Add Bookmark | Recommend this book | Back to the book page | My bookshelf | Mobile Reading

Free Web Novel,Novel online - All in oicq.net -> Romance -> film master

Text Chapter 532 The Death of Film Critics

Previous page        Return to Catalog        Next page

    "Hahaha!"

    Because of Ye Wei's article "It's time to evaluate the film critics", Liz burst into laughter. It's a pity that she couldn't participate. This is a historic moment!  Watching Pugh, Honeycutt and other people who had scolded him before perform the show, it feels really good and I am proud of my good friends.

    I really want to see their expressions!  Will it be embarrassing?  what else?  Most Picky Critics Award?  Its selection is based on the lowest average rating from critics, and it is the most difficult for a film to get their praise.

    The winner did not surprise the media. Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal, known as "the worst-tempered film critic in the United States," was 11% lower than his peers. This 74-year-old man has experienced all the difficulties in the film critic world.  Vicissitudes of life are the few remaining experiences.

    ¡¾We just found out that Joe has also won the Pulitzer Prize!  Third place after Roger Ebert and Stephen Hunter, just last year, congratulations.  Joe was not exempted from us because we also discovered another secret of his.  Joe is the grumpiest old neighbor. If he had two mouths, he would spend the whole day yelling at each other.  He has given too many negative reviews to recognized classics. He said that "Kill Bill" "abuses actors and audiences" is not a problem. However, he is also the only positive film critic (70 points) for "Kill Bill" on Metactic.  "I'm delighted by how funny it is," and so on Irving gave it a 0 for "interspersed with a weird sense of humiliation."  This is actually an excellent advertisement for "The Dog"! It can make the most ardent film critic vomit and the most critical film critic applaud!" I will watch this movie later.  ¡¿

    The runner-up is Anthony Lane of The New Yorker. He has not reviewed SS yet, so naturally he lacks topics. People¡¯s attention has been firmly attracted by the third runner-up, Lou Rumnick, the chief film critic of the New York Post!  The pickiest awards went to the New York gang, so East Coast style, but the feud between Ramnik and Viy was the focus.

    "My friend Lu is very kind and kind, and this Lu is someone who once almost had a fight with other film critics over seats at a film festival. He always felt that Joe had suffered a lot of injustice.  Perhaps New York film critics particularly like dog movies. Lu praised "102 Dalmatians" with a score of 75 points higher than the average of 40 points. "This is the kind of movie that transcends reviews." But he became the only critic in the world (75 points)  What's going on with "Killer Clown", "First of all, this black comedy has a male rape scene, which seems much gentler than the one in "Furthermore"." No matter what you think, I just have a sincere  My advice is, don¡¯t go to the movies when you¡¯re on a date.  ¡¿

    Ye Wei¡¯s comment about Ramnik made many people laugh, but that was Ramnik¡¯s comment. Who can blame him?

    After the most picky, there are those who are the most neutral, and those who have the least difference between their peers on the ranking list.  The winner is J.R. Jones of the Chicago Reader, the runner-up is Stephanie Zakrak of Salon, and the third runner-up is Mike Lasalle of the San Francisco Chronicle.  The difference between them is less than 1%, and basically every score is the comprehensive opinion of the mainstream film critics.

    [Jones's score of 59 is almost the same as the average score of sampled movies. You can call him the "Switzerland of film critics." If you have to choose one critic out of 50 to evaluate a movie, he will be the most stable.  , the most credible one.  He is like a sweater knitted by his mother, not too big or fussy, not fancy or ugly, just practical.  He is also like Henry Fonda in "Twelve Angry Men". When everyone is quarreling and blushing, you might as well listen to what he has to say.  ¡¿

    The article did not make fun of these neutral film critics, but then announced Roger Ebert's review, and the results were very surprising!

    " Ebert actually outperformed his peers by 11.5%, ranking fourth among the stupidest film critics.  The article attempts to make an analysis. This is related to Ebert's style. He likes to give high scores to good movies, and gives very low scores to bad movies far less than others. Moreover, he considers some films that are bad by critics to be good movies with high scores.  .

    ¡¾Oh my God!  Roger, why are you ranked here?  It just ruined all our work, and Roger is one of the best film critics in the world.  The data shows that Roger is not the meanest person. On the contrary, he is kind to others and very opinionated (Owen: His opinion is opinionated, but my opinion is stupid? Boy, tell me clearly!) Okay, okay.  , our evaluation is really for reference only. The data can tell some things, but it cannot tell everything.  Every movie and every review needs to be evaluated specifically to know whether it's good or bad.  You know what science can't figure out?  Yes, women and movies.  ¡¿

    ah?  Liz was startled when she saw the last part, Oh!  A little disappointed.  But think about it, it is indeed like this. For example, SS is now about the same freshness as "102 Dalmatians". So if Albert gives SS a high score, he and Ramnik have done the same thing in terms of data. In fact, they are not  no the same.

    There are so many news topics!  The media was very excited. It was the first time a filmmaker bombarded him in this way.In the film critic world, Ye Wei also released a statistical data file in the appendix of the article. Anyone who wants to know more can download it for free. If he dares to do so in his capacity, he will not be fake.

    Movie fans are so happy. Viy said it is novel and humorous. Even if this thing is only for reference, it definitely fooled the film critics!  I wonder what the evaluations of the most neutral film critics such as J.R. Jones are?

    Ye Wei seemed to have not mentioned it in order to avoid suspicion, but fans soon compiled and disseminated the attitudes of these award-winning film critics. Neither Ryan nor Zach Clark had commented yet, and Mike Lassalle gave a B- negative review

    Some film critics seem to have made up their minds to ignore SS, or have made judgments based on the situation, and are unwilling to get involved. In fact, movie fans know that this is due to SS's sensitive religious tone.  As for the four champions of the stupidest, mediocre, picky and neutral, Graeberman gave an A, Richard Corliss has yet to comment, and Morgenstern and Jones both gave good reviews!

    ¡°It¡¯s hard not to like how touching it is.¡± 3/4, Joe Morgenstern

    "Because of director Ye Wei's mature performance, the true courage of the story, and impeccable dialogue, this believable, painful and optimistic film will forever remain in the memory." 3.5/4, J.R. Jones

    ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Such a ss is bound to be a movie that is supported by the audience and controversial by film critics, it depends on how controversial it will be.

    ¡­¡­

    Monday the 16th arrived as scheduled, and new developments brought this war of words to a fever pitch, being reported by global entertainment media.  s continued its strong performance on the first day and won the North American box office title over the weekend.  "It's Time to Review Movie Critics" has sparked a heated discussion among movie fans on the Internet. A spokesperson for Metactic said that it had already cooperated with Ye Wei's team earlier, and the website will improve the statistical system of these critics, such as "average rating (average-  review-score)", comparing evenly with peers, and like review grouping, how many of all reviews are higher, how many are the same, and how many are lower than peers, so that their style and latest rankings can be found at any time.

    Roger Ebert, who was in recuperation, published a ss film review in the Chicago Sun-Times and his official film review website, with a thumbs-up rating: ¡ï¡ï¡ï¡ï

    Albert has participated in countless wars of words, but this time he is determined to support SS. The four-star film review reveals his feelings between the lines.

    "Soul Surfer" is based on the true story of Bethany Hamilton, a 16-year-old girl who lost almost her entire left arm in a shark attack three years ago.  A month later she was back on a surfboard and now she had won a championship and had just turned pro.  All of these are remarkable facts.

    This is a problem-free movie, even though it has a seemingly simple premise.

    Bethany (Emma Roberts) has a happy family of professional surfers, a big, friendly dog, good friends, a talent for surfing, and lives right on the beach.  She was a devout Christian who received tremendous support from her spiritual leaders, and was a never-say-die optimist with a fierce competitive spirit.  This girl is almost living in a dream.

    ¡°But there¡¯s more to the film.  Can a 13-year-old girl continue to smile after losing an arm?  If you can't, you can just pretend to be fine.  Producer, screenwriter and director Ye Wei shows the audience the complete Bethany, the dark night of the soul, the moments of sadness and anger, the temptation of nihilism, the temptation of despair, and the heart destroyed by hatred.

    Ye Wei's storytelling strategy does not control Bethany and prevent her from realizing these pains. The film makes her face the tragedy of her story again and again, constantly tempting her like a devil to doubt her religious beliefs and feel that everything is terrible.  , she couldn't have accomplished something inspiring, she was a tragedy.

    Based on this strategy, "Soul Surfer" has many particularly convincing scenes and lines.  After the story happened, Bethenny woke up in the hospital and asked her teenage mentor why God treated her like this?  She went home and hid in the bathroom alone crying.  She was fitted with a useless prosthetic leg and refused to use it again, fuming that she had gained nothing.  She rants about her family and close friends who have always supported her.  She confides in her dog.

    There are many more. The most touching moment for me was when Bethenny woke up from a nightmare in the middle of the night and cried and begged God to show her and give her a reason to persist in courage and faith.  This is such a powerful moment rarely seen in the history of film, which vividly expresses the melancholy, doubt and humility of the collapsed optimist in the face of fate.  For me, who is fighting cancer, I understand the darkness in it, and from then on I couldn't stop my tears.

    Bethenny had every reason to give up, and she and her family gave up for a time, but she ultimately continued to persevere.  Even if the movie is a little perfunctory about her recovery, nothing is lost, the reality is all in it, which allowed me to unreservedly support her belief.and cheer her in spirit, grieve for her pain, give full credit to her determination, and recognize that she is a great athlete for this 13-year-old girl.

    This movie never indulges in sadness. It has a lot of details that made me laugh, especially Bethany¡¯s ¡°Making of Adam¡± altered T-shirt. I don¡¯t know about you, but I really clapped my hands and laughed.  This detail also makes those family members who use optimism to cover up depression so real. You can actually feel their mood, how they support each other, how they turn sadness into warmth and love, it is incredible.

    Ye Wei's handling of details is actually very thoughtful. He knows what the movie must tell the audience, such as Bethenny's medical information, what risks will there be to the wound after returning to the sea in a month, the doctor's advice to her and the conversation with her parents.  , we learn how difficult and complex her recovery was.  The movie quickly expresses this process through montage, which may feel missing to some viewers, but if you pay attention to the details of the scene, it is not easy for her.  In a few scenes, Bethenny even has obvious dark circles under her eyes due to insomnia, which is the moment when her soul is struggling.

    Emma Roberts is a lovable and believable heroine, and compared to the 13-year-old girl she played in her other film this year, "Mermaid," she seems to have been cast by Ye Wei.  .  Colin Firth and Helen Hunt, who play Bethany's parents, both give excellent performances. Although the script does not give them many choices other than supporting their daughter, they seize every opportunity to express their complexity and express themselves in a beautiful and beautiful way.  An argument broke out.

    ¡°Oh, how could I forget Sarah Mentor (Melissa McCarthy), amazing performance, amazing character, she was a very effective buffer for this movie.  Bethany's best friend Alana (Shailene Woodley) plays the role faithfully, and another young actress, Trisha Menor, is also impressive. Her role as a surfer is not much, Bethenny's  Rival, instead of the villainous blonde, this movie doesn't have a villain.

    "Soul Surfer" tells me that Ye Wei has maintained his standards. This 18-year-old film genius is a young and frivolous person with problems, but he is really good at making movies.

    Is this a useful and inspirational film?  There is no doubt that it is, not just.  ¡¿

    ¡­¡­

    Also on this morning, with the new day¡¯s release of the Los Angeles Times and the official website update, ¡°The Death of the Film Critic¡± that had been hyped by Ye Wei all weekend was finally released.

    "If Albert's participation in the war is exciting, the excellent film review he wrote is not surprising.  Ye Wei's long article was completely beyond people's expectations. This is not a typical viy statement, let alone his laughter and curses on social networking sites. How can it be a joke?

    Many people who read newspapers and web pages suddenly woke up, those jokes are bait!  Because this is not easy at all, and I don¡¯t know who this is for

    But some people were shocked.

    ¡¾The Death of Film Critic Ye Wei, 2006-10-16

    To talk about the death of film criticism, there are four areas that must be clarified first: the filmmaker world, the academic world, the film critic world, and the audience world.  How to sequence the four and what kind of interaction they have are issues that have been debated endlessly.  The core issue is what they think about movies, and how they watch movies.

    The best introduction is to the audience.  Movies are definitely one of the least artistic creations. For most other works of art, people tacitly agree that viewers and critics need a certain knowledge of the art field. If you want to appreciate a Van Gogh painting, just  You must have a knowledge of oil painting, and if you want to comment on a Chopin piano piece, you must also have a foundation in music theory.  Understanding aesthetics and history are also needed, just like when you read a Tolstoy novel.

    But in the field of movies, the public¡¯s tacit understanding seems to be that you can watch, understand and comment on any movie without any knowledge.

    This is naturally because movies have been sold as a mass commodity from the beginning. It has been a commodity for longer than an artwork.  Later, Hollywood turned this product into a best-selling product. Most of the time, it just pleases the audience.  This makes it so that as time goes by, you will always walk into an art gallery with respect, but when you walk into a movie theater, you will probably think, "Would I have fun watching these movie makers today? They better do it."

    Movies are not just commodities, movies are also an art, whether it is popular art or whatever.  I'm not sure whether it's always been the case or if it's just now, most viewers have forgotten or even disdain this.

    Back in the 1960s and 1970s, the audience was not what it is now, and it was probably the best and most influential period in American film criticism.  It all started with the death of the famous film critic James Agee in 1955. His collection of film criticism was published in 1958. This was the first collection of film criticism in American history. It meant that film critics officially obtained the title of intellectuals. They??What you write will be taken seriously.  Then, heroes emerge.

    In those days, a review by New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael could recommend a film as a great work.  Because of her passionate and sharp shouts, many new Hollywood movies became a sensation across the United States before they were released, or went from being ignored to sold-out movies overnight.

    But don¡¯t get me wrong, Pauline Kael was one of the people who really democratized film criticism. Her original philosophy was ¡°I fear that one day cinema will no longer be the only art that everyone can freely enjoy and express their opinion on.¡±  , I worry that it will become something that can only be studied and appreciated by academic circles, just like music and fine arts.¡±

    Roger Ebert is also worried about this. He is also worried that the civilianization of film art will cause art films to lose their status and living space, because what the public is most passionate about must be the part they can understand.  That's why he strongly recommends classic art films and "forgotten movies" on "Chicago Sun" and film review TV shows.

    Andrew Sarris is an important figure in another school. You may have heard of "auteur theory" that movies are the work of directors.  It originated from French director Fran?ois Truffaut.  It was Sarris who took the lead in spreading auteur theory in the United States, writing film reviews using auteur theory, discovering unknown new directors, and rehabilitating neglected old directors.  At that time, the French New Wave movement had also begun, followed by the New Hollywood movement, and the director's prestige and status rose to unprecedented heights.

    Sarris and Kael were lifelong rivals, and their debates since the 1960s established the factions of American film criticism.

    Kael disagrees with the auteur theory and Sarris's other theories, such as the idea of ??establishing a new system of film criticism called a "pantheon" (a hierarchical ranking of directors).  She believes that the auteur theory elevates the director at the expense of producers, screenwriters, actors and other creators, and in its aesthetic way treats some trash (trash is one of Kyle¡¯s favorite film review words) as art.  Anti-intellectual and anti-art, like some kind of cult ritual.

    ? And Sarris is very disdainful of the clich¨¦s in film reviews in mainstream print media.  Quoting another film critic from the same period, Ezra Goodman's sarcastic "Decisive List," illustrates the situation:

    "It's been said that oftentimes movie reviewers' reviews are more clich¨¦d than the films they're reviewing. Sample review sentences include: 'Absolutely explosive, shocking, gripping, extravagant and thrilling, sumptuous, captivating'  Imagination, forward movement, great drama, absolute screen artistry, very good performances, exciting tension, hugely moving, spectacular ending, incompetent directing, incredibly clumsy, jaw-dropping, adrenaline-pumping, mind-blowing  Incomprehensible, hellish, really good, resonant, trippy, dark, mind-boggling, intensely self-contained, amazing, awesome 'sounds like what we're fussing about all the time.  ¡±

    Sarris believes that these film critics have no passion and dare not take risks. He said that "the lack of critical theory makes the American film critic world moody. The quality of each film is just because it makes you happy or unhappy." He proposed that film critics must love movies.  , breathing film art, words must have something to say, and should combine theory, history and the scheduling of the film itself to explain clearly why a movie is a good or bad movie.

    Regarding Kyle's argument, Sarris admitted that the original story of the film is usually not thought up by the director, but the director's job is mainly to transform the text of the script into images in his personal style, and because film reviews transform images into words, the traditional  Critics paid little attention to the film's pure aesthetics, merely retelling its content.  His author's film reviews must place form in a higher position than content. Only this can help movie fans truly understand the director's style.

    There are many people who are dissatisfied with Sarris, such as Dwight Macdonald, an elite intellectual and cultural critic in New York. What he is most dissatisfied with is that Sarris has eleganceized movies that belong to popular culture, such as using some high-art fields.  Writing film reviews using critical terminology blurs the boundaries between avant-garde art and mainstream art.

    His criticism forced critics to take sides.  What is cinematic art?

    ¡°Compared to Macdonald¡¯s group of people who despise movies, Kyle and Sarris actually belong to the same camp that loves movies and has a close connection with the audience.  But Kyle is the kind of venomous loner who everyone scolds. She simultaneously criticizes critics who underestimate and pay too much attention to popular culture, and also criticizes Hollywood and avant-garde filmmakers. She said, "Reject Hollywood, you are hypocritical; reject the avant-garde.  Movie, you are mentally ill." Sarris also didn't think he had anything to do with Kyle, and criticized her for not wanting to elevate movies to a mainstream art level, which was actually due to her old-school conservative thinking.

    Both of them and their camp members believe that their approach is art, the correct attitude towards movies, and the future of film criticism.

    You also seeIt turns out that there was indeed a glorious era of contention among a hundred schools of thought in the field of film criticism, which influenced how people view and watch movies today.

    But in the eyes of most scholars in academia, they are all idiots.  Academic and media criticism of film come from the same source, are intertwined, and have been fighting for a long time. Film theorist David Bordwell once said: "In the 1970s, when I started graduate school, I was surprised to find that my new friends  I was scornful of the reviews I wrote for Film Review and other media outlets, and academics were very unimpressed with moviegoers, and even film critics with academic backgrounds were hostile to academia.¡±

    In summary, scholars believe that film critics are enthusiastic laymen who make money by writing reviews of movies and rush to make conclusions about a movie using some characteristic vocabulary.  One is academic film criticism, the other is news media film criticism, and they are at odds with no prospect of bridging.

    Bordwell admitted that the rift between the two was mostly due to the academics, and also confirmed some public suspicions:

    The academic community that promotes "grand-theory" rejects both the popularization of movies and the auteur theory. It disdains popular movies, stays away from film production, and does not care about the operation of Hollywood. Even Steven Spielberg neglects it.  treat.  Academics pay more attention to boring works made with difficult theories and obscure terminology, which is exactly in line with the way of analyzing and studying movies shot by shot.  He also revealed that there are actually a group of scholars, including himself, who admire some talented film critics who love movies and have benefited a lot from them, and vice versa for film critics.

    Bordwell is a man with many good intentions. Compared with grand theory, he prefers "middle-level research (d-level-research)", a kind of research that is neither in the sky loft of academia nor on the ground of film criticism.  According to the newspaper's method of studying movies, "perceptual appreciation and rational analysis can complement each other" and "combine critical analysis and academic interpretation with theoretical reflection". The two groups of people respect each other and work together.

    "It is a pity that Bordwell has not yet given a detailed explanation of middle-level research. Perhaps the essential opposition between scholars and film critics is difficult to resolve: What should I say first when writing a film review?  As he said, typical media film reviews answer questions like: "What are the unique characteristics of this film? How do these characteristics enhance our understanding of its value?" And typical academic film critics answer questions like:  ¡°How can I apply and analyze my theoretical framework to which aspects of this movie?¡±

    The academic community does not pay attention to the evaluation of movies. Many grand theory scholars believe that all forms of art are a means to achieve social control, and movies embody ideology.  For example, a viewer watching an old Western has accepted the racist assumptions of the Western.  The director who can escape, confront and ultimately defeat the ideology in some way is a good director.

    Having said all this, you must have met the enemies of academia and film criticism.  But before talking about anything else, I would like to talk about another film critic, the famous "American public conscience" Susan Sontag.  This great female literary figure also participated in the critical debate in the 1960s, and yes, she was also scolded by Pauline Kael.

    At that time, Sontag was rising to prominence in intellectual circles with two groundbreaking essays, "Against Interpretation" and "A Culture and a New Sensibility."  Her idea is that Western culture is obsessed with interpreting works of art, forcing critics to find meaning in them, oppressing sensory experience and weakening the pleasure of experiencing art.  He also believes that old-school cultural authority has become a stumbling block for society to appreciate popular culture, and that prejudice should be discarded and humanities and art should be redefined outside of tradition.

    In ¡°Against Interpretation,¡± she advocates paying more attention to form in order to eliminate the interpretive arrogance caused by an overemphasis on content regarding the question of which kind of criticism and which kind of art criticism is most desirable.  She also affirmed the value of precise, meticulous academic papers.  But "the important thing now is to restore our feelings. We must learn to see more, listen more, and feel more." That is, the viewer must understand the content of the artwork and the appearance of things, and see the real  The feelings of oneself and the soul.  Reviews are about telling why, not what it is.

    Kyle strongly disagrees with "Against Interpretation" and doesn't like the respect people like Sontag gave to some "junk movies."  She criticized Sontag's film reviews for being "uniform and unopinionated" and "since everything works, then nothing happens and nothing works." She criticized the avant-garde cultural circle, "If we reject the standards of criticism and accept every  I personally say that I am an artist and regard anti-commercial works as art. If Sontag continues to do what she is doing, the end of criticism will come.¡±

    In order for the film to secure its place in popular culture, Pauline Kael made film reviews popular but maintained her authority as a film critic. Her film review style despised theory, subjectivity, viciousness, and focused on content and the performance of the creators (the style of film review in mainstream media today).

      To promote auteur theory and enhance the artistic status of films, everyone is a film critic, and every film worker is an artist. We respect everyone, but we must classify their talents. Andrew Sarris, emphasis on film criticism style  Form, profound and difficult to understand.

    Susan Sontag, who opposes simplistic explanations and wants everyone to see her works, democratizes art criticism, has a neutral style of film criticism, focuses on form, and has clear perceptions.

    Who do you support?

    Soon after that debate, nothing good happened, but all bad things happened.

    Maybe everything will be like this, from low to high, from prosperity to decline.  Since the 1980s, film critics have begun to proliferate. Most of them do not understand film production, academic theory, artistic aesthetics, what is rationality, nor what sensibility is, nor how to speak viciously, nor how to criticize others.  LyricallyI don't understand anything.  As long as you can figure out whether you like or dislike a certain movie after watching it, you have a list of cliche reviews, and you happen to be able to contribute, you are a film critic.

    It should be said that everyone has the right to like or hate a work. No matter whether it is subjective or objective, any film critic will also be affected by preferences.  But at that time, it had never reached such a serious level before, so from that time on, film criticism gradually lost its influence. By the end of the 1980s, people began to say that "film criticism is dead."

    At the same time, American movies were soaring down the road to popular entertainment, and the artistic space was getting smaller and smaller for all the big names in the industry.  It seems that what Pauline Kael unfortunately said is that superficial pop culture is overwhelming, and the art and culture that should be independent and self-respecting are degenerating and finally falling into a mess.

    Why?  In 1996, Sontag published "The Decline of the Movies" in the New York Times. She stated in the article that she was more aware of the decline in the quality of the audience than the quality of the movies themselves: "Perhaps it is not movies that are coming to an end, but movies.  Cinemaphilia is a term used specifically to describe the love that comes from movies.¡±

    ?I completely agree.  Hollywood and the independent film industry spend most of their time making movies for the audience. Those who cannot make money will only die. As Francis Coppola said: "After I left school, I never had the freedom to make movies.  "I secretly think that Sontag could have saved a "maybe". The appearance of the screen is a general portrayal of the audience's needs.

    Many filmmakers still have the love of cinephilia, but many audiences no longer have it, and neither do many film critics. Moreover, when it comes to writing film reviews, just having love is not enough, because love can produce many other emotions.  Including hate.

    You like a bad movie very much, and you hate a good movie very much. In this case, how do you make a comment?

    Film critics are different from ordinary viewers.  This is one of the consensuses of all parties involved in the criticism debate. The conflict is about the level of standards and the way film reviews are written.  Media film criticism is the bridge between a movie and the audience. The film critic industry tells the world how this bridge is. Before this completely changes, film critics should have a level higher than that of ordinary audiences.

    Going back to the previous question, I don¡¯t know who you support, but I think they all have their own merits and demerits. I also fully agree with Bordwell¡¯s saying that film reviews should best ¡°describe the plot, reproduce the situation, and evaluate and appreciate.¡±  The three in one.

    In my opinion, an ideal film critic should love movies deeply but no longer be fanatical about them.  When he watches the movie, he remembers that he is himself, all those emotions and life, but he also needs another pair of eyes and another heart, the eyes and heart of a film critic.  This allows him to approach everything on screen subjectively and objectively at the same time.

    The film reviews he writes later will have a broad and delicate aesthetic taste, and will not mention too many theories. The focus on form has been transformed into spiritual perception, and the effects inspired by the film will be reproduced through the clever use of language and conveyed.  The content of the movie and the characteristics of the movie can be analyzed. When necessary, you can explain the advanced theory in simple terms, communicate it from top to bottom, and have a clear understanding of the overall situation and details of the movie.

    Here I am trying to write an example film review paragraph based on the 2005 Peter Jackson-directed version of "King Kong":

    "There are always times in life when you feel like you have entered a new world, a place where exciting dreams happen. It seems that everything you have been looking for is here. The beauty you desire is within your reach and just around the corner. But when you turn around  Look at your feet, you are still in a situation where you are in danger of falling to pieces. When King Kong climbed to the top of the Empire State Building, what did he see and what was he thinking? "

    I¡¯m not saying how well written this paragraph is, but I can¡¯t remember how long it¡¯s been since I¡¯ve read a film review paragraph with this intention in the media.

    You can say that most film critics in daily newspapers and weekly magazines do not belong to this faction. Tight deadlines and word limit limits also restrict their in-depth performance.  This is all true. Another fact is that the level of film criticism has been declining, and Goodman¡¯s satire more than 40 years ago has become more and more??Revitalized.

    Some people will say "No, it's much better now", because if a film critic says something insulting, or crosses the line on political correctness, or engages in personal grudges or corruption, his reputation will be in shambles and no one will want to read him anymore.  Articles written.  Ironically, the progress of this era has become a constraint for film critics. These standards of concern actually hurt film critics from making the most fair comments about movies.  In times of controversy, rather than risking their careers, a large number of film critics usually choose to settle the matter with clich¨¦d comments.

    No matter why, those film critics have returned to the path of clich¨¦s, and gradually earned a lot of royalties when there is no controversy.  Sometimes they deliberately keep a distance from the audience to show that they are professionals; sometimes they are trying to please the audience to maintain and enhance the popularity of the column.  They became indiscriminate, and were unfortunately criticized by Pauline Kael. Many films disguised as works of art were trumpeted, and many good commercial films were trampled into nothing.

    As for online film critics, most people have not yet made a clear distinction. Is this good or bad based on their own taste or good or bad based on standards?

    Nowadays, the boundaries between print media and the Internet are becoming more and more blurred. To a certain extent, you can classify them into a group of people, they are all similar.  Film critics who are willing to think are already a rare species. Film criticism has been reduced to a display of personal tastes under various constraints, and finally aggregated into a display of public tastes.  Movies are classified as good or bad in this way, which may mean that movies are becoming marketized, standardized, homogenized, and mediocre whether in the commercial or artistic fields.

    The Internet has completely disrupted the film criticism industry. Some people say that this is a revolution. In fact, some situations existed before the emergence of the Internet.  Film critic is everyone's second career. After watching a movie, everyone will have their own opinions: "Oh my god, they made it so great.", "Oh my god, why did they make such a bad movie?"  ?¡±

    People have the right to do that, but I think it¡¯s ridiculous that people treat this as ¡°comment¡±, no, that¡¯s just talk.

    What is movie talk?  It's just like how you talk about all other things in daily life. You go to a restaurant and have a meal. When you are happy with your meal, you tell your friends, "There is a great restaurant there. You all should go and try it."  "When you're not happy with your meal, you might just complain, "What the hell," or tell your friends, "There's a terrible restaurant there, don't go there, it's disgusting."  , is now and will be in the future.  Before the audience leaves the cinema after watching the movie, they use mobile phones and other wireless communication devices to go online and log in to social networking sites. They type a sentence or two and send it out, which defines a movie.

    ¡°There is no difference between bad online film critics and the bad film critics that began to proliferate in the 1980s. If so, the reviews are shorter.  Likewise, good online film critics are good film critics.  But the sad reality is that the number of excellent film critics produced by the Internet is very small, and at the same time it produces a large number of bad film critics who only know, are only willing, and only care about "talking", and then the Internet twists their power together.  This creates a very scary situation. If you go online to any film review website or social networking site, you can see that bad film critics are everywhere, occupying the public eye with their comments and affecting the fate of the movie.

    What¡¯s even more frightening is that there is no elimination mechanism, or it doesn¡¯t work.  Those film reviewers who write film reviews in publications are at least above a certain baseline, and they have a credit record. When their credibility reaches a certain level, they will be eliminated and forgotten.  The Internet has provided an endless supply of bad new blood, and bad money will drive out good money. Bad film critics have become the mainstream, cinephilia has come to an end, and some people are impetuous and violent towards movies.

    The Internet has given people an illusion. Everyone thinks they know everything. Authority is collapsing and anti-intellectualism is roaring. People no longer believe in film reviews other than their own judgment and no longer need film reviews.  This shift isn't just happening in how film is reviewed, but in almost everything.

    Someone may ask, "Brother Wei, where are you on the ground? Don't you want to criticize the film critics?" Haven't you seen it yet?  Now that¡¯s the world of film criticism!  You and everyone are film critics. No matter whether a person watches a movie, thinks about it, studies it, or loves the movie, he or she is a film critic, or to be more precise, a film critic.

    The end of comments is here!

    Napoleon once said, "What is history? It is just a lie of consensus." This sentence can be applied to film criticism today and in the future: What is a film review?  It's just a consensus discussion.

    In fact, at the beginning of the Internet comment wave, people still had many good wishes. Bordwell was one of them. He believed that the Internet could help professionals like him enlighten the audience's understanding of film art.Solution power.  Years later, it turned out that was just wishful thinking on his part.  At the beginning, most of the netizens vying to be online film critics were cinephiles who respected both movies and movie reviews; soon, they were all drowned out.

    ¡°I¡¯m not sure where the film critic world will go in this era.  I don¡¯t know if this is a reappearance of the 1980s. The times have given me an illusion. In the future, the film criticism industry will continue to thrive and find its way out.  After all, the Internet has indeed created a lot of good things. More ordinary viewers can become movie fans, and movie fans have access to more film reviews and academic articles.  Think optimistically, there will always be some heroes who emerge.

    But I am pessimistic, although I hope it will get better.

    There is a saying in Buddhism that goes, "If you don't seek to be free from demons when you act, and if you don't act without demons, you will not be firm in your vows." Sontag understood this as: "One of the most beautiful views in Buddhism is that if you are actually in a place in life where there is no pain or suffering.  moment, then you have an obligation to discover some hardships and expose yourself to them.¡±

    Today's film critic world is already in the most difficult moment when demons and monsters are running rampant. It is a matter of life or death. I also hope that outstanding film critics will not be afraid of change and make me "incredible, exciting, tense, adrenaline-fuelled, and scared."  Jaws, spectacular finish, level of perfection.¡±

    Finally, I would like to tell the readers of this column a piece of news. This is the last article of this column.

    From the first issue of "The Death of Film" on April 5, 2004 to the current issue of "The Death of Film Critics" in the 133rd issue on October 16, 2006, it ended beautifully, didn't it?  Over the past few days I¡¯ve realized it¡¯s time to call it a day.  As you know, I have been making movies for three years since I was 15 years old. I have done "very good performance". Before "Soul Surfer", I have been praised by various critics. If anyone tells me, "The film critics are out of control."  Question¡± I mostly just shrugged, ¡°puzzling¡±.

    But recently, starting from "Carrie", the film critics have given me a huge critical impact. I have seen more, for movies, film critics, film critics, and for myself.

    I have criticized a lot of bad film critics these days, but this incident also made me a bad film critic, or I have always been one.  In short, when I tasted that my work was unreasonably criticized by them, I felt extremely angry. This also meant that my attitude towards film critics had changed. The filmmaker part instantly occupied a greater position in my mind, and I began to  I agree with one argument that there is not even a single bad movie in the world that is made with care. No matter good or bad, I will give full marks to all movies that are made with care. I know the honor behind them.

    But that¡¯s not a film review, and I will only become more and more like this. I can¡¯t truly objectively look at some unsatisfactory and well-intentioned films, and I can¡¯t write my ideal film review.  This is a multiple-choice question, should I be a movie critic or a movie maker?  I made my choice without hesitation.

    Since I can¡¯t write film reviews, if I just write some mood diaries and industry insights, I might as well keep up with the times and put them on social networking sites. If I want to publish articles in print media occasionally, I can just submit them.

    So that¡¯s it, the ¡°viy said¡± column is officially closed.

    But of course I¡¯m still a film talker, who isn¡¯t?  It is now 2006-10-16, and film criticism is not dead yet. It is being strangled by the Internet and is on the verge of death. Soon, in the 2010s, film criticism will die, in traditional media and on the Internet.  Maybe he really died this time.

    Goodbye James Agee Goodbye Pauline Kael Goodbye Roger Ebert Goodbye Andrew Sarris Goodbye Ezra Goodman Goodbye Susan Sontag  Goodbye David Bordwell, Goodbye cinephile heroes, Goodbye movie reviews.

    Hello, movie talk.  ¡¿
Didn't finish reading? Add this book to your favoritesI'm a member and bookmarked this chapterCopy the address of this book and recommend it to your friends for pointsChapter error? Click here to report