 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
89.253.73.146
In Reply to: RE: Best or most popular? Corliss should know better. Just posted by jamesgarvin on December 11, 2007 at 07:14:22
I don't quite agree with missing the point. I mean, would a food critic factor in popularity, or even beg the question?
Follow Ups:
I think Corliss point is this: We critics pontificate about the best films of the year, make up our lists, and no one cares. We write about, and recommend, these obscure films that, despite our best efforts, remain largely unseen by the movie going public. The movie going public has no interest. I and other critict pump up the latest Coen Bros. film, and the only response I get from people in my office is "yea, I keep meaning to see that one." Guess what? They ran out to see Enchanted.
The movie going public would prefer to spend their hard earned dollars on films made strictly for entertainment. And the Hollywood machine, which needs money to survive, promotes and advertises those films made for entertainment, while it spends nary a penny on those films we critics recommend.
The academy will throw us a bone by nominating those art films we love for awards, but then the public will stay away from the award shows because they want to see the big production films, not the small art films.
I do not read Corliss' piece to suggest that critics should factor in mainstream success in their opinions - after all, their opinions are generally published before the box office numbers are tallied. Rather, I think Corliss is suggesting, "what is the point?" "Does anyone really care?"
...multiplexes and our regional reviewers too often speak the politically correct blockbuster line.
Its as if the reviewer is unable to think as an individual, or never really gets the movie but has to puke up something.
If it isn't a "thrill ride" or a "Johnny blow 'em up", they seem to think we won't get it.
We'll I for one do -- dumb and dumber a la cart.
the "tv" or entertainment industry periodical whore that NEVER finds anything at fault in the most inglorious tripe.
"NEVER finds anything at fault in the most inglorious tripe."
Hollywood has the perfect system to make sure they don't. Hollywood rewards obedient critics with exclusive interviews with the stars and invite them to the sets of big productions and things like that. Nobody gets hurt.
This is so old and boring. But there are three ways we can judge the quality of cinema, art, food, whatever.
1. The market decides.
2. The individual decides.
3. An elite--i.e. the critic--decides.
Corliss asks if we need the latter. The question should be, Do we need Corliss?
If Corliss would do his homework he would know that "Hicksville" U.S.A. is the world's single biggest market for French cinema, and that includes France! It is indeed ironic that Americans are the world's biggest Francophiles and the French are the world's biggest Anglophiles. Ah, tough love.
A critic should do more than just rate a movie, he should educate the reader. I'm not talking about education as a chore. The critic can do nothing for people who think reading is gay. Why should he bother? Should Wong Kar-wai care if Joe Schmoo of Boise, Idaho, likes his movies? More important, why should Joe Schmoo of Boise, Idaho, care about Wong Kar-wai? Joe Schmoo of Boise, Idaho, already has Steven Spielberg and the rest of Hollywood kissing up to him. Joe Schmoo of Boise, Idaho, is King of Corporate America.
I'm talking about educating people who want to learn. Some people will say that Wong Kar-wai's In the Mood for Love speaks for itself. But a critic should still explain why it is a great movie.
Hollywood makes 50% of its revenue from the 10 or so top-gross movies each year. Movies like Titanic and The Lord of the Ring do not bring out every movie fan. They bring out people who are NOT movie fans. (I guess they call themselves movie fans. But they are movie fans in the same sense "super-size me" makes you a gourmet.) Again, why would a critic want to limit himself to write for people with a very limited interest in movies?
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
