Let Me Wax a little "Serious Business" for a Second
First off, I suppose I'm not in the "art criticism" camp when it comes to reviewing movies. I'm a shoot-from-the-hip, go-with-your-gut, I-liked/didn't like-this-movie-here's-why-and-I'm-gonna-try-to-make-you-chuckle style reviewer. Also, I buy into the concept "It isn't who you are, but what you like" methodology, ESPECIALLY if you are being looked to as an authority on what to spend your entertainment dollars on. Now, THIS article attempts to debunk that theory. While very well written and agreeable on some points, I simply can't understand why when presented with this evidence ANYONE could read his reviews without a jaundiced eye. Just like with any other form of art criticism, if you like Vermeer's you may not like Crucifix-in-a-Jar-of-Semen (but YOU MIGHT). If you like Van Gogh, you will probably like other Impressionist painters (or YOU MIGHT NOT). Now, if I like Vermeer's artwork, but I find out an art critic that I respect like Jizzy-Jesus? I'm going to think twice about his reviews OF EVERYTHING ELSE HE WRITES. He may have presented a wonderfully interesting reason as to WHY Jizzy-Jesus was great, but as a visual medium, first impressions count for 90% of what we think of a piece. This goes for film as well. Transformers 2?? Yeah, not for me. Random film critic loves it? I'm going to think twice. Will he like more movies that I think are crap? Probably? Are his opinions less valid because he likes something that everyone hates? ENTER SLIPPERY SLOPE TERRITORY. Lord god, I don't want this to evolve into an argument about less popular opinions being ignored/undervalued by society. Dissent is important. Of course. Having an unpopular opinion is exactly what it is. It isn't a badge of indie honor, it doesn't make your opinion any more or less valuable. Just understand that people (most people in fact) aren't going to agree with you.
I do wonder what the paid film critic knows that I don't. How are opinions about movies different from knowledge about movies. Outside of technique in film making and story arch's, what do they know that I don't? The review in question (here for anyone that wants to see what all the fuss is about) Here is a sample that makes me think White is falling prey to his own likes/dislikes
That cartoonish Mothership image suggests the high-concept inanity featured in Children of Men and Cloverfield: It’s apocalyptic silliness. Not ominously beautiful like the civilization-in-peril tableau that caps Roy Andersson’s You, the Living (critic John Demetry described that climax as a “revelation out of [Morrissey’s] ‘Everyday Is Like Sunday’”). Rather, the immanence in District 9 suggests a meager, insensitive imagination. It’s a nonsensical political metaphor.
Ok, what have we learned from above paragraph. He doesn't like Children of Men and Cloverfield and likes You, the Living. Further on in the review
District 9 represents the sloppiest and dopiest pop cinema—the kind that comes from a second-rate film culture. No surprise, this South African fantasia from director Neill Blomkamp was produced by the intellectually juvenile New Zealander Peter Jackson
I'm guessing he hated Pan's Labrynith*, too. Despised Lord of the Rings? I don't think it would be out of the stretch of logic to make that leap.
What you hate and like matters. Society has shown us that, even Mr. White makes mention of it.
Fools will accept District 9 for fantasy, yet its use of parable and symbolism also evoke the almost total misunderstanding that surrounds the circumstance of racial confusion and frustration recently seen when Harvard University tycoon Henry Louis Gates Jr. played the race card against a white Cambridge cop.
Draw your own conclusions. Its a well written, well thought out review. If you like it, however, then someone may judge you for it. Is that wrong? Maybe. But from a percentage basis, probably not.
EDIT Ok, so I got Guillermo Del Toro and Peter Jackson confused for a second.
In my defense, they looked a lot alike, at one time.
and
