 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.37.240.251
In Reply to: Although I certainly don't always agree with him... posted by EBerlin on December 21, 2005 at 04:49:33:
***He strikes me as someone who likes to highlight what's good in filmsThat's a sure road to mediocrity
Follow Ups:
Victor, I imagine any readers who bother to pay attention are amused by any exchanges that take place between you and me. Rarely have I encountered someone who I think is so completely wrong so much of the time. If we were to meet and shake hands I think the perfect match of positive and negative would cause us to cancel each other out and we'd both simply cease to exist.Although I presume you'll reject the very validity of the analogy, let alone the argument within in, I will counter your (to me) simple minded statement about highlighting what is good as a "sure road to mediocrity," with the following illustration.
Let's say two people sit down to a series of 10 meals. To give the argument more traction lets say these are the only 10 meals available over a 10 day period. Person 1 takes a couple of bites of each dish at a meal and concludes in 7 of the 10 meals that "the food sucks" so they stop eating. And sometimes they take a bite of only one dish but find it so gross that they decline to sample the other offerings on the plate. From that one bite they conclude "the food sucks." They only gain a day's nutrition from three of the available meals.
Person 2 eats perhaps a little more slowly, and makes sure they sample at least some of every dish at every meal. Sometimes they try a dish and don't like it much, but look at it and say "Well I haven't had any of that kind of vegetable lately, so if I eat it my nutrition will be more balanced." To compress this a little, person two moves more carefully through the various meals, trying to find as many dishes as they can to eat, maybe even trying to combine two things that aren't so good in the hope that together they become palatable. This second person is more inclined to say, for example: "Well, in two of the meals there was nothing I liked and I decided to go hungry. In three other meals I ate about half of what was there but couldn't get down the rest. In two more there were a couple of garnishes I could live without but on balance it was a pretty good meal. And in the remaining three the food was really good and I ate everything. And in one of those three it was a meal for the ages." In the end person two gains a lot more nutrition than person 1.
Person 2 is obviously the one who is more on the lookout for what's good in a meal, culinary or cinematic. It is decidedly NOT a recipe for mediocrity. It results in an infinitely more nuanced appreciation for what's on the table. And if I ever need a guide to make sure I don't go hungry, I'd go for person 2 every time. I'd let person 1 feel superior to "all those pathetic cooks who don't know their ass from a pan" and sit down to my meal.
In the end, true criticism should be about helping people better understand and appreciate what they see. The point is not simply to a watchdog for a person take on what's mediocre. If that's all a critic does he or she is the very definition of mediocrity themselves.
Elliot Berlin
YOu might want to spend more time looking at the role the critics play and the role they SHOULD play. People like Belinsky...The word "critic" is not linked to word criticize by chance. Else those people would be called some other name.
A good coach will always address the weaknesses first, for it is mostly the elimination of them that moves the athlete forward.
Put simply, I am not interested in discovering the few good things in a poorly prepared meal - I want a good meal instead.
I am sick and tired of all that politically correct crap, where we are taught to accept any crap that comes our way.
The role they *should* play? What is that, a sort of aesthetic traffic cop?Here's one take on the term source:
Etymology: Latin criticus, from Greek kritikos, from kritikos able to discern or judge, from krineinDiscernment *and* judgement are about a WHOLE lot more than simply a thumbs up or thumbs down conclusion. Every judge is required to be able to handle more than a simple "off with his head."
And if you look at classic works of literary criticism, say Northrop Frye's _Anatomy of Criticism_ or Eric Auerbach's _Mimesis_, the entire body of the work is about explication and assisting the understanding and appreciation of others.
That's not to say that critics should always avoid summary judgements. Sometimes that's appropriate. But most of the time it doesn't add anything to the larger cultural conversation.
I submit that most classics of serious criticism are not about narrow judgements of good and bad, but about furthering the ability to appreciate, understand, and discern.
This is now quite different from what you wrote earlier: "He strikes me as someone who likes to highlight what's good in films"Always highlighting what is good is the job of an industry lackey, and Ebert is one. A true critic would try to evaluate the work in its entirety, which is far different from your "summary judgement" strawman.
There is nothing wrong with finding something good in an otherwise bad film, and pointing that out, provided one has guts and integrity to call it BAD. It seems like Ebert simply doesn't have guts, or, as some others put it, he is on the industry take, even if not overtly, and his job is really to assure good crowds.
My reaction would have been similar if you stated critic's job was in finding faults with the creation. As I said, neither would be true.
It is not "different." The two comments coalesce, as described by the person who replied to your comment below.
Surely it IS different. It is all in the details. Your statement, to which I objected, had nothing about those "other" things, that were brought into the discussion later.The example below is a bad one, as there could be two different distinct flavors to such comments. One would be to say "Overall it is a failure as a film, even though it has a few interesting moments, like this and that". The troublesome one would be "Johnny's handwriting is so incredibly good!" forgetting to mention it was the algebra test that Johnny failed miserably.
Actually, there are two faces to Ebert. When he writes about good or great classics, I enjoy his work, and usually tend to agree, and love his style and depth. But when he starts writing about mediocre mass-culture crap, it is like that person in my second example.
Of course you can say I have not kept up with him... I stopped reading him for that very reason long ago. But there definitely was that flavor of salesman pitch in his popular reviews.
I would like Victor to prove his slanderous remark that Ebert is a shill -- Victor does not seem to have a problem with those critic shills recommending his tube amplifiers -- the same people unwilling to call the B&W 705 (the height of overpriced crap) great speakers (or most of the other garbage that Stereophile recommends).Funny how one's a shill(Ebert who has loads of money) and the other isn't (advertising accepting stereo review magazines that would go out of business without B&W and Paradigm's contributions). Seems these ad taking mags LIKE everything (whether it is a Tivoli or a BAT no matter how lousy it is or how good. Ebert's list of thumbs down movies sure doesn't make me think he's on the take.
Ebert reviews the movie based on what the artist or entertainer(and fillm's are created for both purposes) has in mind and if it succeeds then chances are he will recommend it. I see nothing wrong with a movie that attempts to be a "roller coaster ride" and does that job effectively -- audiences will determine which of those LAST and which ones were the cream of the Crop. Jaws is an example judging by DVD sales 30 years after it's initial release. Art films have a much more difficult task as they are merely hyped and discussed by nobodies on internet forums -- err or people like Roger Ebert.
I don't particularly like Jurassic Park but I gave it a 3 star rating due to the element and goal it was intended for (it succeeded for the most part) Ebert's review actually was excellently written for Jurassic Park and based on that review alone I think I GET where Ebert is coming from when he reviews films. Unlike the shills at the magazines who don't tell you the BLUNT truth (and when that reviewer at TAS actually told the truth about the Wilson Watt they pulled his review for a "positive" one), Ebert usually indicates why he recommends a film and backs it up. That is what a good critic should be doing and Ebert does it very well. Which is not to say that I al;ways agree with him - I find him too easygoing on movies that make me groan but I believe it is honest opinion.
The JP review is a good one
- http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19930611/REVIEWS/306110302/1023 (Open in New Window)
Too many people, apparently Victor included, need to realize that a professional critic must not only pass judgment on a film, but must also describe both positive and negative elements of a film. They also write knowing that their audiences are varied, with different tastes, and the critics job is to communicate to members of that audience elements of the film they may enjoy. So while Ebert may not like a film, because it may not be his taste, he realizes that the film will be to the taste of people in his audience, and needs to make those readers aware of whether they would like the film.And far from being a "Hollywood shill", there is probably not a critic in this world who reviews more foreign and independent films than does Ebert. He also runs a film festival largely for those films that are not churned out by the big studios. But then, unless you actually took the time to read Ebert, these are facts which a writer would be unaware.
The film is crap, but since you love the crap it is a great film for you!I like that! No absolutes, only slight shades of acceptable!
Your post makes me stand harder on what I said first in this thread - such behavior leads to mediocrity.
In fact, you are not even disagreeing with that... all you seem to be saying that being mediocre is fine... as many people indeed love mediocre.
You seem to like strawmen - mischarachtarizing what I wrote, then telling me why I am wrong. I never said or implied that "the film is crap, but since you love the crap it is a great film for you!" Nor do I ever recall Ebert writing that either. I do think that films are inherently subjective. If someone likes a piece of crap, say, the Russian film Mother and Son directed by Sokurov, which I think is one of the two or three worst films I have ever seen, but you love the film, then who is right? If you like the film, then who am I to tell you that you are wrong? If I reviewed the film, I would simply describe the film, and write that watching paint dry was more emotionally and intellectually involving, and if that is your cup of tea, have at it. Why should I care if it a great film for you? My life goes on.Nobody wrote that there were no absolutes, only shades of acceptable. Once again, you have misstated, I assume accidently, what I wrote. Enter into Ebert's website all the films he has given zero through two and a half stars, and there are a litany of films. Some are scathing reviews. Clearly, there are not only shades of acceptable, otherwise everything would be a postive review. But then you would not understand this unless you did the research.
I never wrote that mediocre is fine. Films, like music, and dare I say amplifier design, are inherently subjective. If they were not, then there would be one way of doing them. I would ask you for "absolutes", but then, your list would probably be different than mine. So I am not sure there are absolutes. Maybe for that person. If there are absolutes in amplifier design, then are all the other manufacturers wrong because they do not adhere to your thoughts? Are poor Patrick's Krells deficient in some way, dare I say, mediocre?
Or is your version of "absolutes" open so long as they comport to your opinions? I do not care if people care for what I deem to be mediocre. Why you are so concerned puzzles me. Perhaps your years of growing up in a society in which the government attempted to control actions and thoughts has stunted your growth and ability to appreciate that some things are so inherently subjective, that there are no "answers".
But what is most decidedly not subjective is whether a person is a "shill", or on the take. Which is what you accused Ebert of. Disagreeing with their opinion is the name of the game, but impugning their charachter is not, which you most certainly do when you accuse them of being dishonest. Particularly when you have not the fortitude to do so directly to them. So perhaps you can set forth your evidence that Ebert is a shill. Or maybe enter the world of human beings and retract those comments. And I thought Patrick was critical of name calling. Hmm, maybe he will enter this discussion.
Ebert is a movie lover - Victor is not. Victor has a veyr narrow vision of things - probably in all things outside of movies -- and I would be willing to bet that he is a conservative in his political views as well (as from msot of the people I have met it tends to follow). All things are subject to a narrow box of what is right and good in his world and anything that deviates from that narrow vision is "wrong" in some way.Luckily Ebert is the one they pay the money to, someone who appreciates all genres of films on their terms and evaluates from that basis. He is intelligent, worldly, humane, sensitive, and passionate enough to be a film lover turned film critic who understands what movie making is REALLY about. Victor can't shove his self-appointed small minded, silver spooned ego out of the way to even consider anyone elses opinions of film or anything else, I suspect. You see he doesn't consider that film or art is the least bit subjective -- it is objective in his world view and there is no argument - like arguing with the ultra right wing Religious set, he is the sole dicatator of what is considered right and moral and which Art is good and which art is not. And if you can live your life in a pompous enough way you may actually believe in the artifical superiority God Complex you've provided for yourself. Until you realise that the paper thin ego has little intellect behind the posts. He can't address any of your literary criticim arguments because that would have required him to understand what literary criticism really is so instead you get terse and vague commentary written in a condescending manner to seem "elite" enough to poo-poo everyone else.
***...I would be willing to bet that he is a conservative in his political views as wellHe would not dare!
Ebert often tilts with the Hollywood establishment, as he did on the MPAA rating of "Whale Rider" and the dismal way the Academy treats documentaries.
Correct. He always rails against the MPAA's rating system, particularly as it pertains to sex, and generally complains with the Academy's treatment of not only documentaries, but also animation films. Total shill.
"Always highlighting what is good is the job of an industry lackey, and Ebert is one."I think that you are missing the point. You can highlight something good in a film, but still not recommend the film. Doing so does not make you a lackey. "That speaker reproduces a solid bass, but is not recommended because of what it does to the midrange" does not make the critic a lackey. It merely means the critic did his or her job, and described the entire experience. If you actually read Ebert with any regularity you would know he very often not does not recommend a film, but does discuss positive attributes of the film. How does that make him a lackey?
"There is nothing wrong with finding something good in an otherwise bad film, and pointing that out, provided one has guts and integrity to call it BAD. It seems like Ebert simply doesn't have guts, or, as some others put it, he is on the industry take, even if not overtly, and his job is really to assure good crowds."
Who are the others that you are referring to? Friends of yours? People who complain about Ebert because they are jealous that they do not get paid handsomely to watch and write about films? Let me know, I'd like to know "some others" credibility. You obviously do not read Ebert's reviews with any regularity, because he is not shy about writing that a film is bad when it is bad. Perhaps you should not be listening to others, but rather doing your own homework. What would your response be if I wrote a statement that "some others" said you dressed up cheap wire in amplifiers to fool your buying public?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
