett500
12/28/2005
These days reading the film critics (of which there are seemingly as many as there are movies) is a tricky business. It seems that many of them know nothing more about the cinematic arts than we do. And their jobs now come down to little more than the offering of their opinions as to whether they like, or dislike, what they see. Rather than critiquing performances, plots, camera work, sets, etc., today's critic is content to tell you why he likes something, or why he does not. But in doing so he offers no insights in to the background for his opinions. In fact, quite a number of our contemporary reviewers seem intent, mainly, on attempting to ferret out whatever meaning they think they discern in a film. Indeed, give them something really chewy, like MUNICH, and they will write reams of stuff about the scriptwriter's motivations, about the Director's sympathies for the Olympic victims, and why the film, so many years after the events it depicts, is "timely". Take another piece, THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA, and we have reviewers telling us that C.S. Lewis's story is actually a biblical allegory. And they tell us that having no idea whether Lewis intended it that way. None of them, after all, got to interview him; and nowhere (that we know of) did he write anything to the effect that NARNIA was a religious story. Doubtless some Christians were heartened to hear that this film embodies Lewis's spiritual predilections, but we would have preferred a review which more honestly appraised the picture's merits or demerits as a piece of the film maker's art. We know, after all, that Disney (the studio behind the production) made the movie for entertainment and for money (scads of which they intend to earn from ticket sales). Doubtless they gave no thought to C.S. Lewis's rationale for writing the book; only that it would lend itself to (potentially) good cinema.
So, when we read movie reviews these days we have very little we can rely on. Reading Roger Ebert, or any of the other dozen or so well known critics, offers us no assurances that their opinions can be relied upon. Ebert, for instance, waxes eloquent about a lot of things (and sometimes he discusses the film he is reviewing), but as often as not it is actually difficult to tell whether he likes or dislikes the picture he is writing about. To glean that information you have to see how many stars he bestows; and that information seems to appear someplace different than the review. He is not vague on his TV show, but in print his commentary cannot be used to determine whether a particular flick should be seen or avoided. When he reviewed GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, as a case in point, his affection for the work was less apparent than his reflections on the situation it depicted. It helps that a reviewer is old enough to remember historical events when depicted in film, but telling us why a movie is good (or bad) is also essential to the critic's job. And, from our perspective, most of them are now missing that point. And the reason, we suspect, is because the art of print journalism has been obliged to take a back seat to less obvious but far more pressing issues. Newspapers, unfortunately, are not about the news anymore. They are really about selling as much advertising as possible. And journalists are hired not so much for their professional skills as for their willingness to work for mediocre money. No, we do not suggest that one as well respected as Roger Ebert fits in this category. But while he, and a hand full of others, endeavor to work as professionals, far too many more cannot spell "professional" much less define what professionalism is. And for that reason alone, the reviews we read are often worse than the movies they critique.
Garrett500
12/28/2005
posted by Garrett W at 3:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home