Critics .......

[Guest RushNY]

This is a spin off from the "Insomnia"post where a couple of regulars were talking about certain film critics,what i'd like to ask is how important is a review of a movie/tv show/cd/porn video whatever by a critic.

Personally if i want to see a movie or tv show i will no matter what may have been written about it.To me its just the opinion of ONE person who may have had issues with a whole host of things when they wrote their review good or bad,some critics think they are God and whatever they write should be seen as Gospel text but to me thats not using your own intelligence and is letting complete strangers dictate what you see or hear.Your thoughts...............

[Rod Hagen]

>should be seen as Gospel text but to me thats not using your

>own intelligence and is letting complete strangers dictate

>what you see or hear.Your thoughts...............

 

If you have found that the reviewer, or even the group of reviewers, tend to mirror your own opinions 999 times out of 1000, then you certainly are using your own itelligence by letting them suffer through the galaxy of junk to find bright stars for you.

 

The key to utilizing the review process-book reviews, theatre reviews, hotel reviews, restaurant reviews, escort reviews, art reviews-is to find those reviewers you trust. So, no, it's not at all about blind trust. It's a smart choice.

[HooBoy]

I do not pay attention to movie reviews until AFTER I see the film. Then, I RUSH home to read what some reviewers had to say. I tend to agree with Ebert, although I did not agree with his Spiderman review. BTW, Rush I noticed in your post in the Spidy thread that you did not like the villain, The Green Goblin. IMHO, I loved Willem Defoe's performance when he was at home facing the mirror grappling with his evil side. I did not think the jet-boarding character was realistic, but, hey, neither is Spiderman. Spidy is just a hell of lot cuter.

 

But Willem Defoe is a very sexy dude and when he was got out of that Rolls, he looked great.

 

To belabor my point made elsewhere, did you notice that there were some gay undertones with The Green Goblin and Norman Osborn? And the Goblin was cozy with Spiderman, too. :-)

[Will]

Movie reviews are very useful to me, as I don't live in a densely urban area where multitudes of multiplexes stand only blocks away. For me it's a project to go to the movies, which means that I don't have the time to see everything nor the patience to sit through a bad film. If I'm going to the energy and expense to spend an evening at the movies, I'd like some help in picking out which one to see.

 

I agree with Rod Hagen. I have found a cluster of critics whose insights and taste I value. I don't always agree, but so what? For me -- and I'm speaking here only for myself -- the best reviews are those to be found in The New Yorker. The critics are bright, witty, and either gay or gay-sensitive; on the other hand, they are less forgiving than I am. The New York Times is my second stop; the local newspaper has one critic who's actually pretty good, in fact, but I use her mainly just to find out what the films are about.

 

The critics most helpful to me encourage me to see a film that I might otherwise pass by. If I'm really interested in one for my own reasons, I'll see it anyway and take the consequences.

[Guest Musclebearshare]

Rod's and Will's comments are spot-on, I think. A critic who's judgements and aesthetics you're familiar with is not a "complete stranger" and good criticism, in any field, is far more useful than simply as a guide to deciding which movie you're going to see this weekend or which book you'll read next. Unfortunately, 90% of what passes for "film criticism" these days is little more than shilling for the studios (particularly the so-called reviewers who appear on local and national t.v. news and shows, who's insights are rarely more significant than "I loved it! You'll love it too!! XYZ-current-Hollywood-megastar has never been better! Oscar should be paying attention!"), and usually isn't very worthwhile. But if you get beyond the entertainment industry hacks, there is still a significant body of engaging, thoughful writers who are worth reading for the sake of what they have to say, not simply for helping you decide what you want to see.

 

Michael

[Guest roninx]

I agree with everyone else. Find a critic that has similiar taste to yourself (a real critic not any joe smoe that they hire as a reviewer). While a review won't stop me from seeing a movie that I really want to see. It does help at times to weed out some of the really bad ones that you might have wanted to see.

 

Save you on wasting some time and $9.50 (or $10 at some theaters).

[Rick Munroe]

I usually let my friend go see a film and report back to me. If he loved it, I know it's manipulative Hollywood crap so Derek & I stay far away. If he hated it, couldn't understand it, or thought it was too intellectual or "artsy-fartsy" (his words), then I know it's a winner. Works everytime.

 

For the record, he thought "A Beautiful Mind" was "artsy-fartsy" and he thought Britney Spears' "Crossroads" was "funny." :o

[bluenix]

>For me -- and I'm speaking here only for myself --

>the best reviews are those to be found in The New Yorker.

>The critics are bright, witty, and either gay or

>gay-sensitive; on the other hand, they are less forgiving

>than I am.

 

Agreed. I'll read Anthony Lane and David Denby just for the pleasure of the exercise.

 

I get a kick out of the insouciant way Lane can sometimes nail it. In one two page review a while back, he mentioned the leading lady exactly once: "the inexplicable Andie MacDowell."

[Bilbo]

Have I ever mentioned that for seven or eight years I was once a critic for local weekly newspapers? (Five years at one, a short stretch at another and then about two years at another.) I covered theater, movies and painting/photography/etc. I also got to interview several interesting people like Patrick McNee, Sarah Jessica Parker's cute and hunky husband, local boy makes good Patrick Swayzee, etc., usually one on one. The flaks really liked my writing and got me in whenever they could. Not only was I under orders of my editors to come down on the happy side (though I understand it was really easy for my readers to tell when I was damning with faint praise) but I didn't really shy away from much of anything. Hell, we were a counter culture paper, why shouldn't I mention dancing and singing sperm, or anything else for that matter. I remember one flak who had gotten me in to interview a black actor on the first film he had ever directed - I was the only white, and the only male, interviewer in the room, and the press lady could tell I was a little nervous about some of the things I wanted to ask him and walked by and quietly told me to go for it. Things like, You know the word homophobic? Wanta explain to me why the villain is the only gay man in the piece? And, while we're on stereotyping, wanna tell me why this particular black character is such a type that a white director couldn't get away with putting him in one of his movies? Oh, it was fun!

[Guest Musclebearshare]

For the record, I thought "A Beautiful Mind" was manipulative Hollywood pseudo-artsy-fartsy crap. But for a date with Russell Crowe, I'd hawk the DVD on streetcorners. I'd have made a highly corruptible film critic.:7

 

Michael

[Will]

As regards A BEAUTIFUL MIND, I cite the immortal words of the New Yorker's Anthony Lane: "If you think the title stinks, try the movie." So I didn't. And remain steadfast in my resolve to boycott Russell Crowe's impersonation of an intellectual. Nothing I have heard from even the most discerning friend has convinced me otherwise.

 

I'll take the Russell Crowe of L.A. CONFIDENTIAL over the pumped-up ape in GLADIATOR. But I'll take the Russell Crowe as the gay son in the THE SUM OF US over any of the others. Being a movie star in Hollywood is not necessarily good for one's art.

[Guest Musclebearshare]

>As regards A BEAUTIFUL MIND, I cite the immortal words of

>the New Yorker's Anthony Lane: "If you think the title

>stinks, try the movie." So I didn't. And remain steadfast

>in my resolve to boycott Russell Crowe's impersonation of an

>intellectual. Nothing I have heard from even the most

>discerning friend has convinced me otherwise.

 

For my money, Crowe was far and away the best thing about BM, the only thing that really kept it watchable through it's seeming endlessness. But judging from pictures of the younger Mr. Nash (a genius, not an intellectual), he didn't look quite as good in a t-shirt as Crowe. Jennifer Connelly was good too.

 

>I'll take the Russell Crowe of L.A. CONFIDENTIAL over the

>pumped-up ape in GLADIATOR. But I'll take the Russell Crowe

>as the gay son in the THE SUM OF US over any of the others.

>Being a movie star in Hollywood is not necessarily good for

>one's art.

 

I'll take the Russell Crowe of "Romper Stomper" over all of those.

 

Michael

[Guest albinorat]

I was interested in Bilbo's remarks. I've been in 'the biz' a long time and have seen both sides. I've written 'cultural comentary' (translation: this is someone who's been a success now and then who needs the dough now) and within some limits have reviewed (usually within think pieces). I also trained as a musician simultaneously with being in Biblical/Religious studies, so I write more frankly and hatefully in both areas. Finally like Bilbo, I've done a ton of interviews (the easiest work to get in our society besotted culture provided editors and press agents 'like' you -- though you have to keep a balance because if an editor catches on about the press agents he/she may drop you insisting you're writing puff pieces). My hardest interviews were with people I had hired or helped in their careers who did NOT need the money and the kind of job I was doing and 'pitied' me.

 

But OP unless I'm having short term memory problems often wondered how much influence 'critics' have in general, not just with us.

 

My two cents: first of all 'critic' is a specialized term. It means someone who is less interested in whether it's good or bad but in analyzing a number of cultural artifacts for what they may say about a given art form at a given time. For example if I dealt with the new Woodie Allen as a critic, I'd look into the body of his work, his writings, and since the movie is a comedy I'd look into the comedies given major releases over the past year and a half or so. Also, since the movie is about making movies, I'd look into other movies like that (Day for Night, Stuntman etc). My 'piece' would not be "this is 'good' or 'bad" or at least not exclusively that. It would try to situate the work in a general cultural context, viewing it as effective in that context, or not.

 

A reviewer writes short form to a tight deadline. S/he mostly deals with the product at hand and is giving a consumer report. A critic may have actual hands on experience in the art form in question. A reviewer is a fan (of the form, not of the picture, play, opera, rock band whatever, though that happens, there is some non ethical overlap) who gives opinions.

 

There are pompous hard to read critics and those who grind axes but some are really insightful (Shaw on opera for example). There are reviewers who are flacks and stupid but some are very smart (until she burned out -- her last five years -- I thought Janet Maslin of the NY Times was a good reviewer). Of course some 'jobs' allow for and even encourage a mix of the two -- the NY Times over the past five years has hired 'reviewers' who try to take a 'critical stance' usually with variable results (I think the head theater reviewer Brantley is an idiot, best read just for a snarky faggot opinion -- his predecessor Frank Rich, though flawed, not least by extreme ambition, was better at juggling opinion with insight).

 

But our culture is entirely commercial. Prominent reviews not only sell tickets but they position people as either 'on the rise', 'great stars', 'in decline', 'over'. Since perception is everything in arts and show biz, those reviews can mean better contracts and more opportunities, grants, college appointments on the bottom line (hated doing that but bought me a lot of cock), or doors squeaking or slamming shut.

 

For movies there is virtually no criticism in our society. The thousand or so reviews that get published, b'cast or put on line for a major release can create a consensus 'opinion' but usually don't effect biz very much. Spiderman and Scorpian King would have done as well as they did despite bad reviews. The first has done well with reviews and spectacular biz of course, I'd put good to raves at about 65%, OK or better at about 75%; the first did less well -- but pretty good first week biz -- but absoltuely no one who went to it could read so it didn't matter -- I mean paying 8$ to $10 as opposed to waiting to rent the DVD which may have the Rock naked and erect -- well maybe not but will have more and you can jerk off on it.

 

Criticism has died in other arts too, though it can be found if you look hard enough. Theater has suffered the most, since most publications no longer think it's important in a big way. Too many idiots publish reviews. Sadly in NYC the Times' review is crucial for a play to do biz and survive, and it's important if somewhat less so for a musical. No one person should have that power in a democracy and unfortunately not even Rich deserved it, let along this current asshole.

 

For genre novels and a lot of non-fiction it helps to get good reviews because they get the book noticed. But they may not sell a lot of copies (I think the 'average' hard cover sells between 1000 and 5000 copies if it's promoted a lot). Fiction hard covers become big sellers either by genre/name (Stephen King), or word of mouth (how Clancy succeeded). They may have little value as other than beach reading. Non-Fiction is title, theme and publicity driven. The occasional 'serious' book does very well but usually has a timely theme and has gotten a lot of press.

 

Reviews matter for the writers' egos and friends and family and may move some books a little, but rarely make a big difference at the cash register. The NY Times Book Review is insanely corrupt. It's a real club where well known writers (or less well known but active ones) are reviewed by former students, former teachers, best friends, ex-wives, ex-husbands, sometime lovers, writers who want to sell their next book to the same publisher. None of that is ever disclosed. The reviews are sometimes well informed and fair. But that's about 45% of the time I'd say. A lot of time it's either a rim or a hatchet job. In smaller papers and on line around the country you can actually read better books reviews by people who like to read, have some education and would buy the book if they didn't get it for free (though they might wait for the paper back).

 

And my god do I go on...

 

Al

[Guest Musclebearshare]

Well said on the distinction between "reviewers" and "critics." Regarding books, reviews can make a big impact on sales. There is a whole body of books presumed to be "review-driven." What this actually means, I think, is that sterling, prominent, and numerous reviews are almost essential to getting the book off the ground. No book becomes a substantial bestseller (think "Midnight in the Garden...", "Angela's Ashes," "Cold Mountain") only on the basis of good reviews - word-of-mouth either kicks in or it doesn't. But without the reviews, there's only a slight chance that these books might come to readers' attention. Here again, the New York Times is very powerful, and not just the NYTBR. Michiko Kakutani is notorious for jumping pub date with reviews of books she wants to push (and, in some cases, books she wants to bury), as she did, for example, with "Angela's Ashes." Whether through lack of imagination or lack of resources, a sizable number of smaller papers and review outlets take their cue from what the Times reviews, as do features editors. An early, outstanding review in the Times is almost a guarantee that a book will be widely reviewed elsewhere and assures that the author will be more in demand for appearances and interviews. It doesn't guarantee bestseller status, but it helps enormously.

 

I think the Washington Post Book World is hands-down the best of the Sunday book supplements.

 

Michael

[Bilbo]

At the time that I was reviewing, I was very sorry that I didn't read faster than I do. (Took speed reading once, forgot as much of it as I could. You loose the flavor.) There weren't two competeing gay bookstores in Houston then, not to mention the many books coming out from both gay presses and more mainstream presses. The reviewer was more important in helping a new genre and its readers find each other. Now it, like most others, is one where the reviewers need to search out the ones that aren't obvious sells and help the reader see the trees in the forest. (Didn't quite work - trying to riff of the reverse of "can't see the forest for the trees.")

 

In the form that I followed with reviews - first define what the artwork (play, whatever) is trying to do, and maybe say whether you think that that is worth trying, and then judge the work on its own aims. Does it do what it set out to do? So, even in my little reviews, there was a bit of contexting going on.

 

There are now a couple, at least, of books out putting gay plays in perspective with each other - critiquing, in your wonderful terms - but although they are in my library, I can't recommend them because I haven't gotten around to reading them yet. (My bathroom's magazine supply is currently set at November, 2000. The elections are coming up in there, but I've been skipping most of those articles. Don't need the high blood preassure from Bush literally stealing the election all over again.)