Comments on: Reflections of a Former (and Future) Film Critic - Mary Pols comments

By: online film

online film — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:11:42 +0000

Keep up good work,i love this article.

By: twitter adder

twitter adder — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 05:10:21 +0000

Well you have me a little worried, I’m due to start working as a film critic in the next couple of months for an online company. It looks like a dream job, but I have to give up everything for a meagre salary and what could be an uncertain future

By: sts

sts — Fri, 07 May 2010 17:56:20 +0000

It is always pleasure to read your posts, will back here soon

By: John M. Rowe

John M. Rowe — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:06:43 +0000

Thank you for the great post. I really love this tv seasons. Can’t wait for the another season ! Keep up the awesome work with that

By: Jen

Jen — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:56:37 +0000

I’m sorry it took me so long to find this conversation (and Mary’s piece), because it’s a fascinating read. I agree at times with both Mary and with Joan; I understand the desire of a film critic to write reviews bursting with detail and observations and references and analysis, but I also see Joan’s point about the useage of a newpaper review to the average reader (or the not-so-average industry insider). I think many critics overwrite; Joan’s examples could understandably make readers lose interest within the first paragraph. That is indeed a problem, because people don’t seem to read as much anymore as they used to — which makes it much easier for newspapers to cut staff writers. Many critics seem to write for themselves more than they write for their readers , although that does seem a natural inclination. Both reader and critic must somehow meet in the middle, but where we’re at these days it seems both sides are on opposite ends of the room.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:17:49 +0000

Basically, what Joan is calling for is a dumbing down of film criticism. She doesn’t want an attempt at thoughtfulness or introspection, she wants to be directed.

Ironically, it took me about 30 words to say the same thing it took her 1,200 words to say…

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:27:17 +0000

You don’t know whay you’ve lost ’til it’s gone. As a still working colleague, I miss Mary’s point of view, with which i rarely agreed. Here,she has in her grasp the essence of this discussion:
She references Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu: “’Critics see too many movies.’ … I knew he was right. Reach a certain point in your education about what is good, bad and indifferent, in any of the arts, and you no longer need to see what is indifferent in order to know that it is indifferent.”

a respondent agrees: … “I do think on an editorial management level, we devalued our own real estate. That is part of what has made it easy for the corporate suits who own say, a half dozen papers, to hold up the arts and entertainment sections of all of them, notice that each contains writing about the same three movies a week and figure, eh, we only need one of these people to do this job.

“There’s an elegance to that premise, quality over quantity.”

This is the nature of the devaluation: Shallow corporate efficiency dictates assembly line efficiency against the underlying premise of knowing your audience, even while touting “local local local”. In theory, a writer of Mary’s caliber — and how she outgrew metro confines — is what, multiplied, holds readers. In theory, a stable of such informed, educated, talented writers, egaging readers with what readers want to know about, creates successful reader vehicles. At the back of every editor’s mind is the thought, if only we had four or five more like (the one or two remaining). If that’s all we had and they brought to the daily pages such incisive reporting and reflection and sheerly entertaining, INCISIVE, writing, we would have no difficulty maintaining circulation. Some publications achieve this critical mass for a time.

It is a sweet dream and will remain so as long as we have an audience capable of reading.

By: RvB

RvB — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:23:29 +0000

The “should I see it or shouldn’t I see the movie” question is impossible to answer if I don’t know who you are. Thing was, when Mary was getting published, you knew who SHE was, and you could read and decide whether or not her feelings on the matter were the kind of feelings you shared. That’s what the good film critics do: they use their personality when they’re writing so you can judge whether or not you might like a film.
As a long time critic, I have to feel that complaints about thumbless criticism is a bit of a smokescreen. Some people are going to see some movies no matter who warns them away; it’s afterward that the real discussion begins.

By: Benet Pols

Benet Pols — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:56:15 +0000

(No relation……HA!)

“Simplify, simplify.”

By: Carol Cling

Carol Cling — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:25:46 +0000

Light, not heat. That’s my goal whenever I review a movie. Alas, not that many people seem interested in what I consider enlightened moviegoing these days. They buy their ticket and they take the ride. Which is fine —- for them.

As a movie critic, I’m required to do more than sit there. It’s my job to watch every movie I see with an open mind and an open heart, then report my reaction fully and honestly. I don’t expect everyone to agree with my opinion. I do expert everyone who reads one of my reviews to understand my conclusions and how and why I have reached them.

It’s a sign of the times — and not a good one, in my view — when people are e not only indifferent, but downright hostile, to perspectives other than their own. Many seem interested in hearing their opinions confirmed or echoed — but entirely uninterested in what others have to say. This attitude seems to hold true whether the topic is movies or politics — and it’s unhealthy either way. In my humble opinion, of course.