|
|
Post by thewhiteknight on Jan 18, 2009 12:58:06 GMT -5
This thead has some serious flamage potential, mainly because this site was created with the intention of criticing, but I just have to get this off my chest.
Ill start with "The Man in the Arena" by Theodore Roosevelt:
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
"Citizenship in a Republic,"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
Below are additional quotations related to the more famous and later quote.
"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done." (1891)
"Criticism is necessary and useful; it is often indispensable; but it can never take the place of action, or be even a poor substitute for it. The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought, without himself sharing the stress and the danger." (1894)
I LOVE movies. I LOVE seeing a great movie and recommending it to my friends. Sometimes I dislike movies, or even downright hate them. But I don't spend my time telling all my friends how bad it was. If I did that all the time I wouldn't have very many friends, or at least friends I would like being around. No one likes to be around negative people all the time. I would become something else, such as the eternal nit-picker, the village critic, or the arm chair quarterback. Could you imagine them erecting a statue of the village critic, and the inscription would read: "Here stands a tribute to man who found something wrong with EVERYTHING." Ebert, if you're such a movie EXPERT, if you know all the ins and outs of a good movie, why don't YOU make a movie?
Disclaimer: If you're a critic for a living, I apologize, we all need to make a living and you're often paid to sit through 2 hours of crap and write about it, so I sympathize.
A critic may watch a thousand movies, but good or bad is still relative to them only. It's an opinion. There are people out there taking risks by DOING not watching, in all walks of life, and they are the ones that make the world go round, not the critics.
|
|
dex
Ghostbuster
So what colour is the sky in your world?
Posts: 343
|
Post by dex on Jan 18, 2009 14:46:55 GMT -5
This thead has some serious flamage potential, mainly because this site was created with the intention of criticing, but I just have to get this off my chest. Oh, don't worry, we don't usually flame much here. (You're new here, so just to be on the safe side, I point out I'm not a Mutant, which you might have believed when you saw me answering.) And another disclaimer: Since I don't know the sources you cite, I interpret your quotes out of context, flawed as that may be. Good quote, because it is relevant today. In a troubling manner, however. I am worried that a president of a democracy should underestimate the critics' value; I'm not surprised that a politician should say that, though. An upright critic is fundamental in a democracy. Power needs checks. Indeed, we need the professional critics just as much as every citizen should be one. I believe the lack of this spirit (in conjunction with lacking education) is one root of the deficiencies of our countries. Who in his right mind would claim that in the first place? Wait, I would, actually. I watch movies for entertainment. I read reviews for entertainment. Writing Reader Reviews has been pretty fun, too. The latter two actions have at times be more enjoyable than watching some of the more boring movies. What does it tell your friends when you don't recommend a certain movie to them? (Or, btw., what does it mean if you do not vote for a certain political candidate?) What does this mean: “How are you?” – “Fine.”? It does not mean they are fine. It's meaningless because (or if – it's a cultural thing) you never say anything but “Fine.” I'm sorry to hear that. On the up side, I don't believe your pessimistic outlook is warranted. I'm a newbie here as well, but I get the impression there are one or two friends here. Well, they put up a statue of Jayne, so, yes, I guess I could imagine that. But seriously, what do you think “criticism” means? You don't need me to cite the etymology from Wikipedia. In short, criticism deals with good and bad. Many ideas are polar in nature. We need contrast to make sense of something. Because he acknowledges the difference between movie critic and director, yet values both domains. To call their relation “subordinate” like Teddy is not necessarily wrong, but arbitrary and unhelpful. They complement each other. Rhetorically, I like your disclaimer; it's a pretty subtle insult. Finally: why do you come to a web site and criticize it?  |
|
DTH
Ghostbuster
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Posts: 582
|
Post by DTH on Jan 19, 2009 10:41:50 GMT -5
I'm baffled as to the point of this thread.
...
Ohhhh, NOW I get it. Is it troll mating season again, already?
|
|
|
|
Post by jman912 on Jan 19, 2009 12:06:54 GMT -5
I'll let the principal of Knibb High take this one:
"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
|
|
|
|
Post by pfrsue on Jan 19, 2009 15:14:04 GMT -5
Okay, a few people are dancing very very close to the edge of needing their posts removed or modified. Be warned.
TWK, like dex, I'm wondering what the point of your post is? As you've acknowledged, this is a forum based on a movie reviewing site. Are you making a generalization? Are you criticizing the mutant reviewers themselves? (Which, according to your argument, would be counter-intuitive unless you're a movie reviewer.) Are you telling us to go out and get real jobs? (Cause we've got them. Well, except for me, but I'm only on hiatus.)
The idea that opinions and criticisms are subjective isn't a new one. The right to have opinions or express criticisms is protected. So I guess I'm not catching your intent here.
|
|
|
|
Post by BlackCatWhiteCat on Jan 19, 2009 15:29:38 GMT -5
Are you telling us to go out and get real jobs? (Cause we've got them. Well, except for me, but I'm only on hiatus.) Doling out ritualistic beatings at Justin's request isn't a real job, Sue. Stop using cancer as a crutch and do something with yourself already! |
|
|
|
Post by StarOpal on Jan 19, 2009 15:35:50 GMT -5
I beg to differ, Heather! Ritualistic beating requires a lot of talent. I know it took three hours for me to pass out when she came after me for giving Justin "a crusty look."
I think you need to hand out some lessons, Sue!
|
|
|
|
Post by pfrsue on Jan 19, 2009 15:37:35 GMT -5
Doling out ritualistic beatings at Justin's request isn't a real job, Sue. Stop using cancer as a crutch and do something with yourself already! Ouch. That's harsh. I don't even use crutches! Pooly might have some though, if you're in need of a pair. |
|
|
|
Post by BlackCatWhiteCat on Jan 19, 2009 15:50:28 GMT -5
Doling out ritualistic beatings at Justin's request isn't a real job, Sue. Stop using cancer as a crutch and do something with yourself already! Ouch. That's harsh. I don't even use crutches! Pooly might have some though, if you're in need of a pair. No, thanks. They would probably have maple syrup all over them. |
|
|
|
Post by BlackCatWhiteCat on Jan 19, 2009 15:52:14 GMT -5
I beg to differ, Heather! Ritualistic beating requires a lot of talent. You're probably right, Eunice. I guess I'm feeling a bit acerbic toward Sue ever since she took away my gruel rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Lissa on Jan 20, 2009 15:51:47 GMT -5
Actually, there was a really interesting quote in Ratatoullie about critics as well. I'm too lazy to find it, but it was basically about informing the masses. Critics have several roles in our society. They ferret out what's good and what's not- something that marketing would not do on its own. Of course, as a reader, you have to think. What motivates this critic? Why do they like/dislike something? and do you even agree with them on the value of whatever they're talking about? One of the reasons I love this site is that we have multiple reviewers and that dissension among the ranks is encouraged. And if you read it enough, you begin to know what we each like and dislike. A good example is that anyone who likes horror probably knows to go dig up Shalen's old reviews and ignore any review I put up on the subject, which likely resulted from owing Duckie big time. A critic or a reviewer can offer an opinion, but in general, it's up to the reader to decide if they want to place any value on that opinion. That said, there are times when a reviewer's word is fact, not opinion. I've steered clear of movies I might have gone to because the writer has mentioned excessive violence, or that there was something in it that was truly offensive. Or, in the case of something like a restaurant, if someone mentions their chicken was served raw... well, I ain't going. I appreciate these cases  I don't think any of the reviewers are claiming to be superior to those making what we watch. (I also don't think any of us are remotely inactive. Seriously- the talent on this staff (and I'm not just talking writing) is pretty unbelievable.) But there's something to be said for offering your opinion in a formalized manner- but then the burden is on the reader as to if you accept it or not. In other words, you have to think, too |
|
|
|
Post by TheLuckyOne on Jan 20, 2009 22:22:11 GMT -5
I'll weigh in that the Teddy Roosevelt quote is one of my personal favorites, has been ever since I first read it on the wall in the NCAA Hall of Fame. It's an outstanding quote, and I don't at all disagree with the sentiment... in certain circumstances. Sports, for instance. In sports, you're competing for yourself and, in certain sports, your teammates. You do it for your own satisfaction, pride, and betterment. And if someone criticizes you, you have every right to turn to them and say, "Okay, you hop in the pool/get on a bike/pick up a bat and do better." Absolutely.
But that's sports. Art, on the other hand, is not done for the individual. Art -- be it painting, sculpture, film, TV, writing, what have you -- is meant to be shared with the masses. There are rare exceptions, people who paint or write or make movies only for themselves, that they never intend to share with anyone else. And if someone sees one of those works and offers harsh criticism, then yes, that person is a jerk. But the vast majority of artists in any medium create for the benefit of sharing it with others. They want feedback, reactions... ideally positive, but feedback nonetheless. And that's the dividing line, because once you put your work out there to the masses and ask them to weigh in, you lose the right to protest if their opinions aren't to your liking. Automatically. It's as simple as that.
Mind you, I'm not saying that gives critics the right to be insulting, petty creeps in their critiques -- and believe me, I know many of them do anyway -- but if you make public your work and ask for feedback or visit places where you know people will be talking about it, you have to be prepared for the fact that it's not all going to be positive. That goes for us too... I know all the Mutants love getting feedback and cherish every email we get from readers or thread that's started about one of our reviews, but we understand that you're not all going to always agree with our thoughts on a movie, or how we expressed them. C'est la vie. But if we get mad about it and start yelling at you for your intelligent, thoughtful criticism (drawing a distinction between that and just being a troll, of course), that's when you have every right to question why we choose to publish our thoughts on a public website.
Critics are not God, despite what some of them think. But they do serve an important function, and while ol' Teddy was a great leader, he never had much patience for the muckrakers. And yes, some of the muckrakers were just complaining for the sake of complaining... but some of them had good, valid points too. I really wish I'd listened to my friends when, on walking into a showing of Panic Room and running into them leaving the last one, they'd told us not to see it, to exchange our tickets for something else. We didn't listen, and so my college girlfriend and I sat through one of the worst movies ever created. Do I respect the fact that the filmmakers were willing to put themselves out there, that they managed to create something that I never will? Sure. But they made a bad, bad movie, and if my friends had told me it was great or just refused to weigh in, I would have resented them for it. That's just the way it works.
Just my thoughts, but I don't consider myself betraying Teddy's excellent sentiments by doing this, and I doubt I would if I got paid for it as an actual job either.
-D
|
|
"If I'm going to be desensitized into a mindless stock animal, I may as well do it with a cushy ergonomic seat and magnificent THX-certified sound. -Kevin Murphy
