Herron/Cooke/Thompson

FILMdetail's Ambrose Herron on yet another anti-blogger screed written by a print journalist (the Guardian's Rachel Cooke). Cooke's piece was posted roughly three weeks ago (9.3) -- why does it take people like Herron and Anne Thompson so long to respond to these things? Why am I posting this item myself? I don't really give a shit about any of this. That's not true -- I do give a shit about some of it.

Life is duty<< previous | next >>"Babel" backlash?

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on September 20, 2006 at 4:31 PM

comment #1

corey3rd Author Profile Page says ...

Nobody cares about film critics. And even fewer people care to hear them whine about how important they are to the movie watching process. They're being phased out at newspapers that would rather run interviews with the stars. I don't see how any kid entering college with the dream of being a film critic is going to feed themselves. Do I really need to read some wonk wank off about how some film reminds them of another film? Half the time it's like they're making stories out of clouds. They're not seeing the movie, they're creating their greatness in the space between the characters.

The average person can watch a 2 minute trailer and pretty much decide if they're going to put their money down on the flick.

Posted by corey3rd Author Profile Page at September 20, 2006 10:01 PM

comment #2

Dave Polands Gut Author Profile Page says ...

Another example of the Old Media trying hard to make themselves feel relevant and worthy. Their facade is crumbling. They know it.

Posted by Dave Polands Gut Author Profile Page at September 21, 2006 8:28 AM

comment #3

corey3rd Author Profile Page says ...

in the pre-home video era, the film critic had the advantage over the average viewer since supposedly they'd seen all these films. The average viewer didn't have the time or connections to see the obscure titles that might never had come to their town or didn't run on the Million dollar movies - especially the foreign stuff. Half the time they merely read about a movie that the critic described without never seeing it.

But now we live in an era of netflix. There's no superiority dance. The casual viewer can see for themself if this film is really a work of genius by ordering in the DVD.

I think the audience also doesn't like the critic because they don't pay to the film. Plus they get paid to write up their review. A reader thinks a blogger is a bit more honest about a movie since they paid for their ticket (or at least hustled for a freebie pass to a sneak preview) and is writing a review from the gut and not to pull in a paycheck and suck up to their lofty reviewer friends.

Do we really need a "critic" to tell us about Jackass 2? Or would we rather hear from someone who went to see the film to be entertained and not merely punch the clock?

Posted by corey3rd Author Profile Page at September 21, 2006 9:53 AM

Leave a comment