Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon The Picture Dies On Paper: Do Critics Have A Place In Entertainment Anymore?


    Enable Dark Mode!

  • What's HOT
  • Premiere Calendar
  • Ratings News
  • Movies
  • YouTube Channel
  • Submit Scoop
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • Privacy Policy
Support SpoilerTV
SpoilerTV.com is now available ad-free to for all premium subscribers. Thank you for considering becoming a SpoilerTV premium member!

SpoilerTV - TV Spoilers

The Picture Dies On Paper: Do Critics Have A Place In Entertainment Anymore?

Jan 1, 2011

Share on Reddit

Today marks the beginning of my tenth year in journalism. That means I've spent slightly less than half my life in this business, which lends me enough experience to say this: I had no idea that when I decided to focus on entertainment journalism three years ago, that I was also taking membership in a group of pariahs.

At least, that's if you believe what you read. I start each morning reading the entertainment news online, and when I get to the reviews, the comments left there would have you believe that entertainment critics aren't very welcome anymore.

"These reviewers are about as useful as falling on a banana peel," writes one person after an Associated Press film review. "They are miserable and their opinion doesn't make or break these movies."

"Is there some training that one must take to become a movie critic or do you just need a computer and a nasty disposition?" asks another.

These are just two of the ones I can print. I can't reproduce the more colorful insults, which include profanity and insults toward a reviewer's sex life. They're the kind of things I would expect from high school students, not mature adults. The fact that all these comments have received high numbers of "positive" votes on the site on which they appear seems to say enough.

Being a critic myself, I can't help but ask the logical questions that such comments engender. Why are we writing when the intended audience doesn't care what we think? Are we masochists for putting up with this kind of abuse? Is that a sign that times have changed and we really ought to just find something else to do with ourselves?

Answering those questions is in itself a matter of opinion. Irony has never been so bittersweet.

****

It's one of my personal rules that I never ask questions which I'm not also prepared to answer. It wouldn't be fair to start talking about the lives of critics without telling my own story.

I became an entertainment journalist because there are three things I spend a ridiculous amount of time doing: writing, watching television or films, and working on whatever project is currently on my desk. Sometimes I'm working while watching TV. It's ridiculous, but it's the way that I am, because I'm honestly in love with the entertainment industry and have been since I saw the end of Terminator 2: Judgment Day at my grandparents' house when I was six. I knew then it was where I belonged.

I started to have aspirations then and haven't stopped since; I wrote my first published short story in the second grade, my first pilot script at eleven, and decided at fourteen to make screenwriting a full-time ambition. It's given me a unique perspective; I can see from the other side. I've actually attempted what I'm writing about, which makes me conscious of how it feels to be the one being critiqued. I've tried never to forget that while I may be analyzing a final product, that product represents the hard work, invested time, and hopes of more people than most of us are aware.

When I became a critic, I never stopped being a screenwriter, or any of the other things I've been. All it means is that I can't stop talking about what I'm watching.

****

There is no recognized set of qualifications for being a critic. By this I mean there's no specific path to follow. No particular school to attend. You do not get a degree that will certify you as a professional reviewer whose opinions should be valued.

However, there is certainly unspoken criteria that is - or at least, should be - invoked. Obviously, to be hired by any professional organization, a critic should have a decent resume, with relevant education and considerable time spent covering their particular field, at the very least. AP doesn't take people off the street to write those film reviews.

Then there are things that can't be quantified. Critics are professional writers, and as such, should have an above-average command of the English language. Their pieces should be well thought out, thoroughly supported, fact checked, and free of typographical errors. I often found myself laughing when, in my days as a script editor, people would send angry emails after their script received a pass from our agency - laughing because many of them not only couldn't support their own arguments, but couldn't remember to capitalize the first words of sentences or use punctuation. Those who can't grasp the basic elements of writing, or spend their time leaving banal comments like "who cares?" or "this sucks," just don't possess what it takes to be professional critics.

Most importantly, critics have to be possessed of an enormous amount of tact. As I mentioned earlier, it's important never to lose the face from the work, to remember that you're reviewing something which many people put time and effort into. Unfortunately, there will be times where regardless, you have to break their heart.

****

There's nothing more painful to me than when something I'm reviewing is mediocre, or even horrible. I say that because I have the luxury of being able to choose what I cover, so if I'm reviewing something at all, it's ninety percent of the time something that I am also a fan of. Having to be the one who comes out publicly and says that something didn't make the grade isn't fun, but it's part of my job.

I struggled with this on more than one occasion. One case in particular was a show that I had loved from its pilot episode. Unfortunately, it had declined in quality over the years, and wasn't what it used to be. I found myself trying to make excuses for each poor episode with every review I wrote. After all, not only did I love this show, but I knew the publicists, and didn't want to risk alienating them with what I was saying.

Finally, after the third or fourth week of the season, a friend of mine set me straight. The failings were obvious, and sugarcoating them wasn't going to help. Furthermore, by trying to obfuscate the weaknesses, I was doing harm to my reputation. My audience was coming to me looking for an honest opinion and I wasn't giving them one.

It pained me, but I wrote my honest opinion of that show from there on out. The publicists - people with whom I had by then become friends - saw it. Even though I wasn't giving them glowing reviews, they still respected my opinion and respected me for giving it truthfully. Contrary to my fears, we're still friends today, working on other series together, where they still know they can count on me for a straight answer.

After all, a few bad episodes didn't make me stop loving the good parts of that show. Likewise, a few bad reviews didn't stop them from working with me. As one of them later told me, it simply meant that I had the integrity to be honest, which only made them respect my professionalism more.

****

Now we come to the thorniest part of being a critic. Your relationship with your audience, with the general public, is the spine of the work; after all, if people weren't reading, I wouldn't be writing. Their opinions and thoughts allow for great discussions, or even to meet people that you can become friends with. I know several friends of mine who started as readers, and who now toss ideas back and forth with me every day. As of this writing, I'm blessed to reach ten million people every month, all over the world, and I am grateful for every single one of them.

Unfortunately, as with the rest of life, there are some not so kind people out there as well. There are an increasing number of people who - perhaps empowered by being able to sit behind a keyboard with relative anonymity and not have to look whom they're speaking to in the eye - can be ignorant, crude, and cruel. I've come across my fair share of them over the years. I've been insulted, called names, talked down to, and there was one extreme occasion where a commenter suggested I kill myself because he believed I misused a single word in a review.

Where does all this hate come from? I think it's because the role of the critic has simply been misunderstood over the years, on both sides. Readers believe that critics are telling them what's good and what's bad, as if they're somehow superior. I also think there are some critics who believe that's what they're supposed to do. The problem is, no one likes being told what to do. Especially not when you start talking to fans. Fans of anything can be fervent and narrow-minded with the best of them. (I should know; I'm a die-hard sports fan who's actually been involved in a fight or two in my day. I'm not proud of it, but it's true.)

The result is a battleground. There are sites that will censor or delete your comments if they think you're saying even the slightest negative thing about them, even if it's a polite correction. I once had my comment on the passing of an actor deleted because at the beginning of it, I pointed out that the article misspelled his last name. I read one article with a misleading headline, and when one commenter tactfully pointed that out, they received a flat-out rude rebuke from the article's author. I knew then that would be a website I'd never work for.

There are readers who delight in singling out every typo or feeling superior when they think you've confused your facts, and they're not afraid to turn things personal, often substituting insult in place of counterpoint. I once knew a writer who told an incoming class of hires to double-check everything, because readers "love tearing into stuff." It seems like we're just battling for superiority and no one has it.

For my part, I see my role as the presenters see the UK version of Top Gear. They're not trying to tell you what car to buy, and I'm not telling you what to watch. That decision is yours and yours alone. My critique is to allow you to make an informed decision. If you trust my opinion, great, but I'm just hoping to help you enhance yours, or inspire you to have one. The best part of my job is when someone tells me they've started watching a show that they hadn't even heard of before I wrote about it. Their opinion of it might be drastically different from mine, but I'm flattered that mine persuaded them to take the chance at all.

Public criticism is the toughest part of the job to swallow, but at the end of the day, it's important to remember that we all share common ground: we all have a passion for entertainment. We need critics, because it's their opinion and expertise that start the discussion, and there will always deserve to be that discussion, love it or hate it. What we all love is worth talking about.

****

The life of an entertainment journalist is not as glamorous as you think it is. Not mine, anyway. People who don't know me well believe that I spend all of my days mingling with the stars and watching TV. One aspiring writer was under the misconception that I just walked right up to famous people and was able to interview them. It couldn't be further from the truth.

This job isn't glamorous on most days. I've been doing it since I was writing on a Smith Corolla typewriter in the bathroom of my college dorm, because that was the only place I could work at 3 AM without disturbing my roommates. These days, I've upgraded - to a five-year-old laptop and a cluttered home office. I work six days a week, sometimes most of the day, and I've missed more than a few social outings with friends and family because there's something on I have to have recapped. Sitting in a wheelchair, with painkillers for my two broken legs and a bag of peanut M&M's, is not the high life.

I don't do it for the money. There are many outlets that use my work that can't afford to pay me for it. The money I do make is modest. I can take care of myself and have spending money left over, but I'm not buying that replica Terminator robot anytime soon. (Damn. I was going to put it on the lawn.) Not when I've got bills to pay and the majority of my business expenses come out of my own pocket.

It doesn't make me more popular, either. I've made friends through my work, but as far as the people in my life on a daily basis, there aren't more of them than there were before this job. Even in the entertainment world itself, there are some people who won't give me the time of day because I'm not recognizable enough to be worth it.

So what's kept me going for the past ten years?

It's the people. Allow me to get schmaltzy here, dear readers, but there's a little misconception out there that most Hollywood types are jerks, and that's just not entirely true. I admit that I've met a few, but ninety-five percent of the actors, writers, producers and others I've talked to have been some of the most amazing people I've ever met. They've given me moments that I'll cherish for the rest of my life. Some of them have gotten to know me, and have become people that I would consider friends. There are no words for what that means.

I've made a lot of great friends along this journey, whether it's actors, producers, publicists, fellow journalists, or even just readers of my work. Even though we might not get to meet more than once or twice a year, we talk all the time, and I know they're there for me. I also know that I wouldn't have them in my life without this.

I want to say a thank you to all those people, for all the things they've done for me, and for being some of the best people I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. I also want to say a thank you to you, dear readers, for listening to what I have to say, for telling me what you have to say, and for going on this journey with me. It's not always easy, but I know that it is definitely worth it.

Here's to another ten years.

Brittany Frederick
DigitalAirwaves.net
Examiner.com
Fanbolt.com
Starpulse.com

Twitter: @tvbrittanyf

22 comments:

  1. I have to say that for me entertainment critics function as starting points to a discussion. I rarely read reviews until after I've seen something for myself. I don't someone else's opinion to spoil my own enjoyment of a new show/episode/movie. However, once I've formed my own opinion it's nice to read someone else's view as a counterpoint to mine. It is the exact same thing I get from this site. We are obviously sharing our enjoyment of particular shows with likeminded souls, but also arguing for our favourites and being introduced to new shows every day.

    I have had to stop following reviewers in the past because their personal tastes conflicted too much with mine. I don't mind people not liking a movie that I like. But I find it annoying when they make a habit of reviewing genres they clearly don't appreciate. Like a reviewer who consistently gives high marks to film noir and low marks to rom-coms. I suppose my irritation overrules anything productive I might gain from their arguments. My favourite review programme actually had two reviewers, with vastly different tastes, which actually gave a really good perspective on the movies being reviewed, I thought.

    Still, to answer the question you begin with, I don't think that entertainment critics are obsolete. But I agree with you that it is not about telling people whether a show is good or not. Rather they should spark debate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. For the most part, a critic's review doesn't mean much to me. I read them and if I am on the fence, then it might push me one way or the other. I also view them differently if they are talking about movies or TV. I read more film reviews and have found over the years that if the film gets raving reviews or terrible ones, I skip the movie. Raving reviews tend to mean the movie will bore or annoy me to tears and terrible ones tell me it's a waste of my money. However, the real people I listen to are co-workers and friends who have seen the movie. I trust them more than critics. If they rave, then I see the "critic darling" movie.

    I enjoy reading TV reviews but rarely do they inspire me to do anything. My TV plate is full and I go more by genre and synopsis to choose a new show. I figure, usually rightly, that if I am missing something I will hear the buzz and can start watching later. It keeps me from getting into quickly-cancelled shows and suffering through "really great" shows that don't fit my interests or my values. Besides, I use SpoilerTV fans to let me know if I've bypassed a great show. I've retro-watched more shows based on comments over the summer than I ever had. They are the best critics I've found so far.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great viewpoint and article. It does seem that many hate critics based on no real reason at all... or no legitimate reason in my eyes. They do not like a critical eye cast toward artistic achievement when obviously the only 'relevant' fact is whether or not they like a show or the lead actor is cute. Despite how some feel, I think most critics provide a very good and interesting service... one more people should pay attention to. I have disagreed with many critics, but I have also learned many things about a given series or movie from them and watched something I would not have watched without reading a positive review. If for no other reason we need critics because of award shows on TV. The big shows' nominees year in and year out are a reflection of a high artistic achievement. Many of those movies (or to a lesser degree TV series) I would not know about without seeing a nomination list or reading about good reviews online. The true treasures of film are often smaller more independent films that may not play at my local theatre. I personally value a critical review exponentially more than a friend saying some show is "awesome" or "the best ever"... as if those statements tell me anything about the actual film or series. When I see a TV ad with dozens of critical awards or positive reviews I take note... when I see dozens of random people exiting a theatre saying something was "incredible" or excitedly cheering it does NOTHING for me. I mean look at Titanic or Avatar - terrible movies that the masses loved. Know that some of us out here appreciate your job as a whole and reviews done with a critical eye n general!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm glad to know that other people feel the way that I do. Entertainment is such a subjective field. It's not like news or sports where statistics clearly show this team is good and that one is struggling. I will freely admit that I haven't seen a lot of shows that critics have loved, just because they don't interest me, and I've loved shows others have panned. That doesn't make anyone right or wrong. It just is what it is. Personally I would hope a bad review never stops anyone from watching something. You should always make up your own mind. (Unless we're talking buying a $200 DVD set that's not worth it - then I'm glad to save my money.)

    I just wish there wouldn't be so much animosity - on both sides. I've seen some really harsh and cruel comments from readers, and I've seen equally harsh responses from critics, a lot of which are unwarranted. I can only imagine most of it is stuff we wouldn't say if we had to actually say it to people's faces. I'd love it if we could all remember that we're talking in the first place because we share a mutual interest in something and just focus on that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Truly the internet has bred an entirely culture of people that enjoy purposely flaming others in ways they would never do without the anonymity the internet provides. Sad reflection of those people indeed... especially for a grammatical error or a misused word. What too many people do not get is a critical review of a movie or show is not a knock on some one personally even if it is scathing. One can enjoy something that is poorly made. Some of my favorite movies have been so craptastic even I could not attempt to defend them, but I still love them. Personal feelings about a show and a critical review have little to do with one another. I cannot count the number of times I have felt something was very well made, but just not enjoyable for me or absolute tripe that I would watch again and again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. On principle, I agree with you. I'll freely admit that there are a lot of critically acclaimed and/or popular shows that I don't watch just because they're not my cup of tea. I've never watched "The Sopranos" or "Glee" and I just now started watching "ER." I tend to choose my programming actually based more on the actors in them. I've discovered a lot of great movies and films just because I wanted to watch something that a particular person has done, and gone from there. It exposes me to genres and plots I might not otherwise select for myself.

    That said, I wouldn't say I trust regular people more than critics. I think it's about equal with me, because (ideally at least) critics' viewpoints may be a bit more incisive than regular people - that experience is why they're critics. And I know a lot of people who say something sucks or is great and don't even really know why. There are people I know who hate "Glee" and they've never seen it. How can you hate what you've never watched? So I try to balance it out.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you! (And admittedly, "Titanic" and "Avatar" never did anything for me either.)

    I know that I would be a lesser person without critical input; I never had heard of "Sports Night" before TV Guide named it "The Best Show You're Not Watching" in 2000, and that became my favorite TV series ever. The biggest compliment for me, I feel, is when someone says they've decided to watch something because I've talked about it. I want to help promote awareness of shows and films people might otherwise miss, or at least, embellish the experience of what you've just seen.

    I'm with you on the smaller projects, though. My favorite films and series tend to be those that aren't the most popular or the summer blockbusters. There are exceptions, of course, but for the most part I'll mention a movie or show to my friends and they have no idea what I'm talking about! Which, of course, makes me only more motivated to show it to them - and to others.

    I'm glad that my work is appreciated, though! Good to know those ten years without much of a social life were for a good cause. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I discovered Sports Night the same way... on a list of b'est shows cancelled too early' or ' you are not watching' or something on those lines... very good show.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There's a small but vocal minority (at least I think it's a minority) who seem to take the anonymity as license to be as cruel and rude as they want to be. I can only hope (never wanting to meet any of these people in public) that this is because these people feel they can't be touched, and wouldn't say or do such things in their real life.

    Thankfully, although there are jerks, there are a lot of amazing people. I've met some of my best friends through my work. People that I've actually then gotten to meet in person and spend time with. That is amazing. So I guess you take the good with the bad, and try to keep it all in perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes, it would be lovely if people could make their arguments without slandering or threatening their counterparty. As you say anonymity probably has something to do with it. Some sort of notion that being anonymous means never having to say you're sorry. But I also think that by being given easy access to a media in which they can literally present any thoughts they feel like, people are publishing unedited streams of consciousness rather than carefully planned arguments.

    Another forum I'm on doesn't just moderate comments for aggressive behaviour. They also have language rules like use whole sentences, no slang etc. It makes for better writing all round, and a very pleasant forum in which you can offer your viewpoint without first considering whether you are willing to take a hit for it.

    Regrettably, I don't think the "you suck"-commentators are leaving the arena any time soon.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My favorites (and this is widespread) are the people that leave a comment like "who cares?" Well, you obviously cared enough to read the article and bother to leave a comment, so...

    ReplyDelete
  12. That was a really interesting read :). It was nice to take in a very well balanced look at a profession that fans and, as you mentioned, even the critics seem to often misinterpret. Unfortunately, I think that movies and television themselves can perpetuate that negative image. Ratatouille, which was a lovely Pixar film, had a terrible/evil/negative food critic as the primary antagonist. The Simpsons did an episode about that same subject. That kind of thing permeates pop culture.

    As for how I actually view critics, I'm definitely a huge fan of reading reviews, recaps, and analyses AFTER I've watched something. While I do take note of general trends and thoughts before checking something out, I like to hear what others have to say after the fact in order to see what I have missed. If I read what they have to say beforehand, I fixate on the peccadilloes they've mentioned instead of forming my own opinion.

    There are two main reasons that I love what critics have to say.

    Firstly, as you mentioned, someone needs to kick start the discussion. Whether or not you agree with the critic, if the review is well-written and fair, it leads to some great sharing of thoughts. Even on the forums where there aren't many professional critics hanging out, there is usually some ranking member who makes a post and says "Let's discuss this episode! This is what I think. What do you think?"

    Secondly, I love when critics go above and beyond a simple review. Saying "I liked this, I hated that" doesn't cut it for me. When Doc Jensen was recapping Lost, he wasn't just giving a blow-by-blow. He discussed acting, setting, important themes, theories about the next episode, and so much more. He's still writing them months after the show has ended! It's great when the reviewers are passionate about what they're discussing.

    I'm also very sorry that there are so many trolls out there. I love EW, but I can't deal with their comments section. A prime example of one of those trolls is "Larry David". He purposely goes out of his way to say something awful and, of course, people feed him. When Undercovers was canceled, he said something like "Thank God! When will people learn that black people can't be leads." I mean, really? That's disgusting. And he isn't alone. Whether 4chan is trolling for the lolz or some sick, sad, and lonely opinionated individual can't deal with their own existence, it ruins the experience for everyone else. SpoilerTV is my favourite place to come discuss television because even the most heated arguments amount to no more than a civil discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Great read. If I get the chance to call myself a professional writer at some point, I'll be a mighty happy man :P

    When I write and read reviews, I purely do both because I'm fascinated by looking at what is presented by the makers, and then grasping what made that hour of television, or two hours of television good or bad. Why is LOST's 'Fire & Water' (an episode I enjoyed) the most hated of LOST episodes, yet 'La Fleur' (an episode that bored me) is one of the most loved.

    I find reviewing and reading reviews all about broadening your own understanding on a show or a movie in terms of perception, seeing what other eyes make of it and then (in my case) hopefully writing something myself that other people will love.

    Why, for example, when I sit my parents in front of critically loved 'District 9' do they turn it off then decide to watch universally hated 'Ghost Rider' and stick it to the end.

    And when it comes to movies that are panned, I'll go watch them anyway. I can often see a movies many flaws and still love/enjoy it. I often think critics miss that element; sometimes it isn't about being ground-breaking or genius, it's about entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you!

    Yes, that's a thing that even I have struggled with. In falling in love with the 'groundbreaking' shows (for example, my obsession with "24"), the shows that weren't up to that level began to disinterest me. Yet as the years went by and shows came and went, I realized that I was looking at things in a really skewed way. You can't hold everything to the same standard of quality - every show can't be groundbreaking or novel, because we've just seen and done too much in TV and film already. Of course there's going to be stuff we've seen before.

    I've just learned to appreciate everything by different sets of standards. I was a big fan of the movie "S.W.A.T." Was it brilliant? No. But was it a great popcorn movie? Absolutely. I think I saw it like four or five times in the theater alone.

    ReplyDelete
  15. That is so the best part. I spend so much time watching something and picking up on themes, or references, or wondering 'what if in relation to,' and it's great for me as a fan to be able to throw those opinions and thought out on paper every week and have people jump in with me. Sometimes they know things I don't, or vice versa, and we all come out smarter for it. It's why I hate when people call television a waste of time - there's so much there every week that we can analyze and discuss and learn about, but you can't do it alone.

    You can definitely tell when someone is passionate about a show they're critiquing, as opposed to "my boss made me do it." I have the luxury of not working on anything I don't love, and if it gets to that point I know it's time to walk away. I used to cover "Law & Order: Los Angeles," and by the third week I was just bored to tears - and I know it showed in the tone and feel of my review. There's nothing better than a critic who loves their subject...and nothing worse than one who hates it.

    I've seen the trolls on EW that you're talking about. That guy is on every single post. I really don't understand why EW hasn't just banned him by now.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sets of standards. I like it. I should set up a 'Sets of Standards' movie review site. It's genius! :P

    ReplyDelete
  17. I completely understand what you are talking about. I decided to watch LOST (again) this winter hiatus and yes, I knew it was incredible and well made and had seen every episode a few times before, but I forgot just how good it was. Now comparing new series to it is just plain unfair. Honestly I am not a quality snob when it comes to TV or movies and like a variety of shows of varying quality, but when both the enjoyment level and the artistic level are top notch it becomes exponentially more watchable for me. It's great to be watching a show and alternate between feelings of "wow that was an incredible shot I may never see on a different series" and "oh my god this is fun". One of those rare shows to cherish while it is on.... and enjoy once it is over as one of the best TV series ever. Despite my ability to look at each show as its own entity and not the "next LOST" or "next 24", sometimes it is hard to not compare new shows on quality level... where they just cannot measure up.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Amen. I think one of the things that hurt "FlashForward" (of which there were many) was that everyone wanted to call it the "next LOST." (For what it was, I liked that show.) I think we should stop calling anything the next anything, at least until it's been on awhile and we can honestly see comparisons between the two.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You probably could! There's the "oh my god that's a classic" movies, the "popcorn" movies, the "this is crap but we can't stop watching it" kinds of movies...really, you have to be clear about what you have a right to expect when you go into a movie (or a TV show for that matter). Going into every movie expecting to see something Oscar caliber is just going to get you ticked off a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wow, just wow.

    This was a really long read but I enjoyed every minute of it! Thank you so much for bringing up this discussion as it´s been something I´ve been thinking about myself for quite some time.

    Everything you guys said is so true. I´m one of those who first want to see the movie, make their own opinion, then read a review and discuss it with others. I´m glad there are entertainment critics, because they often point out things I otherwise wouldn´t have noticed or even think of. So thanks.

    But there´s one thing that´s been bothering me for a while. People, who don´t like a movie, because it´s too "mainstream" for them. They think they´ll look cool just because they´ve seen indie movies, which hardly anyone has ever heard of and because they criticize openly the so called "mainstream" movies. And not only that. They´ll laugh at you just because you´ve seen it and liked it! Often they haven´t even seen the movie but because everyone´s talking about it and it´s made a lot of money it must be a piece of crap. Sorry for the language. :) I just don´t get it. Maybe it´s the era we´re living in. Era of craving for individualism and exceptionality. Who knows.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I agree there are indie snobs without doubt. For myself I can say why I often prefer indie movies to mainstream movies and I think it is less a snobby idea and more fact based. Indie movies tend to be made because they have a premise, a story that drives the movie; the actors are chosen for the movie to better enhance the telling of the tale. Most do not have the funds for big names or big FX and because of that they concentrate on performance and story telling. Many mainstream movies use big names to sell tickets, or big special FX to get people in the seats, and many of them sacrifice story to put in an action scene or some special FX scene. These movies can still be VERY entertaining and occasionally have the art and craft of independent films mixed in with large budgets and big name actors and they are SUPERB! However, many simple lack the "craft" that independent filmmakers use, and need to use. Their lack of budget makes them get creative in how to shoot scenes or express feeling without using some new costly tool or SFX. When special effects BECOME the story of a film instead of ENHANCE the story of the film, it is to great detriment in my eyes. Also, mainstream movies and studios need to worry about reaching the largest possible demographic and often make compromises in the film to better achieve their broad demographic goal. Indie movies make less compromises because they generally do not worry (and often even want) to reach a large demographic.

    All that said, mainstream movies tend to be more "repeat watchable" for me and there are some that lack the "craft" but I can watch over and over. There are still mega-hit mainstream films like Avatar and the 300 I mock openly because they were so terribly cliche that without the overwhelming SFX they would have been simply bad movies. Personally I do not dislike those movies (or others of their ilk) because of their popularity or to feel cool, I honestly think they were bad movies.You can lump indie film snobs in with art snobs that only like modern art or performance art, or music snobs that think only Jazz is pure music. Every art form has genre fans that take pride in their separate minority and often outwardly mock other genres.Thankfully... they are a minority!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thank you for the compliment!

    I don't get the whole "looking cool" about anything, be it film, music, art - it just escapes me. I took art history in college and there were whole periods that I just found to be unappealing or strange - you know the paintings that are completely random - but people were telling me that I just didn't "get it." As if I was somehow intellectually inferior. It's totally baffled me for a long time and is part of why I have very little interest in art anymore.

    ReplyDelete

NOTE: Name-calling, personal attacks, spamming, excessive self-promotion, condescending pomposity, general assiness, racism, sexism, any-other-ism, homophobia, acrophobia, and destructive (versus constructive) criticism will get you BANNED from the party.