Movie reviewers - are they just parodying themselves?

[bassybill]

One of the things I often find amusing or frustrating, depending on mood, is people confidently asserting their opinion as fact. It's in no way surprising that people who review albums and movies - the latter especially - are often especially guilty of this. I suppose it's their calling.

But of course, reviewers as a group (collective noun, anyone?) can't be relied upon to reach a consensus about anything. So how come individual reviewers always come off as sounding as if they're totally convinced that their opinion of a film is correct and anyone who would disagree is mistaken? Doesn't it occur to them that the person making the mistake might be them? Or are they just really good at ignoring this possibility?

I think the reviewers themselves must be totally aware of the paradoxical aspects of what they churn out as a group. So are they just playing a part themselves because they know it's expected of them? Or are some of them actually solipsistic enough to think that their opinion somehow has a status way above that of anyone else, including their own fellow movie reviewers?

[i_got_a_mohawk]

People like to read 'definates'. They want to be told what to think. And reviews, for anyone to take seriously, have to have a huge level of self confidence and self importance.

The more self confident they seem, the less likely they are to be questioned.

Basically, you need to be a great BS merchant to pull off that kind of work

IMO/IME

[jmattbassplaya]

Some of my favorite movies have received pretty low ratings, and some moves that I absolutely despise have received relatively high ratings. It's just better to form your own opinions and take all others with a grain of salt.

[Deluge Of Sound]

No one listens to movie reviewers anymore, really.

But Bill, i hope that this isn't you opting to ignore the experts in favor of public opinion.

That would be distressing.

[L-A]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

People like to read 'definates'. They want to be told what to think. And reviews, for anyone to take seriously, have to have a huge level of self confidence and self importance.

The more self confident they seem, the less likely they are to be questioned.

Basically, you need to be a great BS merchant to pull off that kind of work

IMO/IME

I think 'definates' will be hard to come by.

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

No one listens to movie reviewers anymore, really.

But Bill, i hope that this isn't you opting to ignore the experts in favor of public opinion.

That would be distressing.

Oh, don't worry. Much as I scoff at reviewers, I still have a very healthy disdain for public opinion.

[Pilgrim]

People assert opinion as fact all the time.

In politics - music - religion - you name it. And there are always gullible people ready to believe them.

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

People assert opinion as fact all the time.

In politics - music - religion - you name it. And there are always gullible people ready to believe them.

Including themselves. If you follow me.

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by bassybill

Including themselves. If you follow me.

Yessir. Talk radio is full of them.

[superbassman2000]

In my experiences, I believe any job that deals with dishing out in criticism is more about taking trash talking to the next level. People want to hear negativity. If you think I'm wrong, watch american idol. It's not popular because Randy Jackson thinks they've got something unique, it's because Simon found new ways to insult people. There are critics who are very pleasant and don't say a lot of bad things, and you've never heard of them, because you probably don't even care to hear it...it's like ambient noise--you don't notice the pleasant noises as quickly as you hear a bang or a crash.

What they are doing is giving people what they want, just like cover bands play 80s rock, and the fact that scream 4 exists.

[Deluge Of Sound]

Originally Posted by superbassman2000

In my experiences, I believe any job that deals with dishing out in criticism is more about taking trash talking to the next level. People want to hear negativity. If you think I'm wrong, watch american idol. It's not popular because Randy Jackson thinks they've got something unique, it's because Simon found new ways to insult people. There are critics who are very pleasant and don't say a lot of bad things, and you've never heard of them, because you probably don't even care to hear it...it's like ambient noise--you don't notice the pleasant noises as quickly as you hear a bang or a crash.

What they are doing is giving people what they want, just like cover bands play 80s rock, and the fact that scream 4 exists.

I don't buy it, and the analogy to American Idol is a stretch.

Reviewers often love movies, books and records. They're just doing what they're paid to do: giving informed opinions within the realms of their expertise.

My problem lies squarely with Joe and Josephine Public.

[superbassman2000]

what are the Publics doing wrong then?

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

... giving informed opinions within the realms of their expertise.

Informed how? And what expertise?

Just curious.

[superbassman2000]

Originally Posted by bassybill

Informed how? And what expertise?

Just curious.

they are experts because they say they are

[Deluge Of Sound]

Originally Posted by bassybill

Informed how? And what expertise?

Just curious.

Expertise and informed opinion come from a familiarity with the subject matter, like anything else. In film, that means being aware of all the facets to a film--ideally, you'd want a reviewer to know what they were talking about if/when they noted the canted angles in the Third Man, or the techniques used to create the long take in the opening scene of Childen Of Men.

Secondly, the reviewer's job is to impart their opinion of a film/album/book/whatever using their knowledge and their literary faculty to make it entertaining to read/hear/listen to. See: Pauline Kael, Roger Ebert, Gene Siskel, Armond White etc.

Now, I rarely--if ever--agree with Armond White, but his opinions on films are informed and coherently thought through to a much greater degree than Joe and Josephine, who rarely go beyond "I liked it" or "that was bad," without any examination of why, and no knowledge of cinema to enrich their opinions.

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

Expertise and informed opinion come from a familiarity with the subject matter, like anything else. In film, that means being aware of all the facets to a film--ideally, you'd want a reviewer to know what they were talking about if/when they noted the canted angles in the Third Man, or the techniques used to create the long take in the opening scene of Childen Of Men.

Secondly, the reviewer's job is to impart their opinion of a film/album/book/whatever using their knowledge and their literary faculty to make it entertaining to read/hear/listen to. See: Pauline Kael, Roger Ebert, Gene Siskel, Armond White etc.

Now, I rarely--if ever--agree with Armond White, but his opinions on films are informed and coherently thought through to a much greater degree than Joe and Josephine, who rarely go beyond "I liked it" or "that was bad," without any examination of why, and no knowledge of cinema to enrich their opinions.

I think you're right to some extent when talking about reviewers who have knowledge of mainly technical aspects of their subject, as illustrated by your two examples ("Children of Men" is full of some awesome long takes, btw, especially the one at the climax of the film in the battle scene).

I'm less sure about reviewers's expertise in some other situations, like some of the clowns who pontifcate in album reviews for the music press, for example.

[Deluge Of Sound]

Originally Posted by bassybill

I think you're right to some extent when talking about reviewers who have knowledge of mainly technical aspects of their subject, as illustrated by your two examples ("Children of Men" is full of some awesome long takes, btw, especially the one at the climax of the film in the battle scene).

I'm less sure about reviewers's expertise in some other situations, like some of the clowns who pontifcate in album reviews for the music press, for example.

You mean NME isn't full of scholars?!

Reviews should be emotional and intellectual reactions grounded with a worthwhile knowledge of subject matter.

(Also, that CoM long take is actually three different ones, spliced together with some ingenious editing.)

[Cabazon]

It's what reviewers are supposed to do. The reader should hopefully be aware that it's someone's opinion--otherwise there are much greater problems at hand.


It'd be really annoying to read movie reviews with "I think," "to me," and "in my opinion" added somewhere in just about every sentence.

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by Cabazon

It's what reviewers are supposed to do. The reader should hopefully be aware that it's someone's opinion--otherwise there are much greater problems at hand.


It'd be really annoying to read movie reviews with "I think," "to me," and "in my opinion" added somewhere in just about every sentence.

Yeah, that makes sense. I still think it's funny how some reviews tell you a lot more about the reviewer than they do about the actual movie.

[Deluge Of Sound]

Originally Posted by Cabazon

It's what reviewers are supposed to do. The reader should hopefully be aware that it's someone's opinion--otherwise there are much greater problems at hand.


It'd be really annoying to read movie reviews with "I think," "to me," and "in my opinion" added somewhere in just about every sentence.

+1.