I personally tend more toward personal reviews, in the sense that I will often give some context about why I feel or respond a certain way to particular themes or situations.
Often after watching a movie, I will seek out a few reviews from people like Ebert, especially if I feel that there may be some aspect I did not fully understand. Other times I seek out reviews for more cultural context, especially if it references a historical event that I know very little about.
The problem, I think, is that people who want to sound expert and knowledgeable tend to speak in absolutes. And while it sort of accomplishes that task, it can also be kind of alienating. So instead of saying "I found the lead performance flat," a review will say, "The lead performance falls flat." And that absolute way of speaking can convey an attempt at objective statement.
... I think that reflecting on which types of writing we give value, and which type of writing we resent can be a worthwhile thing.
Often after watching a movie, I will seek out a few reviews from people like Ebert, especially if I feel that there may be some aspect I did not fully understand. Other times I seek out reviews for more cultural context, especially if it references a historical event that I know very little about.
The problem, I think, is that people who want to sound expert and knowledgeable tend to speak in absolutes. And while it sort of accomplishes that task, it can also be kind of alienating. So instead of saying "I found the lead performance flat," a review will say, "The lead performance falls flat." And that absolute way of speaking can convey an attempt at objective statement.
... I think that reflecting on which types of writing we give value, and which type of writing we resent can be a worthwhile thing.
I mean, yes, it’s inductive reasoning, but there’s only so many ‘I think’s and ‘In my view’s that you can fit in a review, and I agree with you that they are unnecessary. I like reviews, always read them (though recently stopped doing so before I check a film out as it affects my perception if the reviews are bad), but I much prefer them to be neutral, and focussed on the technicalities and specifics, rather than Ebert-style personal disses. They remind me of Eminem, for God’s sake, and that’s not the reviewer’s job! They exist as gatekeepers of sorts and that’s how amateurs, or anyone who reads reviews, should treat them, I would argue. They explain what films are all about and, in this light, why this or that film does or doesn’t work. Sure, they can be controversial and you may disagree with them, but they do know better than everybody else in most cases, in my view, because that’s their job, and they should treat it as such and never parade their grudges or politics.
I am sure that Ebert was one of the most knowledgeable film experts of his time and I am no fan of Vincent Gallo (except Buffalo ‘66), but I’m equally sure Ebert knew full well that calling The Brown Bunny the worst film in the history of the Cannes would affect the entire Cannes’ perception of it.
If he had simply calmly said, ‘This, this and this fails to work because this is unconvincing and this is not grounded enough and this is grotesque’, the whole drama with hexing each other with cancer could have been avoided. I was thinking about that recently. One of the most bizarre and disturbing stories out there when it comes to film trivia.
I am always the first to admit nothing and no one is objective, but if you as a reviewer start giving in to trends and saying, ‘Well, I hate this film because it’s disrespectful to women’ (thinking of a specific case but can’t place it) then you’re not doing your job! In fact, a much worse and more extreme example of that is a) people who wrote reviews explaining why they wouldn’t go see Tenet as doing so would be against public health guidelines (I mean, you are implicitly negatively judging a piece of art you can’t even be arsed to see!) and b) critics who similarly said they wouldn’t go see Joker because it promotes violence and is misogynistic, And neither should you, because it must be a **** film if it promotes violence!
Imagine if lawyers began to routinely decline working with clients because, Oh, he’s corrupt, I don’t like that!
Last edited by AgrippinaX; 06-05-21 at 04:26 PM.