Film Critic VS Film Blogger

Quentin Falk on MovieScope, interviewed leading film-reviewers about the state of the Film Critic Industry - a must-read for all film-bloggers and anyone who writes about film:

While the distributors will gleefully appropriate those stars for their newspaper, poster or TV campaigns, there is at least some acknowledgment of their shortcoming. Duncan Clark, executive vice-president for international distribution at Universal Pictures, who spent years at the coalface of ad/pub promo for various European and Hollywood companies, describes them as an “inevitability. That instant soundbite-style gratification is just a sign of the times.

“It’s like when you sometimes get a mini-review, rather like a précis at the top of the review itself. If it’s poor then you probably won’t read any further. It’s a shame you’re effectively reducing things to just a thumbs-up or thumbs-down especially when there’s so much material that kind of slips into a greyer area than that.”

You can read the full article - a must-read for Film Bloggers - by clicking here

I do believe that everyone has an opinion on Art, but like any opinion, it has to backed up by experience. Film Critics watch countless films on a daily basis, whilst also pursuing their own interest in cinema and writing about the business itself multiple times on a weekly basis. My idea of heaven.

I would like to think that this credability is what will separate the men from the boys. Is blogging a hobby? Or are you going out of your way to refine and improve on your trade? Are you reading your contemporaries and your competition - are you learning from them?

I know I have on my Google Reader multiple critics - Derek Malcolm, Peter Bradshaw and Jason Solomons to name a few. These are people that, though I may disagree with, I whole-heartedly respect and it would be a tragedy if these writers became redundant - uder the asusmption that any opinion matters. Informed-opinion matters, passionate-opinion matters and, dare I say it, educated-opinion matters. And, if I am honest, I still feel I am a long way off ensuring that my opinion is of such a standard. But then, I hope I always think that even if I am working in the best-paid film-critic position in the world. I will always seek out more ... and there will always be more.

All the other opinions, I may be interested in, but I don't think you should be paid to give it.

Is There An Anti-Spielberg Trend?

Phil Hoad, on The Guardian, seems to jump on the Spielberg-bashing band-wagon by writing a small piece about whether 'Spielberg has lost his Mojo'.

"Is it true? Is the main man's career headed for the great script conference in the sky? It's arguable. He's still raking in the big bucks; among recent works, only Munich went close to a loss. But he had a patchy noughties: by my count, two successes, both in sci-fi (Minority Report, War of the Worlds); one middling film (Catch Me if You Can); three washouts (Indy, AI, Munich). I haven't seen The Terminal, but that doesn't alter what looks like a pretty indifferent hand. Even supporters of the new Tintin made constant mention of atoning for Crystal Skull, and how the adaptation was the real successor to the vintage Indiana Jones adventures. The real reference points for Spielberg, worryingly, seem to be in the past." 

The irony is how The Adventures of Tintin has come up Number #1 across Europe with mid-to-positive press reviews - 85% on Rotten Tomatoes. It seems The Guardian are the only newspaper trashing it so much (Xan Brooks and Peter Bradshaw both giving the film 2/5).

At any rate, I enjoyed it, and I will continue to sing it's praises ...