"The vast majority of movie critics I know are not snobs. We enjoy a vast range of films and help, in our non-godlike-power way, to guide readers to (or away from) them. What the ''Do critics matter?'' question truly misses is that the heart and soul of our jobs is not merely to recommend. It is to take this popular art we all love and hold it up to the light, to absorb it and reflect it back to you, to enhance the experience of seeing a movie by serving, on the page, as a companionable guide, someone to bounce your own opinion off of, whether or not you happen to agree with that opinion. It's that process, that exchange, that dialogue that matters — and will, as long as the movies themselves matter too."
I agree with him, though, and get tired of people saying otherwise. It's the same sort of argument I encountered from people when I was in college taking Film Studies - for what purpose? The critic is really just the failed-filmmaker, right?
Um, no. I took Filmmaking for two years and that, my friend, is what I call unsatisfying. Writing about film is an entirely different form than making it, and one that needs to be, and should, stay relevant as long as there are still movies. I find the process of looking at film, of analyzing it until it bleeds, infinitely rewarding.
That's not to say I don't thoroughly enjoy watching my own fair share of big-time crapola... indeed, my fascination with bad films is usually a lot of I end up writing about in here (what, you don't actually think I'd, say, call Once Bitten a cinematic masterpiece on the level of Truffaut, do ya?).
Anyway, it's not for everybody, but that's why there are accountants.
Yeah, you know, those people who actually make money. Suckers!
////
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment