Why the argument isn't on your terms?

IMO it's important but without a doubt secondary to the results, whether it'd be emotionally, thematically, etc., and people can easily recognize those things without the knowledge of how it happened. Especially for summer blockbusters or more mass population films or whatever

So in other words, a dementia-riddled homeless person can give an equally insightful review on any movie as a Roger Ebert, or an Andrew Sarris?

I think the greatest gift relativism has bestowed on our society is the idea that education simply does not fucking matter.

Shack, drop all your fucking philosophy courses. They're doing you no good at all.

Seriously...


TAKE THIS OUTSIDE

I disagree because films would not exist without an audience. Maybe that's where we disagree; I'm not sure you care what audiences think. But the ability of an audience to decide at some level encourages innovation, and keeps the burden on filmmakers to create. So I think it was movies and an audience playing off of each other that makes the emotion. As such they depend on everything that the audience might, in the way they receive the film, and that's a lot not exclusive to the medium.

You can judge the sum without identifying every part. I've found that with everything I've ever encountered by first seeing generally and then more specifically.

In any case, a central question is why most people will trust a friend, who is not that knowledgeable, but who will look for the things they personally will enjoy, rather than a critic? I think it's because critical bias and lack of relation to their tastes will be more important for most moviegoers than knowledge.

Oh, as for knowledge about some piece of relating something to cinematic history. That can be a bit interesting, but it's not the reason I would ever read a review.

This thread?

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=47702

Whereever. Just not here.

Stop posting in this thread.

I wouldn't judge based on social status, but what someone writes themselves. Isn't that the point?



It's relativism on taste. But I think it puts more importance than ever on learning and thinking. Whatever you might call 'education'.

Yeah, Philosophy is useful.

Ok, other thread if anyone wants to continue...

Well assuming he had their level of writing skills. Ignore dementia, that's besides the topic of filmmaking knowledge.

Define insightful. Insightful in filmmaking knowledge and dissecting the composition? No. Insightful towards the tone and his emotional reaction when watching it, towards the themes presented, towards the characters, dialog, acting level, yada yada? Definitely. Hell it's not like he can't come up with the result of what the camera created (suspense, tranquility, adreneline etc.) without knowing exactly what the filmmaker was doing, and give the film credit for it.

Actually it's not like Ebert relies on his massive film and filmmaking knowledge index to write his reviews. He doesn't ignore it of course, but most of what he says can work without it and is stuff that can be foreseen by non expert viewers

It's ok Lecter. It's just Doubt.

But current music is based on old music, therefore unless the current music is an entirely separate entity, which it almost never is, than lack of knowledge of older music does, at least to an extent, hinder the ability to understand modern music.

And you don't think it's exactly the same for film?

They're called flops.

They exist for the purpose of an audience. Maybe an audience of only a few if some sort of family film, but the way in which they are made is for an audience.

Yes, I never maintained that having knowledge of film is not important to being a critic. Of course it is not the only crucial thing, writing skills and intelligence are important, but knowing the past illuminates your understanding of the present. That's the same for everything on earth. The fact that I have almost no knowledge of past films does extremely limit my ability to write reviews, but my extensive knowledge of current film helps balance it out some.

But then any new sort of creative process or thought used in any movie (including those the creator might not be aware of themselves) will hold back the ability to understand film or music. We never disagreed that knowledge is worth something. The question is what's most important. Yeah, like I said, the ideas, concepts, and other 'things' that are universal and not exclusive to film.

The point is though: is being a critic, as defined socially, the determining factor in the ability to judge a film for any purpose? History is largely knowledge, and is useful, but not because of the knowledge, but because ideas could be learned from the knowledge and then applied to the present. No knowledge on past films doesn't necessarily limit your ability to write reviews in any way. You need some way to attain the ideas to create your POV from which you would judge. You could possibly get that from past films (although the differences could cause problems with bias or application). You could get it by thinking philosophically. You could get it from recent films if you notice the right things. You might get it from some place else where there are similar ideas you could apply.

I know! I'l get a plumber to review my movies, and a film critic to fix my toilet!

Berardinelli's existence is finally explained.

You know the main criteria for a film critic? FOR THEM TO BE FUCKING INTERESTING AND GOOD TO READ!

I don't mind a critic I disagree with as long as the review is engaging and maybe humorous to boot.

Bernardinelli's writing is about as interesting as the in depth report on the USA's 57th nuclear bomb test.

Do whatever works for you, like I said. I suppose we are all looking for different things, and for yoshue it might be a plumber as a critic.

I still have not heard an explanation for why Berardinelli is so uninteresting...

But anyway, all sort of things could be interesting or a 'good read'. The topic is how it relates to movies.