I'll go out on limb because my choice is crazy and irrational. In
English my favorites have always been Sarris and Hoberman . There
are others who are better thinkers and certainly who are better
writers but when I read their reviews that's what is communicated to
me- their theory, their values, their film and/or industry
knowledge, their writing skills( which sometimes make me feel truly
humble),their ideas,their general culture etc.When I read a review by
Sarris and/or Hoberman(who I assume ,"osmosed" during their years
together at the Voice) I always know what I am going to see on the
screen when I see the film and, most,though not all of the time, how
I'm going to feel when I'm watching it. I don't know why. We don't
always share tastes(I can live without Bela Tarr),we don't share
values(I'm not slavishly "auteur"). I can't tell from their reviews
alone if we share politics, ethics or aesthetics, but when I read a
review by either of them the film they are writing about is
translated from their discursive framework to my phenomenological one
and this pleases me enormously and only in the rarest of cases do
their reviews- opinionated as they are- ever negatively constrain my
experiential and interpretive freedom to engage the film on my own
when I do see it. It's totally screwy. I can't explain why this
happens. If the review ever does intrude it's in an "oh! that's
what he meant" fashion. I look for this quality in every film critic
and every review I read. Needless to say I hardly ever find it.So---
If I know a film is or is going to be important to me(if I'm going
to teach it or if it's the work of someone I care about or a major
adaptation of or sequel to a work of significance to me) I don't
read the reviews until after I've seen it.
As far as who we are and where we come from,. New York working
class-not a red diaper baby.First in family to graduate from high
school.- though many since. Laundry workers. I got my first
opportunity by being best friends with the cultural editor of the
UCLA Daily Bruin a long time ago. I was a would-be actor with not as
much talent at the time as I wanted to have and with very strong
opinions about the presence or absence of that quality in others.--
so he put me in charge of Film and Theater with an occasional rock
record thrown into the pot. After that it was always a combination
of hustle, luck and the good will of others.I used to get $50 per
review.---when I got paid at all. Once got $3000 for playing poker
with Bob Crane between three and four AM while I waited for my one
line scene in the pilot episode of Hogan's Heroes to be shot at four
thirty.- but that's another story
Hope this generates some good discussion.
>Interesting question! For what it's worth, I got my first (and critical)
>job as a film critic, at the college paper at the age of 17, because I was
>best friends with the wife of the editor, at a moment when the regular
>film critic didn't show up.
>Some of the film critics I've worked with from major papers got their jobs
>by graduating from doing the TV listings or obits or something else like
>that at the newspapers.
>Some critics I've known have wanted to get into the business, and
>eventually did, often as scriptwriters.
>When I stopped doing regular criticism, after around 20 years of doing it
>for newspapers (Mn Daily, In These Times) and magazines (American Film)
>and for a host of free papers, magazines and journals, I was being paid
>the same or less than I was paid starting out ($25 a review) and there was
>a never ending supply of newbies with as little knowledge of film or film
>history as I had starting out, coming up and eager to write.
>
>Pat Aufderheide, Professor and Director
>Center for Social Media, School of Communication
>American University
>3201 New Mexico Av. NW, #330
>Washington, DC 20016-8080
>www.centerforsocialmedia.org
>[log in to unmask]
>202-885-2069
>
>
>
>Lou Thompson <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent by: Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
>07/25/2008 08:24 PM
>Please respond to
>Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>To
>[log in to unmask]
>cc
>
>Subject
>[SCREEN-L] film critics
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The announcement today that "Ebert and Roeper" were going off the air came
>at one of those serendipitous times for me, as I've been thinking a lot
>about film critics--who they are, where they come from, how (or if) they
>are trained or schooled.
>
>I was wondering if those of you on the list would be interested in sharing
>your list of the top film critics/reviewers (not scholars), past and
>present.
>__________________________
>
>Lou Ann Thompson, Ph.D,
>Professor of English
>Texas Woman's University
>_____________________________
>
>"One Law for the Lion and the Ox is Oppression."--William Blake
>_____________________________
>
>"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
>nothing."--Attributed to
>Edmund Burke
>_____________________________
>
>"It could be worse. I could be Sting."--Ozzy Osbourne
>_____________________________
>
>----
>Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
>http://www.ScreenSite.org
>
>
>----
>For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
>http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
----
Learn to speak like a film/TV professor! Listen to the ScreenLex
podcast:
http://www.screenlex.org
|
