Well the real problem is there's no Ministry of Film Criticism that can hand down hard-and-fast definitions of these terms or settle disputes when gray areas arise. What is and isn't criticism, what the role of the critic is, etc., have always been exactly the questions critics have debated. Every critics' panel discussion I've ever been to addresses these exact questions. This conversation is as old as criticism itself.

Now technology has complicated these questions, but technology has always complicated these questions. (Watch Life Itself: S & E got shit from Richard Corliss and others for doing criticism on TV.) Since there is no ministry for film criticism that can just define these things by fiat, the prerequisite for debating these questions should be for everyone to first to acknowledge that to some extent these distinctions are subjective, informed by one's personal philosophy on art and art criticism. We can argue for our philosophy, beginning sentences with qualifiers like "To my mind" and such, but saying criticism absolutely IS this or a critic's job absolutely IS that, full stop (as if it were just a matter objective fact, binding on everyone without exception), isn't doing much because no critic is under any obligation to accept someone else's definitions for her own work. It's an ongoing conversation that will continue to evolve as the times do. It's not a discussion in which someone can just say "This is what it is, Q.E.D." Never has been.

Well put. This to me, is part of the whole discussion is the scope of film critics and the like.

Also, as you put it, technology complicates things, as it always will. Part of the issue is the ever increasing presence of different opinions, regardless of message. Now, anyone can post something, and have people watch it, without really going through any sort of filtering process or evaluation board. Where's that ministry of film criticism when you need it?

The problem may be the increased variety of film opinions out there, just like in real life. Except there is no filter on the internet.

Don't be ridiculous. We all know what a film critic does. If they can work some analysis into a review, great, that makes them a better writer. I'm not arguing that. My argument is that there is no accepted difference between "film review" and "film criticism". Roger Ebert was a "film critic" who wrote "movie reviews". His website says so. This is not controversial.

But what WAYDM, film professors, and film critics writing the occasional in-depth essay do is a form and level of analysis that is totally different from a movie review. That's why Matt Singer writes op-ed pieces for The Dissolve (what i think Trey would call a "critique" -- here's "One Year Later: Man of Steel"). It gives him a place to do genuine analysis.

Why are you people acting like I've claimed that all movie critics are hacks?

My arguments:

• Film critic and movie reviewer are not different jobs

• The primary job of (most) film critics is to review new movies and recommend the good ones

• Film critics don't do much in-depth analysis, at least not in movie reviews themselves because they are too short and can't give away details

How is this controversial?

Last edited by Zarban (2014-07-17 15:58:22)

Well if that's your argument, then we agree entirely. I expressed that very view in the chat during the recording. (I put it forward as a view, not an incontrovertible law of the universe, but there you go.)

Well now if you're going to argue that your view simply is self-evidently true, all I can say is that I don't think it is. From what I can detect, what's self-evident is that it's not self-evident. As I say, critics have debated the role of the critic and the job of the critic since forever. Good critics have taken different positions, no ministry of film criticism in existence, etc. Ask ten different professional critics what they understand their job to be, or what their publication mandates as their job description, and, I would wager, you get ten different answers.

My point about job descriptions is that I haven't seen critic job descriptions that read in the stark terms you indicate. The job description varies publication to publication, is what I've seen. And when I've heard pro critics opine on the role of the critic, I don't believe I've heard many characterize their job the way you do. That's why I asked if you have.

If you're describing what your personal view of things is, it's not. Zarban's movie magazine jolly well should give its critics a clear mandate. When president Obama appoints Zarban Secretary of Health and Human Film Criticism, you can standardize these rules for all in the field. Until then, these precepts are your own (perfectly reasonable and uncontroversial) philosophy of what criticism should do. Clearly others approach the subject slightly differently. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

Last edited by Rob (2014-07-17 18:06:27)

If you think that is anywhere near the same ballpark as what Shallit does, or even worse, that he's SUPPOSED to do what Shallit does, I don't even know what to say.  I know I'm a smudge biased because I'm friendly with Drew, but like Kael, like Siskel, like A.O. Scott, I consider this more Film Curation then anything else.  It's not explicit review, nor is it frame by frame analysis.  But in writing about film it's a bit of everything.  Like Paul gets real skittish about Taxonomy of film, I get very aggravated about Taxonomy of film reviews (for some weird reason, and I get that it's weird).  All I know is that I appreciate this BECAUSE of the immersive connection, the deep dive into the film.  I can't say I see the same with CinemaSins and the ilk.

I missed the concession, so my mistake on that one.

Jeez, can we please, please leave CinemaSins out of this? Can we please stop finding fault with them for not meeting a high standard as movie reviewers when they aren't movie reviewers? They're not even in the same ball park, largely because they're not even trying to be. They're playing a different game, yo. Leave it alone.

If that's not possible, can we at least concede that there are a wealth of other people out there doing (actual) movie reviews who (actually) are terrible, and that, for the purposes of moving this discussion forward, they might be a better target? Continuing to go back-and-forth debating the point in this thread as well seems like a massive waste of time to me.

CinemaSins don't do reviews, they do comedy shows based on nitpicking.

'Scene does not contain a lapdance' or 'Hermione is not old enough to be hot in this scene' are not serious movie criticisms.

So, you haven't actually watched any CinenaSins videos, Doc?

No, they are running gags. In comedy videos.

Well, obviously comedy is subjective.