Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by Peter H-son (A) on December 12, 2007 at 11:42:27

In Reply to: RE: Best or most popular? Corliss should know better. Just posted by jamesgarvin on December 11, 2007 at 16:04:30

This is so old and boring. But there are three ways we can judge the quality of cinema, art, food, whatever.

1. The market decides.

2. The individual decides.

3. An elite--i.e. the critic--decides.

Corliss asks if we need the latter. The question should be, Do we need Corliss?

If Corliss would do his homework he would know that "Hicksville" U.S.A. is the world's single biggest market for French cinema, and that includes France! It is indeed ironic that Americans are the world's biggest Francophiles and the French are the world's biggest Anglophiles. Ah, tough love.

A critic should do more than just rate a movie, he should educate the reader. I'm not talking about education as a chore. The critic can do nothing for people who think reading is gay. Why should he bother? Should Wong Kar-wai care if Joe Schmoo of Boise, Idaho, likes his movies? More important, why should Joe Schmoo of Boise, Idaho, care about Wong Kar-wai? Joe Schmoo of Boise, Idaho, already has Steven Spielberg and the rest of Hollywood kissing up to him. Joe Schmoo of Boise, Idaho, is King of Corporate America.

I'm talking about educating people who want to learn. Some people will say that Wong Kar-wai's In the Mood for Love speaks for itself. But a critic should still explain why it is a great movie.

Hollywood makes 50% of its revenue from the 10 or so top-gross movies each year. Movies like Titanic and The Lord of the Ring do not bring out every movie fan. They bring out people who are NOT movie fans. (I guess they call themselves movie fans. But they are movie fans in the same sense "super-size me" makes you a gourmet.) Again, why would a critic want to limit himself to write for people with a very limited interest in movies?