It seems that technology is pushing out the old way of critiquing movies. According to this New York Times article, many newspapers are no longer interested in paying writers to review current films, but have given that task over to bloggers. As you can imagine, those critics who were being paid to go to movies and then write their reviews are not happy.
Admittedly, I don't pay a lot of attention to the critic's opinion when I decide to go to a movie. I've found that many "critically acclaimed" movies are not worth the price of admission, and likewise, just because a certain reviewer didn't give it five stars, I may love it. I do admit to occasionally reading a review prior to seeing a film, or more likely around Oscar time. However, I tend to ask the opinion of friends or family to get their reaction.
I suppose that blogging has become the "friends and family" way to gather information. In our internet driven society, we gravitate to communications that make us feel comfortable. We still want to know whether a movie is worth spending the $20 (ticket plus snack) or if we'd be better off waiting until it's on DVD and just renting it. So we find ways to share our thoughts on movies through blogs. Now instead of having an "expert" tell us to go or not go to the movies, we can feel like we're getting a more genuine reaction to the film.
I like this quote from the article that ties the elements together well: "Given that movie blogs are strewn about the Web like popcorn on a theater floor, there are those who say that movie criticism is not going away, it’s just appearing on a different platform." Isn't that what we've been discussing in our class? All of the different platforms - mediums - that we can be literate in. People have a need to communicate with one another and the lovely part is that we can use lots of different ways and methods to do so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Perhaps, for most movies, reviewers aren't necessary anymore... but I still check rogerebert.com every friday to see if he's posted any reviews. He's been out lot the last year or so with various illnesses, of course, which reduces his output lately. I'll be very sad when he retires fully, I haven't found anyone else that's such a pleasure to read.
I have books of his reviews at home and like to look up reviews of older movies I watch on netflix. He's extremely literate in film history, of course, but also in literature and politics and many other areas. And whether or not I agree with his reviews, he's an excellent writer (does any other movie critic have a Pulitzer?) and simply a good man.
Someone in my brother's classes at Columbia Collge was complaining that he gives popcorn movies too much credit, never disses things enough. And my brother's teacher said, well, he met Ebert and his conclusion was he's simply too cheerful to be as negative as some people expect movie critics to be when they've got his kind of background (The Onion's reviewers rarely give anything above a B-, for instance).
Because he's well respected (and, by the way, all of Siskel & Ebert are also available online along with his print reviews) he can champion many smaller movies and foreign films that few people would see otherwise. His essays are great, though he definitely set of a bit of a tempest in a teapot with his remarks about videogames.
Post a Comment