Today there is an amusing article in the Los Angeles Times Calendar section about a feud erupting among self-proclaimed film critics.
According to Patrick Goldstein, "Hollywood has never been so full of nasty denunciations, agonized hand-wringing and self-monitoring rhetoric."
Apparently, a movie reviewer (!) at the LA WEEKLY has been bitchin' and complainin' about a handful of fellow reviewers, and at one point accused some of being, "...white noise taking up valuable column inches that could be devoted to legitimate (!) Film criticism."
For starters, I rarely read the weekly because I generally find the articles strive for lofty heights that the writers are creatively and intellectually incapable of achieving. The cheap sex ads - which pay for the writers' salaries - are too cheesy for my taste, as well.
Generally, I flip through to the "Rocky Horoscope", and peruse Savage's sex column - at which point - I use the overly-thick throw-away for something practical. In case you were unware of it, the LA WEEKLY makes a great liner for the kitty litter box.
A couple of critics have been accused of casting aspersions on "bloggers", who - some claim - are out of their league, for want of a better term. Just because an individual blogs does not mean he or she is lacking in formal training or professional credits, you know?
For example, I majored in English Literature and Art.
My own background education included a focus on the "art" of critiquing, with foundation courses in the "History of Cinema", and actual hands-on experience in the technique of filmmaking.
I was also a journalist with a major daily newspaper. In addition, a handful of literary works have been published by reputable printing houses. For a couple of years, I poured over dozens of scripts in my capacity as a Literary Agent, representing script writers in the area of Film and Television, as well.
For a short duration, I produced low-budget features for cable.
Why do I love my blog?
For starters, the fact no editor is breathing down my neck, appeals to me. Also, I savor the privilege of penning my articles, without censorship. Of course, it's also a creative joy to conjure up catchy captions for my posts and personally select eye-catching, thought-provoking images, to enhance my articles.
In contrast, many filmmakers have no training or background in the arts. In some instances, a rambunctious logger literally snatched up a video camera, shot reams of raw footage without much reflection, edited and shaped the ball of wax on the fly, then - flogged the humble offering at local film festivals...with an eye for distribution, a production deal, instant fame and fortune - you name it!
As to critics - well, it's a given.
Each has a varied educational background, unique vantage point, opinion about the cinema - a specialized taste, whatever. Consequently, reviews reflect a myriad of insights, musings, and harsh criticisms.
One critic referred to in the LA TIMES article, allegedly slammed the establishment, film foundations, and - in particular - awards outfits...went so far as to lament the "Hollywood Foreign Press Association" was, "...one of the most corrupt, pathetic, kow-towing groups of award voters imaginable."
True, their selections often boggle my own sensibilities. In view of that, on occasion, I've pondered what sinister outside influences - payola perhaps? - may be afoot, lurking in the shadows.
I understand the frustration. After all, in my humble opinion the feature film - "Eastern Promises" - was the worst movie of the year...a piece of celebrated junk. Yet, it garnered a couple of "Golden Globe" nominations.
Years ago, one of my professors gave me a great piece of advice, I'm still inclined to adhere to. She articulated quite succinctly that, "When you view a work of art - be it a painting or film - you should stand back for a moment and figure out what "washed over" you."
"Were you seduced or manipulated?" she asked pointedly.
In my critiques, I strive to be constructive...and, when I literally loathe a movie, often turn to filmgoers in the theatre for an outside opinion to be fair. Usually, I am astounded by the fact that so few filmgoers noticed the obvious flaws and shortcomings of the filmmakers.
In sum, it appears that most moviegoers are "open" to the film experience, without any inclination to critique from the offset...yeah, they appear to be content to settle for a couple of hours of solid, tangible entertainment.
What's wrong with that?
The "Joe" public may not know what celluloid art is, but they know what they like.
For this reason, you can't ever second guess 'em...in spite of a rave review or vitriolic jab.
A last word to the critics?
Elbert Hubbard probably said it best,
"To escape criticism - do nothing, say nothing, be nothing..."