Alex and Wesley,
Excuse me as I elbow my way into this conversation of and about critics. Alex, I think the never-ending “who do we write for?” question applies to all writers, not just critics. Should we play to the lowest common reader, write what we’d want to read, write to get acclaim and attention from our peers, or do some combination of the three? The best critics, I think, take the work they’re critiquing, tumble it around completely, and offer both information and a perspective. In short, it doesn’t matter who they’re writing for as long as they’re writing something substantive. In this era of media supersaturation, people can find what they want to read, whether it’s Harry Knowles, EW’s Lisa Schwarzbaum, or Wesley Morris.
A long time ago, I used to resent critics. Then I became an on-again, off-again critic and realized that it essentially involves explaining what amounts to a very personal reaction to the movie–whether that reaction is based upon a large volume of related knowledge or is just a visceral response to the material.
I’ve stopped using movie reviews as filters, instead preferring to read them after I’ve seen the movie–or if I have no intention of seeing the film at all. Trailers give away way too many details, and if a review mentions even a single scene to clarify a point, I generally feel cheated while I’m watching the movie. I know what to expect and wait anxiously for those moments. I want to be fully engaged by a film, drawn in, lead around for 90 minutes, not consumed with checking off points on my spoiler checklist.
Speaking of spoiling, Variety/Reuters had a blurb today revealing the end of tonight’s second Chains of Love episode. (Last week’s, by the way, was better than Endemol’s previous piece of crap, Big Brother, but it was also appalling, since the contestant who had women chained to him was a manipulative, mentally abusive, sexist jerk.) This isn’t the first time what will happen tonight has happened before on a reality TV show, but it’s still significant, especially since they’re chained together and since it could involve the exchange of money. I’ll be watching, of course.
Andy
