Sunday, June 24, 2007
Member since:
June 2007
June 2007
I generally enjoy your site. I have a problem with Mr. Plath's political commentary. This should be a site to review movies and not to get a shot in on the present administration. Please just review the movie. I personally disagree with Mr. Plath, what he knows about movies, doesn't extend to the political arena. I would like to recommend this site to my friends, but will hold off until I can feel confident that it is going to give them ecellent movie info...movie info not political commentary. Otherwise, decent site.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
spydrmyk,
Jim is away for a few weeks and isn't around to defend himself (not that he probably would bother to do so, in any case), so perhaps you won't mind my saying a few words on behalf of reviewers and reviewing in general.
As a reviewer who has been doing this for many, many years, I can tell you that reviewing is a thankless job--damned if you do and damned if you don't. You did not bother to provide any examples in your criticism, so I cannot tell exactly what it is you're talking about, but I do know that if a filmmaker is taking a political, religious, social, moral, or ethical stance, it is pretty hard for the reviewer not to comment on that attitude. Likewise, many filmmakers only imply such stances, in which case it is up to the reviewer, if he/she is analyzing the filmmaker's position, to point it out and to explain how well the filmmaker made the point.
For instance, Eddie Feng and I were chastised by several readers for suggesting that Mel Gibson did Christianity no favors in his portrayal of the suffering of Christ (in "The Passion of the Christ"). These few readers felt that Eddie and I were somehow imposing our own religious or political views on the movie, when, in fact, we were trying to explicate why the film did not succeed purely as a movie (in our eyes).
When Jim returns, he may respond to your concerns more specifically. In the meantime, you might want to be clearer about what it is you're referring to or perhaps direct your criticism to something that I have written along the same lines, and I'd be glad to give a more precise reply.
John Puccio, Senior Review Editor
Jim is away for a few weeks and isn't around to defend himself (not that he probably would bother to do so, in any case), so perhaps you won't mind my saying a few words on behalf of reviewers and reviewing in general.
As a reviewer who has been doing this for many, many years, I can tell you that reviewing is a thankless job--damned if you do and damned if you don't. You did not bother to provide any examples in your criticism, so I cannot tell exactly what it is you're talking about, but I do know that if a filmmaker is taking a political, religious, social, moral, or ethical stance, it is pretty hard for the reviewer not to comment on that attitude. Likewise, many filmmakers only imply such stances, in which case it is up to the reviewer, if he/she is analyzing the filmmaker's position, to point it out and to explain how well the filmmaker made the point.
For instance, Eddie Feng and I were chastised by several readers for suggesting that Mel Gibson did Christianity no favors in his portrayal of the suffering of Christ (in "The Passion of the Christ"). These few readers felt that Eddie and I were somehow imposing our own religious or political views on the movie, when, in fact, we were trying to explicate why the film did not succeed purely as a movie (in our eyes).
When Jim returns, he may respond to your concerns more specifically. In the meantime, you might want to be clearer about what it is you're referring to or perhaps direct your criticism to something that I have written along the same lines, and I'd be glad to give a more precise reply.
John Puccio, Senior Review Editor
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
a movie reviewer, like anyone else, is free to write about whatever he/she wants to write. if you don't like what a reviewer is writing, then you're more than welcome to let him/her know that you don't like his/her reviews. however, you have no justifiable basis for telling him/her what he/she CAN'T write (unless he's/she's advocating committing theft, rape, murder, etc.).
you need to bear in mind that movies are not made in vacuums, and movies are not viewed in vacuums. indeed, a movie that has nothing to do with the world at all is the ultimate in uselessness.
[Post edited by posters5 on Jun 24, 2007]
you need to bear in mind that movies are not made in vacuums, and movies are not viewed in vacuums. indeed, a movie that has nothing to do with the world at all is the ultimate in uselessness.
[Post edited by posters5 on Jun 24, 2007]
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Member since:
October 2004
October 2004
Reviewing films without commenting on politics or social issues makes about as much sense as discussing painting without talking about color. All films are products of a society there is no way to separate the two, and who would want to?
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
chris,
i know who--idiots do!
eddie
i know who--idiots do!
eddie
Monday, June 25, 2007
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
spydrmyk,
Not only should you provide details for your argument, but you might want to tell us what movie review it is. You should know that any critic has the full right to produce a review any way they see fit. They are free to express their opinion, point of view, feelings and social emotions -- yeah, kind of what makes them movie critics, ya' think. Perhaps you have forgotten about this little thing we have here in America known as Freedom of Speech & Expression?
Not only should you provide details for your argument, but you might want to tell us what movie review it is. You should know that any critic has the full right to produce a review any way they see fit. They are free to express their opinion, point of view, feelings and social emotions -- yeah, kind of what makes them movie critics, ya' think. Perhaps you have forgotten about this little thing we have here in America known as Freedom of Speech & Expression?
Monday, June 25, 2007
Member since:
January 2006
January 2006
It seems like the main sticking point for everyone here is the lack of details and examples of the politics. The first rule of any *good* writing is to have facts and present your case. If I remember my middle school writing classes, you make an outline of your arguments and then support them with facts. There are no facts here therefore, it seems to all of us you're pointing a finger at someone you personally disagree with. If I say a movie is crap, it's expected I lay out my reasoning. Is it bad acting, a bad script, bad effects, bad direction...what? Please justify what you said with links and concrete information.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Member since:
January 2003
January 2003
Sheesh, people!
Reviewers' rights advocates are running around rampant here. Don't all you reviewers know that all art is made in a vacuum and has no perceptible relationship to the social or political environment in which it was produced?
Obviously, reviews should be able to be easily assessed based on a scale similar to that of J. Evans Pritchard's: numerical indicators which easily sum up the aesthetic value of the piece, ignoring any pesky and unnecessary allusions to what's going on in this so-called "world" in which they were made.
Certainly the reviewers on this site should take note of the suggestions made by those who do not review art and have not given any credentials to make one deem them worthy of doling out criticism. Only in this way can the site's reviewers possibly better their craft while bending to the wills of the general masses who themselves have no vested interest in the specific pieces being presented on this site.
In other words, I'm calling bullsh*t on all these so-called commentaries about this site's reviews.
If you agree, great. If not, tough. What's the worry? Should we all just go by the Heritage Foundation's scale of film reviewing? To think that someone should arbitrarily separate their own feelings and experiences from their own critique of art is ludicrous. I'm sick of this underhanded form of censorship, and its offshoots that have begun to run rampant in today's American society.
Think for yourselves! Stop trying to curb other people's views and let them think and say what they wish. I mean, is "1984" your idea of utopia? We're talking about basic tenets of American democratic society that should be feely expressed and respected contrary to what someone like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity might say.
Grow up, people, and grow a pair. We're assessing art here, not instituting a group mindthink program.
sean (...perhaps we should all just change our names to "winston" and get in line for the labotomy...)
[Post edited by skspence on Jun 27, 2007]
Reviewers' rights advocates are running around rampant here. Don't all you reviewers know that all art is made in a vacuum and has no perceptible relationship to the social or political environment in which it was produced?
Obviously, reviews should be able to be easily assessed based on a scale similar to that of J. Evans Pritchard's: numerical indicators which easily sum up the aesthetic value of the piece, ignoring any pesky and unnecessary allusions to what's going on in this so-called "world" in which they were made.
Certainly the reviewers on this site should take note of the suggestions made by those who do not review art and have not given any credentials to make one deem them worthy of doling out criticism. Only in this way can the site's reviewers possibly better their craft while bending to the wills of the general masses who themselves have no vested interest in the specific pieces being presented on this site.
In other words, I'm calling bullsh*t on all these so-called commentaries about this site's reviews.
If you agree, great. If not, tough. What's the worry? Should we all just go by the Heritage Foundation's scale of film reviewing? To think that someone should arbitrarily separate their own feelings and experiences from their own critique of art is ludicrous. I'm sick of this underhanded form of censorship, and its offshoots that have begun to run rampant in today's American society.
Think for yourselves! Stop trying to curb other people's views and let them think and say what they wish. I mean, is "1984" your idea of utopia? We're talking about basic tenets of American democratic society that should be feely expressed and respected contrary to what someone like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity might say.
Grow up, people, and grow a pair. We're assessing art here, not instituting a group mindthink program.
sean (...perhaps we should all just change our names to "winston" and get in line for the labotomy...)
[Post edited by skspence on Jun 27, 2007]
