Thursday, August 24, 2006

Emerson links

Haven’t been surfing film websites as much as I’d like to, but here’s some stuff I recently read. First, two wonderful posts from Jim Emerson’s Scanners blog, about the many misconceptions surrounding movie criticism: “The death of film criticism has been greatly exaggerated” and “Nobody knows criticism”.
A movie audience that has no use for film criticism, doesn't understand it or realise that it has nothing to do with predicting box-office success or failure, and even less with predicting what you will think of a movie (most critics don't know you), can hardly be expected to understand that movie reviewing is only incidentally a consumer guide. The majority of film critics I know never even think about influencing audience behaviour. They're critics because they like to write about movies.
*Sigh* I wish more people would try and understand the last two sentences. And here's Emerson reacting to a Los Angeles Times poll asserting that movie critics are less influential now:
One of my favourite propaganda techniques – used in politics, journalism, criticism, you name it – is to present evidence (or, better yet, opinion polls cited as if they constituted evidence) refuting something that was never true – or even widely thought to be true – in the first place. It's a form of genius, really – like the opinion polls asking Americans if they believed Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, presented as though it could be made true if a majority felt it was. (There's another term for this technique: Fox News.)
Also, an older site, Jeeem’s Cinepad, with articles about his movie obsessions. Recommended: “An indepth and critical survey of plumbing in the movies”, featuring some of the great bathroom moments in film history.

4 comments:

  1. This looks like it might be an interesting read, but I'm somewhat confused.

    "The majority of film critics I know never even think about influencing audience behaviour."

    ...but the good ones inevitably do. Even the bad ones. It's a little like finding a husband or something, you look for the critic that speaks to youuu, that understands your likes and dislikes and choose to be influenced accordingly.

    Also.."ike the opinion polls asking Americans if they believed Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, presented as though it could be made true if a majority felt it was. (There's another term for this technique: Fox News.)"

    ...I love the last line:) Any dig on Fox news only makes me happy. But such a poll would never appear on Fox. Isn't it significant that a large number of Americans believe in fiction (validity of polls aside)?

    ReplyDelete
  2. ...but the good ones inevitably do. Even the bad ones.

    Sony Pony: Emerson admits that movie reviewing is often a consumer guide, he just adds an "only incidentally". The point here isn't whether or not reviewers do end up influencing viewers. What he's saying is that many of the best reviewers don't expressly write with that intention. And it's silly to treat any verdict as sacrosanct or definitive - that's a bit like treating the reviewer as God. (Back to the "objectivity-subjectivity" blah.)

    I agree with you that it's possible, through a process of trial and error, to find a critic whose tastes usually match yours, and then to use his/her reviews as a yardstick. But I'm sure you'll agree that this isn't a foolproof method. In fact, there's always the danger of coming to identify so closely with a reviewer that when he completely trashes something you loved (and that will happen, eventually), it will end the relationship altogether. Much better to acknowledge that there are as many different perspectives as there are viewers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the link to the plumbing article. It was brilliant. For a while there I was a little worried he might have forgotten about the Shining, but he didn't disappoint me. Awesome stuff.

    Also: "The majority of film critics I know never even think about influencing audience behaviour"

    You mean writing all these posts about French movies on my blog in the hope that some woman might be impressed and want to date me is NOT a good strategy? Now you tell me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. He means audience behaviour only in the sense of influencing them to see/not see a film. No one can deny that a possible sexual outcome is the only real reason we write about movies like Passion of Joan of Arc, oops sorry, La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc...

    ReplyDelete