Who needs critics?

L

lildeb1258

New member
Who neeRAB critics? So posits the latest (Oct 08) cover of Sight and Sound (which if you don't know, is a fantastic magazine published monthly by the BFI, containing profiles of films/directors, snippets of upcoming interest and. reviews of EVERY film and many DVD's to be released in the UK for that month.)

The article is entitled 'Who NeeRAB Critics?' not 'Who NeeRAB Criticism?,' which indicates the specific thrust of the article, (i.e., with the proliferation of criticism on the web by bloggers and 'amateur' critics, is there any need for the professional critic?)

The accompanying two articles (and sidebars) attempt to answer the two following questions:
a) Are professional critics necessary in the digital age?
and
b) Which critic has most influenced you? (asked to other professional critics)

Now obviously these questions were aimed at exactly those 'professional critics' who the article asks were necessary. SO I thought I would open up this question to all the 'amateur critics' on this forum.

So, I would love to hear your answers to the following:

a) Are professional critics necessary in the digital age?

b) Which critic has most influenced you?


My answers are the following:

a) I am one of those people that is of the opinion that professional criticism is as necessary, if not more, in the digital age. Though 'professional' is a loaded word and plenty of bloggers are making a nice bit of money and many blogs have an editorial staff, I think that the importance of being able to have the sort of peer review that having to write for editors provides gives the criticism a second layer of quality, that may be there in many blogs, but is not a necessary condition.

b) The critic who most influenced my interest in film was Francois Truffaut. Prior to reading his book of interviews with Alfred Hitchcock, I always thought of 'art' films and 'popular' films as being sperate entities. After reading the book I realized how popular film can be great art as well.
 
I agree totally. The problem with blogs and internet forums is that most people's idea of a review is "I hate/love this, therefore I am right." Also the same people also cannot tell the difference between opinion and fact and write as such. You do get some people who can write blogs as good as professional critics and I would like to think that if they wanted those people could get jobs reviewing things professionally, and by the same token, there are professional reviewers who are every bit as bad as bloggers but capable of writing that rubbish more eloquently.
 
Roger Ebert is easily the best movie critic out there. Even when i don't agree with him (around 30 to 40% of the time) i find he still presents a compelling argument.

Can't say i follow movie criticism on the 'net that thorougly (I read Right & Sound, always check for reviews by Ebert and keep an eye on Kermode and check IMDB but that's about it) but as far as music criticism goes, most of the best and most knowledgeable new writers of the past decade started on the web, myself included.
 
We need critics. I don't believe everything they say, but then again, you don't believe half the things anyone says on these forums - we're all different. We argue most of the time (the Step Brothers thread is a good example of this) and occasionally we rally together (Disaster Movie thread).
 
I've never thought of it before, but now that you mention it, he would be perfect. I believe him more than anyone else, Jonathan (I've got to be nice to them - I'm interviewing them on my chat show next week) Ross included.
 
Definately, Kinseyjaf.

I liked JR's book on obscure/exploitation cinema which came out in the mid-90's but other than that he should stick to his radio show and fawning over guests he has on his lazily researched chatshow.
 
my pet hate is actors saying "i never read critics". haha thats usually because what they have just released has been slated by everyone. i find it quite arrogant they think their work is above criticism.

if a film gets roundly slagged off in most of the reviews i have read then 9 times out of 10 that film is usually rubbish.

better a critic warns someone off spending their hard earned money on some garbage an actor is promoting rather than then a year down the line the actor say "i hated that film, it was rubbish (but i had to promote it)".

they look down on critics too which makes me laugh - most writers managed to write their own worRAB - actors don't. they say other people's worRAB
 
I feel Ebert's lost the plot in recent years-he seems to give 3 or 4 stars to everything thesedays.Always preferred Maltin,when it comes to American film critics,I disagree with him less :D
Times where I feel they really got it wrong are when Ebert gave New Jack City a big rating (it's decent but not that good) and when Maltin gave Blue Velvet a low rating,because it was too weird for many mainstream cinema goers,yet gave Naked Lunch a higher rating (a much stranger movie :confused:).

Totally agree with replacing Ross on Film Night,but not sure if Kermode is the man for the job (he did call The Deer Hunter,one of the worst movies ever).Although he certainly would be much more interesting than Jonathan,and is more qualified.
 
Kermode also raved about Basic Instinct 2 (allegedly because he is big mates with one of the stars)

Agree about the second section, but I'd rather someone who could see merit in things he doesn't personally like, get the gig.

I actually think they should have shelved Film XXXX when Barry Norman left and created a new program to replace it, and they certainly should do that now.
 
I agree with that 100%. A few great scenes held together by an awful lot of dross.

While Kermode can sometimes come across as a bit of a luvvie or an obligatory contrarian he really does know his stuff and even if i disagree with him, which i often do, at least his reviews and arguments are passionate and interesting.

I think he's one of the few UK critics who has enough personality to carry a tv show like Film as he manages to avoid being either a glib yes-man or an over-academic canon subscribing stuffy bore.
 
Kermode is more horror though, I usually agree with him in the horror field but outside of horror I don't really take any notice of him. I'd rather have him than Ross though, more interesting to listen to and when interviewing people.

We need pro critics, people who have studied film and so on, the majority of the public, public bloggers(unless they have a passion for film/cinephiles) don't know a very good film when they see it most of the time, especially when it comes out of the entertainment realm and into art films.

:p


There was another film review show on BBC that was shown on the weekend and hosted by some bald man standing in New York, quite liked that show.
 
I'd never have put it in with those three. But in my mind it was always 100% linked to Barry Norman.


and I always liked Talking Movies whenever I got chance to watch it.
 
Back
Top