१२ जानेवारी, २०१५
"Buried within the splendid Roger Ebert documentary 'Life Itself' lies a mini-debate over what might be called critical etiquette."
"Specifically, while Ebert formed close relationships with directors and other talent whose work he critiqued, longtime Time magazine film critic Richard Corliss makes clear he doesn’t want to know his subjects at all, joking that he prefers to think of them as fictional characters," writes Brian Lowry at Variety, and I immediately think: That's how I feel about judges and politicians. I do not want to know them. Any personal connection incites empathy. You've got to keep your edge!
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
११ टिप्पण्या:
Ebert's criticism suffered more from his ideological tenacity than his obsequiousness. This is true of many political analysts as well. But sports analysts suffer most from their friendliness with the people they cover.
Empathy is often at odds with objectivity. But it doesn't have to be. You can like a person and still think their art is crap. With politicians, I acknowledge the ones that are good at being politicians, but that's hardly a compliment.
Any journalist worth a damn will avoid getting to know and certainly will NOT befriend those who (or whose work) he or she must write about.
Some day I'll figure out what people saw in Ebert's work. I never cared for his taste at all, and tended to watch movies despite his ratings.
All a critic does is state an opinion. If you find a critic whose taste in movies, restaurants, music, etc. is similar to your own, then that particular critic has value. You can read his review and use that as a guide on whether to spend your money. Otherwise, it's just someone stating his opinion for what that's worth. I saw many of his reviews and very often disagreed with his opinion of a movie's worth. As such, to me, his reviews were worthless as he wasn't a reliable indicator on whether I'd enjoy a particular movie or not.
The problem I had with Ebert wasn't that his taste differed from mine, but that there seemed to be no pattern to it at all. He would complain about something in one film and then praise the same thing in another. I always suspected that he wasn't actually watching a lot of the films he ostensibly reviewed.
Ebert: Another of whom I care not.
Re: Larry J., a critic one always disagrees with is also useful.
Walling one off from those they critique is critical to the critc's credibility. (Sorry for that awful sentence).
Food critics do not hang out with chefs or restaurant owners. Even if they can remain objective, the reader will never be able to tell. Any positive review of someone you are friends with will always be met with a bit of skepticism.
Sam L. said...
Ebert: Another of whom I care not.
Re: Larry J., a critic one always disagrees with is also useful.
True. If he says it's good, I'll stay away. If he pans it, I'll give it a chance.
If those who can do and those who can't teach, what are critics good for? If they were any good, they'd be doing things themselves instead of just criticizing everyone else's work.
David Broder suffered from this near the end of his life and career. I remember one of his last columns was a defense of Senator Dodd . Broder came right out and said that the charges of impropriety against Dodd , in connection to the Countrywide scandal, couldn't possible be true. Since he[David Broder ] knew both Dodd and his wife very well.And that they were very nice and honest people,ect,ect
That column was a perfect example of why journalists shouldn't become friends with any politician
I miss Ebert. I tend not to read reviews before I see movies, but I do sometimes check them afterwards. There were a number of times during Ebert's last years when my wife and I would see a movie, feel unsettled about it, then check reviews online. Ebert's reviews frequently captured what was right/wrong/interesting about what we had just seen.
We sometimes get caught up in process in matters related to the media. Reviewers aren't judges deciding the fates of men, companies, etc. They' re writers. They should be judged based on the content of their writing.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा