JONATHAN GINSBERG:
CRITICAL CAVEAT Before making the trek to the theatre to see a film, I am inevitably compelled to peruse critical reviews of the movie in question. Jumping blindly into a movie based off the title alone is a wild concept to me, but reading reviews before movies in their entirety can spoil the film in too many ways. The question is, how do you ascertain the merit of a movie from a review without thoroughly ruining the viewing experience in the process? The first step is to figure out how much stock to put into critics, and who is worth listening to. After reading a good film review, the infiltration of ideas occurs immediately. Focus on the cinematography, scoff at the banal dialogue, abhor the longing eyes of the miscast lead. No doubt, an authoritative perspective enriches the scope of the film. And the greater the critic, the greater the authority. Critics gain this respect by exerting a domineering sense of connoisseurship. Reviews loaded with references, technical language and undeniable confidence influence my opinion most. To read a well written review before watching a film does not add to my movie watching experience, but rather degenerates it into a constant comparison between the opinions of the review and the content of the movie. This vacillation creates a mental vacuum in which any opinion I might cultivate is heavily watered down. I do find it quite valuable, however, to read a review after seeing a film, as I have already come to my own conclusions. A review can highlight things I may have taken for granted, and adds perspective to my experience. The Critic becomes more of a companion in this case, the sort of friend you often get frustrated with given his snob appeal, but whose opinion cannot be disregarded given its constantly provocative and insightful nature. The Critic serves as a tastemaker, a collection of whom create the “they.” “They” can bicker, but they can also align into a cosmic force under which circumstances a movie can reach the status of a “Classic.” The boldest of the “They” will deviate from the pack. This contrarian figure is always a great read, given the pure fact that he has the audacity to challenge the canon, to oppose the dictated aesthetic. One such man, Armond White, Film Critic for the New York Press, takes on this role among the “they” with a semblance of respect due to his original voice and literary prowess. His prose, mimicking poetry in his muse-like grasp of language, and cutting assessment of a character, scene, or movie forces you to reconsider your own opinions. Perhaps this snippet from his Review of the Social Network will better highlight his style: “Like one of those fake-smart, middlebrow TV shows, the speciousness of The Social Network is disguised by topicality”. Such contrarian reviews rarely result in a change of heart for me, but it does point at something larger, that the question of taste is just that. Roger Ebert, my favorite critic, is often slighted by the “They,” for judging movies on a purely emotional level, emphasizing
pure entertainment as a basis for quality. However, he creates literary parallels and psychological diagnoses that are truly enjoyable to read. As such, each critique can be viewed as its own work of art. Metacritic.com, a website that collects as many critical reviews as possible, compiling them all to create a “score” gives you the clearest indicator of how the “They” feel about a certain movie. This score is fascinating. It reduces highfalutin opinion into a numerical value. This Metascore certainly appears to be a deciding factor; the end all, be all of critical references, but like anything taste-related, the contrarian is always alive and often yelling loudest. The most important point to maintain is that you, as the viewer, construct your own tastes. The definitive nature of taste is only exists within, besides the love-hate spectrum.