Maybe having other people’s opinions floating around in our heads simply distracts us from what we’re watching. Maybe we’re too busy wondering if Ebert was right when we should be forming our own opinions. This is how it works with me. I’m sure other people’s minds work differently, though.
Wether a certain critic is “right” or “wrong” is of course a matter of perspective and individual viewing experience, it therefore shouldn’t really bother us while watching a reviewed film. I think it’s more important that one gets the chance to focus on those aspects that have been pointed out in the review which one might otherwise overlook. This approach might in some cases distract from a film’s reality and provide a far too intellectual viewing experience, that’s why it shouldn’t be exagerrated and in some cases be avoided, but in general it can be regarded as an advantage to watch a film more consciously.
I think the first post in this thread is perfect.
I really like reading good critics thinking on films. Even, no, especially if I disagree with them since it sharpens my thinking and arguments about why I appreciate or don’t appreciate something. It’s one of the reasons my favorite critic as a teen was John Simon. I only rarely agreed with him on anything, but his strong sense of what mattered in a film and excellent writing skills made me work much harder to find ways to “argue” my position and understand what indeed I was seeing. On the other extreme, I loved reading Robin Wood because even though I mostly agreed with him overall, I would adopt a position of disagreement, sort of an internal John Simon, while reading to test his arguments and to see whether what he said held true compared to what was on screen even if I responded in an equally positive way. The why of my response was the thing that mattered most to me. Unfortunately there aren’t many good critics out there. Most of the time I read them to spot the flaws in their arguments or things they likely missed in the film and then check that thinking against what the film shows.
My biggest issue in this area is with reading what the filmmakers themselves say about the films they make. I am much more ambivalent about that since I think it tends to limit the conversation about the work in a rather unfortunate way. Certainly there is also some value to it in hearing what they say about how they work or what ideas spurred their creations, but the way these thoughts are revealed in interviews can lead to either misleading statements or ones that get picked up by other critics and bounced around as the “truth” about the work even if the statement isn’t clearly reflected in the work itself.
In general, I believe in adopting an oppositional stance to everything I read about a film, whether positive or negative, and then approaching the film in the most open-minded way possible, looking for reasons to find value in the work. I think it is often too easy to dismiss a film for small complaints or failed expectations rather than embrace a film for what is actually there. Basically, I assume a film is good until I can’t find a way to defend it any longer, which seems to go against the standard critical reception of movies.
I don’t often watch films that are new out in the cinema, I tend to buy a lot of older dvds and I buy them on the basis of critics opinions a lot of the time, I don’t want to waste my money on shit. To me critics play the wonderful role of saying “Hey have you seen this, it’s great” and “don’t watch this, it’s crap” which I think is very important, I don’t know how I’d discover films I haven’t seen without approaching it like this, there are just too many shit films about. That’s not to say I buy and watch films on the basis of critical opinion alone though and it’s not to say that I have found a critic that mirrors my taste exactly. I feel I am not in the slightest effected by criticism of a film while watching it, I am strong enough willed that I can form my own opinion.
I also really enjoy reading reviews of films that I have seen, that I love (or hate I guess) learning about how others interpreted it and whatnot I find great fun. Like right after I watched Haneke’s Cache I found myself spending like 2 hours reading all the different perspectives on it.
I seriously do not understand how some film fans seem to hate the practice of Film Criticism, I find it incredibly useful and important. I also don’t understand how some people don’t seem to appreciate surprise in films, spoilers are the flipping worst, I like to go in knowing as little as possible in relation to the plot.
Is this really such a difficult idea to grasp? I mean, to read some of the responses in this thread it sounds like Jazz is discussing some aspect of quantum physics or something. It’s really really simple.
Reading critics’ opinions is fine … AFTER watching the film because by then you’ve formed some vague conclusion yourself (whether it’s influenced by the myriad of possible influences that could possibly influence one or not is for another topic and is completely unrelated to what we’re talking about here). But yeah, I don’t throw out critic’s reviews entirely, because adopting other possible views and perspectives in with one’s own is also an integral part of the critical process, it’s just that if I’ve never seen a film like say, Don’t Look Now, and I read a half dozen critical reviews on it, I’m not going to be “unaffected” by those reviews. It’s not a matter of “lying” to oneself, it’s a matter of being affected by something you’ve just read.
No one’s saying anything about “lying” (again an extreme response to a very open-minded idea) to oneself being the alternative, it’s just a matter of having enough confidence in your own ability (that ability encompassing critical and theoretical knowledge and experience of/with film, not to mention an appraisal of cinematically technical and narrative convention) to form one’s own conclusion. Then again, reading over some users reactions to such an idea (having themselves formed their own conclusions, and some “jumping” to their own conclusions), perhaps it’s an approach best used with caution.
I had to laugh when I read this from Jazz:
I don’t know about anyone else, but there is some level of discomfort and trepidation because there is a sense of standing alone. …I bring this up because if you feel a little scared, ….
So true. The herding instinct is a very powerful survival strategy. The first thing I do after I watch and before I write a review is read other reviews at the home page for the film. Being way too old to be watching films, my opinion will sometimes vary widely from others, but my opinion is brought into sharper contrast by reading other’s thoughts.
Most of what you need to know about a film is here on this site. People here spend more time with these films than a paid reviewer. His/her reviews are governed by the rules of the herd. The need for a paid reviewer comes from one’s desire to hear the voice of the God-like-relater, the corollary to the herding instinct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics
I appreciate critics for bringing films that may have gone unheard of to the attention of cinephiles, but as for their opinions on those particular films I’m really indifferent. I haven’t read a review in god knows how long.
I think that profession reviewers are getting pushed closer and closer to obsoletism, and now is should be more about bringing films to your awares rather than putting forth an opinion about quality (although of course there is a certain amount of overlap there).
Jazzaloha
Either said, “I’m pretty sure I can read critical opinion without lying about my preferences.”
Lying may be too strong a word, and while you may not temper your enthusiasm or exaggerate your opinion to conform to what others think—and more power to you for this—you don’t think that other people modify their opinions to conform to established critics and other elites? I do—and if no one else in the world wants to admit this, I will.
Btw, I’m not saying that I can’t read critical opinion without (dishonestly) modifying my opinions. I am saying that reading critical opinion (and knowing the consensus opinion about a film) can make separating my true opinions and feelings more difficult to distinguish. As I’ve grown older (and hopefully wiser and more mature), I think I’m less susceptible modifying my opinions (to conform what is considered sophisticated and tasteful), but not knowing the opinions (or any information) about a film prior to forming an opinion just makes the process easier.