Movie Critics vs Trusting Your Gut - Richard Brown

[bldrake]

Very true. Critics are important, but it's also important to understand that their opinions may be biased.

I always read Roger Ebert's reviews, for example, cause I learned how he thinks. 80% of the time I agree with him, but I always know that what I like in a movie may not be his particular cup of tea, and in that case, he may give a negative review while I may love the movie. I can love a movie just for the way a certain character speaks. It's very subjective.

[meleemaster1up]

I don't like this guy at all.

Everyone is a critic. Nothing separates the pros from the rest of us but a pay check. They're giving us an honest opinion about what they felt was lacking from a film.

We should trust critics. They aren't trying to be douchebags. They're just giving their opinions.

[planetdarwin]

Bruce Willis will be able to play this guy in 10 years.

[shall1028]

Brown is not making, to quote funkalunatic "a criticism of a criticism" but rather he is presenting and analysis of criticism. That is a "detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation".

No OMG, no irony, no meta.

[dreamdewil]

I love "The Big Lebowski" and my mom thinks it's boring.

[funkalunatic]

OMG it's a criticism of criticsm. So ironically meta.

[1RadicalOne]

I'm not much for film critics - often I drastically depart from their opinions.

[marcmerlin]

Brown's criticism of critics is self-defeating on its face. If critics are, in some sense, not to be trusted, then why would we place stock in the criticism of critics that he offers?

People should be encouraged to seek out opinion from a variety of sources and to educate themselves on how to skeptically utilize the perspectives being offered. Just as they would with book reviews or political analysis.

Learn to weave the richest interpretation from your own experience and that of others.

[type102]

His point is that all criticisms are biased, by the individual's personal experiences.

[marcmerlin]

If Brown is *only* suggesting that critics are biased by their personal experiences then he tells us nothing other than that critics are human - not exactly breaking news. But he goes further, insisting that critics are not only ignorant of their biases but deceive us in turn. His own claim that critics never confess to being lost in the twists of a complicated plot is, itself, a dishonest representation of their work.

[anothergazman]

I think that the suggestion is that critics should be taken at face value as their opinion is just that, their opinon. While it is true that a critic should be trained to view a movie in greater depth then your average viewer (and then pass on this insight) this is not always the case and is always subjective. I have myself read more than 1 review made by people who haven't even seen the movie or have had a personal but not artistic axe to grind.

[marcmerlin]

I agree, viewers need to be aware that critics are subjective and that their opinions need to be taken with a grain of salt. It is up to the marketplace (of ideas) to determine whether they are indeed insightful, but why bother to read one if you thought otherwise.

The problem is that Brown casts critics as having little to offer us apart from ignorant self-deceptions. His "eunuchs at an orgy" characterization at the end attributed to Mel Brooks suggests the low regard in which he holds them.

[anothergazman]

Indeed but the quote you mention is more about the fact that when a critic goes into a movie he goes in working rather than experiencing the movie on a personal level. An example, take a movie like transformers, you can go in with all of your knowlege lighting, direction and script writing and easily tear it apart, or your average guy could walk in and just enjoy it for what it is, an action movie with lot of explosions and some eye candy.

[marcmerlin]

We may agree on the intention of the "eunuchs" quote, but not on its accuracy.

I don't believe for a minute that critics check their emotions at the door when they go to a movie. I think good critics combine their visceral reactions to a film with their knowledge of film-making and other analytical resources to try to help us appreciate movies more fully. I don't think that that makes them right, but it does make them interesting.

Brown's search for "who is right" is fundamentally misguided.

[anothergazman]

Or at least as subjective as any other criticism, but thats kind of the point he was making. In the classes he's taken he tells his students not to read any reviews in order that they can get their own "gut reaction" as opposed to going in with pre conceptions provided by another person. I completely agree however that a good critique can enhance one's appreciation of the minutia of a movie though i'd rather get this after an intial viewing as I'd have a more rounded view of the subject matter.

[syphuse]

So glad he pointed this out. Critics are as bias as the rest of us and are far from infallible. Movies are art and ALL ART IS SUBJECTIVE. But this is a brainless culture. It's easier to go see whatever the media/news hype machine tells you (and if you think critics aren't part of that cycle you are very naive) then to do a little research and talk with people who know your taste and feel out if the movie is for you.

[wimscheers]

If you need a good critique, go to IMDB. Read the best one, read somebody who loved it and read somebody who hated it. And the guy that hated it wrote in caps, skip and find a decent one. And always remember to interpret the critic himself. Not all of us have time to blindly walk in a cinema and watch every possibly decent movie, choices have to be made. Just be sure you chose based on the right persons.

[arequipa1]

also, pay attention to choice of words.... if the critic says it's a lighthearted romp or something like that, you know to avoid it. (unless you want that kind of thing.)