Someone I know writes a blog. He's quite a thoughtful writer, but the tone of his posts are suffused with anger, especially when it comes to his open hatred of anyone who is even remotely critical of films he likes (which tend to be mainstream franchises such as Indiana Jones and Star Wars). This got me thinking about how much energy this person seems to fritter away worrying that others may not like what he likes, angry that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull just won a Razzie Award for "worst sequel, prequel or rip-off", and penning venomous letters to the editors of NOW Magazine upbraiding the film critic who (gasp!) dared to say that Zac and Miri Make a Porno wasn't a very good film.
My questions for this blogger (and the many others out there like him):
1. If you like something, does having someone not like it take away from your enjoyment of it? If so, how? More importantly, why? Is it some need to feel accepted or validated, to know that your choice of entertainments is shared by others? Perhaps it's the feeling that if something you love doesn't make oodles of box office loot there won't be more of the same in your future, but this can be disproven by history. Since Star Wars in 1977, has there been a dearth of popular (and almost popular, and unpopular) franchise films? Hardly.
2. Aren't critics paid to be critical, or ostensibly offer up their criticism of something they see as sub-standard? Isn't that what he or she is paid to do? Should we do away with criticism and allow the studios and the Marketing Boffins to help us decide what to see? Should all the reviews adopt the 680 News format, with a disinterested announcer merely reading a plot summary or a blurb from a press release?
I've often thought what the angry people of the world could do if they inverted that energy and turned it into creativity. If they spent even a small fraction of the time they spend being angry about critics and other public opinion on creating their own fictions, films, TV shows, there would be plenty of things to watch and read. Some of them might even be good.
Oh, and for the record, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Zac and Miri Make a Porno were both shitty films. Guess I'll be on someone's hate-list for saying so. Only thing is, I don't care.
As I have said in various postings, critics do serve a purpose. Their writings can be informative and instructive. (I am not counting the "no name" -- pardon me -- or the uninformed ones.) And, no, I don't have to agree with them, nor would I want to, necessarily, but an opinion to counter my own -- if I have seen whatever they are talking of -- can be interesting and enlightening in good ol' subjectivity.
ReplyDeleteAs I've noted in my own blog, as much as I disagreed with a Pauline Kael or a Geoff Pevere (much of the time), their own perspective or take on some item gives them personality. And in Pevere's case with his grounding in 'popular culture' and history, I appreciate his take, however obtuse it might be from my own.
"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is junk -- unecessary junk. It's just my opinion.
By "no name" I mean the studio plants like Bill Smith from Trillium Newspaper Group.
ReplyDeleteYah, right. Give me a break. "The best movie I've seen in a long time. A wonderful night at the movies."
Also, your post reminds me: J. H. Williams III is a better artist than Roger Hargreaves.
ReplyDelete