Re: film critics.

I'm surprised that  no one in this discussion has drawn a distinction
between film critics and film reviewers.  The job of the film reviewer is to
tell the reader of the newspaper, magazine, or website whether the reader
should go to the movie, whether he/she is likely to enjoy it, whether it has
sex and violence, and so on. To me, a film critic is different The critic
tells me something about the movie that increases my understanding and
experience and appreciation of the film.  The critic is less or not at all
concerned with enjoyment or evaluation.

When I was reviewing movies for WGBH-TV in Boston, I tried to be critic
without being reviewer.  The letters came pouring in hollering about such an
unorthodox practice.  I ended up combining the two roles.  But most people
dealing with movies in the media today, I think, are pretty strictly
reviewers.  David Denby in *The New Yorker* is a sometime exception, as is A
O.Scott or Terence Rafferty in the *Times*

Pure reviewing seems to me a kind of ephemeral, transitory writing, not of
lasting interest.  (Does anybody remember Bosley Crowther?)  I hope for
critics but rarely find them, except in the learned journals.


                      --With warm regards,

                                   Norm
Norm Holland
[log in to unmask]


On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Darrell Newton <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Do you folks remember when Dixie Whatley and Rex Reed took over for "At the
> Movies" on WTTW in Chicago? Dumb and dumber? How about worse and worser....
>
> Darrell M. Newton, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor,
> The Department of Communication Arts
> Salisbury University
> 269 Fulton Hall
> Salisbury, MD 21801
> (410) 677-5060 Office
> (410) 543-6229 Department
>
> http://faculty.salisbury.edu/~dmnewton/<http://faculty.salisbury.edu/%7Edmnewton/>
> >>> Lou Thompson <[log in to unmask]> 07/31/08 10:30 PM >>>
> Michael Medved is the worst of something, if not the worst film critic,
> that's for sure.
>
> Seriously, though, I think it's been mentioned but can probably bear
> repeating, as more and more media outlets merge, these critics affiliated
> with a particular publication or network, for example, sure do bring up
> some
> provocative issues of conflict of interest.
>
> We have a local guy here in the Dallas area, Gary Cogill, who appears on
> the
> local ABC-affiliate, but he actually works freelance, won't do any of the
> junkets or anything, because he doesn't want to be beholden to anyone.
>  He's
> also really very good, meaning that he almost always agrees with me!
>
> Lou
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Langer" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [SCREEN-L] film critics
>
>
> > On 7/26/08, Holiday, Frederick N. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't really have a list if the best, but I know who the absolute
> worst
> >> is:  Peter Travers of ROLLING STONE, without a doubt.
> >>
> >> Fred A. Holliday II
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh come on.  Worse than Gene Siskel?  Worse than Michael Medved?
> >
> > Mark Langer
> >
> > ----
> > For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
> > http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
> >
>
> ----
> For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
> http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
>
> ----
> To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
> in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
>

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu