Features
Headlines
Search
Archives
(Yes, more “Inception.” I’ll be writing about it once more today. Certain readers have been warned.)
One day away from “Inception,” and after a fresh spate of reviews hit the web in the past few days, a familiar “you’re either with us or the terrorists” mentality is starting to emerge. We had a taste of it last month, when critics not on board with “Toy Story 3″ were taken to task for daring to sully its Rotten Tomatoes rating — and already, even mild detractors of Christopher Nolan’s latest are being branded “bitter,” “haters” or simply “wrong” by the film’s more enthusiastic online champions.
Predictably, some are labeling the film a “love it or hate it” deal — a statement that necessitates boxing a number of mixed or conflicted reactions into the “hate it” pile to be true. Todd McCarthy’s indieWIRE review, for example, is a respectful piece that nonetheless states some reservations with the film, but has been conveniently described by Jeff Wells as a “slam.” I’ll detail my own thoughts on “Inception” later today, but I’m already being told in some quarters that I’m against the film because I judged it a flawed-but-respectable “B/B-” effort in my initial Twitter take.
(Meanwhile, I’m increasingly seeing the word “schizophrenic” bandied about by online commenters in response to reviews that, inconceivable as it may seem to some, can simultaneously admire some aspects of a film while questioning or disliking others. This needs to stop.)
Worse, some are dismissing the negative reviews as little more than a spiteful, knee-jerk slapdown to the bloggers who enthused about the film last week. That may be true in some cases, but it’s both short-sighted and demeaning to assume that any dissenter is responding to other writers ahead of the film itself. (Case in point: Nick Schager’s extremely well-argued, if also extremely harsh, Slant review, which makes its stand without denigrating that of the film’s admirers.)
Sasha Stone, however, believes any honest criticism of the film to be impossible. In an impassioned but ill-judged blog post, she declares that journalistic envy is “the only logical explanation” for the negative reviews of the film, and that any detractors are “[j]ust flat out wrong.”
I regard Sasha as a friend, but this kind of stubborn refusal to engage with alternative opinion saddens me, and returns me to the questions I asked after last month’s “Toy Story 3″ flap. How can any opinion on a film be wrong (or right, for that matter)? When did people start to prize consensus over conversation? And what good would consensus serve in matters of art anyway?
I’ve said all this before, so I’ll now defer to Film Experience blogger Nathaniel Rogers who, way down in the comments section on Sasha’s post, spoke my mind so perfectly that I feel I owe him about ten steak dinners:
I think the film is pretty interesting but the ‘love it or you’re stupid and wrong’ thing is pretty reactionary/irritating. Can’t there be a middle ground?
I would also like to say that Stephanie Zacharek is a great critic. I almost NEVER agree with her but that hardly matters. I’m really depressed that in the past 4 or 5 years it’s become common feeling that in order for a critic to be good you have to agree with them. HUH? That makes NO sense. A good critic is basically a good writer that writes interesting pieces on movies that make you think about the movie in a different way or consider a fascinating perspective other than your own. WE NEED THIS. Why does everyone think we just need everyone nodding at each other going “YEAH!!!!”
I wonder when we (collectively) lost that curiousity about other people’s opinions?
I can’t say it any more directly and effectively than this. Yes, it’s always reassuring to hear (or read) your opinion seconded by a voice you trust and believe in. But disagreement is just as bracing: it’s what helps any viewer test their own interpretation of a film. By thinking only in banal polarities of right or wrong, love or hate, masterpiece or disaster, we risk reducing the capabilities of film criticism to the point where it is unequal to the demands of a work as complex as “Inception.” If people wanted that, they wouldn’t be getting so worked up about a handful of reviews in the first place.
52 responses so far
1 7-15-2010 at 7:15 am
Filmoholic said...
Stating the obvious, really. But sadly some people need a weekly reminder that a critic can dislike a film for a reason, not just to upset the film’s champions.
Sasha Stone’s piece is just embarrassingly bad. And I agree about Nick Schager’s review: well-written and not condescending in any way.
How hard is it to just clearly state your opinion without dismissing others’?
2 7-15-2010 at 7:15 am
G1000 said...
Stephanie Zacharek is NOT a good critic. She gave “Jonah Hex” and “The Last Airbender” better reviews that “Up” and “The Dark Knight”. Not only that, but she actually brings up “The Searchers” as a point of comparison for “Jonah Hex”. Everyone’s entitled to his or her own opinion, of course. But that’s insane.
As for Rex Reed’s negative review, it basically boils down to “I didn’t understand it, so it must be bad”. Sorry, I don’t have time for that.
Some of the other negative and mixed reviews were well-written. But quite a few of them were either written by people with almost no knowledge about movies (Zacharek), or else people like Reed who apparently didn’t understand it and weren’t willing to take the time to figure it out (by watching it again, for instance).
3 7-15-2010 at 7:23 am
Colin Walsh said...
Guy, I never post but always read this space. I enjoy it more then any other site of it’s kind. With that said, I rarely find myself agreeing with you on a film. Does that stop me from visiting daily? No, in fact I look forward to reading your reviews more then Kris’s. (Who I tend to inline with more.) For the exact reason stated above. To look at a film in a new lite.
Out of all the articles on this topic, this is one of the most thoughtful and rational. I had to post, just to encourage this kind of talk.
I’m glad to see we agree on this out cry, even though we may not agree on films.
4 7-15-2010 at 7:24 am
Guy Lodge said...
@G1000: The “she liked this but didn’t like that” tack is honestly the laziest way of determining a critic’s capability in the book. Like most good critics, Zacharek operates on a sliding scale.
5 7-15-2010 at 7:25 am
Andrew F said...
Hear, hear!
I’m appalled at some of the comments I’ve been reading around the interwebs. Check out these gems over at Nick Pinkerton’s review at the Village Voice:
Harkonin: “On top of this the douchebag is really dumb He gave only the 2nd rotten review of inception And only the 2nd fresh review of sorcerers apprentice Care to find the irony in that? What a super dumb critic with such pathetic taste I think village voice needs to fire this dumbo before they lose their top critic platform on rottentomatoes and metacritic”
Village Voice SUCKS: “Hot damn Nick Pinkerton! Did you actually SEE Inception?!?!?! You were probably sucking face with your boyfriend the entire time that you didn’t give a lick about the movie. Do the world a favor, stop posting your horrifically inaccurate and misleading reviews before you give someone a brain aneurysm. I hope Village Voice gets hacked, I HATE you.”
Chris: “I can’t take Nick Pinkerton seriously as a critic because he doesn’t even conform to the most basic rule of movie reviews: PUT A SPOILER ALERT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE REVIEW! Just because you didn’t care for the movie doesn’t mean you have to ruin it for everyone else. This will be the last time I read a Village Voice review.”
*sigh*
6 7-15-2010 at 7:26 am
James D. said...
Sometimes I wonder if people don’t like reading opposite opinions at all. I look for bad reviews of films I love and glowing ones of films I hated. It is why a leftie like me reads Republican blogs, among other things. How else can you strengthen your opinion?
I am fairly new to the online film community, but part of me thinks that between Armond White and the Ben Lyons At the Movies debacle, people are so used to shunning a critic’s opinion that they have to keep going with it since they are so used to it. Maybe Inception is great, maybe it is terrible, but it is not The Godfather yet, so why such trashing of people that are perceived to not have gotten its meaning? I remember posting one of my complaints with Toy Story 3 in Sasha’s forum, and someone rebutted it with “you don’t understand how cinema works”. Add that commenter the other day that said all detractors of The Dark Knight and Avatar were merely doing it to spite people, and it is a weird environment.
7 7-15-2010 at 7:26 am
DarkLayers said...
I think the focus on consensus has come in pretty large part from aggregate sites. They can be really helpful, but have limitations like the RT “Yay or Nay” factor. There is a sense among some watchers that scores on metacritic or RT constitute a kind of status, and the anger often comes from that the impact on status.
Still, people can and should disagree. It’s worth recalling the “Best of the decade” lists last year. Even though a lot of titles popped up with some frequency, there was massive variation between people.
8 7-15-2010 at 7:30 am
Encore Entertainment said...
Such a great piece Guy (and salient points from Nathaniel). I don’t know if critics realise this, but when they build a movie up so much and create this “excellent…or else” mentality viewers are almost afraid to watch and we shouldn’t have be worried about if our response to a film is the “right” one – we just feel as we do, and that’s that.
I always think film criticism is just like any other writing form, it’s not so much about the plot (or grade) but the writing itself. Ultimately, no one can agree with you on every movie. It doesn’t take a genius to realise that.
9 7-15-2010 at 7:32 am
John said...
I have nothing against people who sincerely dislike a popular film or find honest faults in its composition, but I want to point out a couple things.
“Flawed” is becoming the go-to word for people who wish to criticize a popular film for no other reason than dissent. Because it’s so vague yet appears thought out, it requires no details. People bandy this word around any time they want to look smarter than those who enthusiastically embrace a quality mainstream film but can find no good reason why they are. Nobody ever seems to name the “flaws.”
eg. “I found The Dark Knight a handsome if flawed effort from Christopher Nolan.”
“Although it has its various flaws, The Lord of the Rings is nevertheless an enjoyable outing.”
“If you can look past the flaws, you may enjoy Up.”
No details necessary.
I think the best example of dissent for the purpose of dissent, however, is Avatar’s awards trajectory. The movie is sitting on a beautiful 84 on Metacritic with 10 four star reviews from places like Chicago Sun-Times, The New York Times, and New York Magazine. When this movie opened, everybody loved it and was happy to have it around. Now, one little Best Picture nomination is all it takes to ruin all that. After the film became a legitimate rival for The Hurt Locker, article after article was printed denouncing it as pop trash. Dissent merely to blunt the film’s crossover popularity.
Now I myself was never a fan of the movie Avatar, not because I found it “flawed” but because I dislike 3D in movies and found it extremely distracting. I have respect for anyone who, like me, sincerely dislikes the film, but I have no patience for those who turn around their true convictions because the want to look smarter than the crowd. I have no idea what I’ll think of Inception but I am certainly ready to believe that those who admired it in the cinema will write differently in the newspapers.
In short, dissent for the purpose of dissent, especially when stepping on a popular and admired film, exists.
10 7-15-2010 at 7:32 am
Andrew F said...
James D: I used to be a regular over at Sasha’s site, but I’ve noticed that the forum has become incredibly vitriolic over the last few years. I often enjoy her pieces and analysis, but remember last year with Avatar? It was like a bloody battle every time someone said something even remotely negative about the film. Swift responses of “omg u don’t know anything, kill urself!” abounded.
11 7-15-2010 at 7:44 am
DRM said...
Good post Guy. I think dissenting opinions are important and I’ve concluded from both negative and positive reviews that Inception has a lot of exposition in the dialogue and lacks character development. I haven’t seen it yet so I don’t know how much these things will bother me, but there is nothing wrong with critics pointing out those flaws. I will say that Edelstein didn’t need to insult the intelligence of other critics who enjoyed the film. That’s no better than the fanboys attacking him for not liking TDK or Inception. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
12 7-15-2010 at 7:59 am
Josh said...
Very insightful stuff, Guy. I agree that Sasha (like the author of the similarly themed Cinema Blend article about Toy Story 3 last month) is going over the top here. My only beef with some of the negative reviews has been the same since David Edelstein’s came out: whatever the opinion of the film, I do not care what a reviewer thinks of others’ opinions.
Edelstein had some interesting criticisms, but began by mocking those who’d seen and loved the movie. I don’t care about his opinion of his colleagues if it’s in the context of a movie review. He can express that opinion, of course; I just don’t think the review of the movie is where it should be.
Anyway, looking forward to your thoughts on the film later today.
13 7-15-2010 at 8:05 am
Jim T said...
First of all, I agree with both you and Nathaniel.
But I’d like to say somethings to expand the conversation.
Disagreemnt takes many forms. I migth respect a different opinion, but I also might find it hideous. Hideous is not wrong; it’s worse. Someone might not like a film I liked because of reasons I find, simply, scary.
The important thing, however, is to not assume what the reasoning behind a person’s opinion is. Some people who panned Inception might have done it just to sound smarter than others but we can’t know when that is the case unless it’s clear from their writing. Some people might have misread some aspects of the movie and some might just see things differently than others.
The bottom line is that I think not all opinions are respectable but they have the right to exist. I hope it makes sense.
14 7-15-2010 at 8:16 am
Robert Hamer said...
It’s all about Oscar campaigning. Nolan got “robbed” (please don’t get into a discussion of whether or not he actually did, that’s not my point) for The Dark Knight, so he better get a smooth ride to a make-up nomination for his next film OR ELSE!!!!!
Obviously there are other factors that go into it, but I see the big “O” word being the primary reason for this bizarre red state vs. blue state mentality when it comes to reviews. It’s why I think even mildly good reviews (such as yours and Tim Robey’s) have gotten flack. A ‘B’ is a perfectly fine grade, especially in such a dismal summer movie season, and one I’m happily willing to buy a ticket for. Since when did all good films need to be perfect, revolutionary masterpieces?
What’s going on is that now everyone is in on the awards game, and a lot of people have somehow gotten it into their heads that RT scores guarantee Oscars, forgetting that their beloved Dark Knight got upended for Best Picture by a film with a 61%.
15 7-15-2010 at 8:20 am
DRM said...
Excellent post, Robert. At the end of the day it seems like Inception simply isn’t an Oscar type of film. It sounds more like a well-made summer action film. Nothing more and nothing less. People shouldn’t get offended when others point out that it’s not a masterpiece.
16 7-15-2010 at 8:25 am
Guy Lodge said...
@Colin Walsh: I’m glad you spoke up, and I’m glad you’re so open to opposing ideas. One occasionally gets overly wrapped up in commenters’ responses, and it’s good to be reminded of the silent but appreciative readership.
@DarkLayers: I couldn’t agree more, and the problem with aggregate sites is something I discussed in my earlier post on this subject.
@John: I agree with “flawed” can be a lazy short-cut word for some critics, but I think it’s usually an honest one. Obviously a good writer will always expand on the nature of the flaws he claims to find in a work — I’m saving that for my next piece.
17 7-15-2010 at 8:25 am
JJ said...
I just don’t understand 20, 25, 30s out of 100; especially when most critics are quite enjoying it, and great early word from audiences, as well.
I mean, really? It’s THAT bad?; right up there with (or not as good as) most films that come out every year?
I understand that some (so far) have found issue with it, or disliked it, or found plot problems, etc..
I Totally understand that a movie (yes, even INCEPTION) can have faults (however minor or major) … but I just can’t take those reviews/ratigns seriously, at all.
18 7-15-2010 at 8:26 am
JJ said...
Geez, sorry for all the “I’s”
19 7-15-2010 at 8:28 am
Michael said...
The online film community is an interesting playground. I mostly observe from a distance rather than participate, but I enjoy the school yard politics of the popular kids (and the not-so-popular kids). Everyone is always attempting to position themselves, create an image, sell their ideals and push their favorites. All in good fun.
But, just a quick observation: from my skimming of the surface of Inception reviews (having not yet seen the film) it seems that those on the nay side on the fence also tend to lob stones over at the opinions on the other side – belittling their claims of the film as a masterpiece or a kubrickian work. Aren’t they guilty of the same dirty tactics?
I actually believe that while large zones of gray exist in film criticism there is definitely patches of black and white. Objectively speaking, I believe films (or more commonly aspects of films) can be good or bad.
I stand by this Gene Siskel quote (from Roger’s journal): “There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say ‘The Valachi Papers’ is a better film than ‘The Godfather,’ you are wrong.”
I’m not exactly claiming this relates perfectly to this Inception situation, or attacking Guy (yet I do believe he is going slightly out of his way to travel the high road), I’m just offering up my opinion.
20 7-15-2010 at 8:33 am
Matthew Starr said...
This whole thing is lame. Anytime I read a review or blog post or any form of writing where someone claims another person’s opinion is “wrong” I immediately stop reading.
If you liked the movie say why you liked it. If you did not like it, say why not. How difficult is it to refrain from commenting on other people’s reviews?
21 7-15-2010 at 8:34 am
Aaron G said...
um, i’m sorry, but nick pinkerton *is* a douchebag for spoiling the movie. i had been doing a reasonably good job of not spoiling myself on the film, then i made the mistake of reading his review and couldn’t believe that he actually reveals a major plot point. dislike the movie all you want, but why ruin it for others? is calling him out on this wrong? well, okay then, i’m wrong. i suppose it’s my fault, though, as i’ve read pinkerton off and on over the years and he’s always come off as a juvenile dickbag, but i’ve never seen him spoil a film before. didn’t think that was a low he’ sink to, but clearly i gave him too much credit.
on topic: i disagree with guy, more or less. i do think people can have wrong, ill-informed, ill-advised, and unsound opinions. now, that doesn’t mean i think those people can’t *express* those opinions. people seem to think that opinions are set in stone, but they’re not and they can change in the blink of an eye. i used to think A.I. was a horrid piece of shit, but now i hold a more complex view of the film. i wouldn’t say i think it’s Great or anything, but i do think i dismissed it out of hand and ignored some elements of it simply because, to be frank, i don’t care for spielberg. so i let my prejudice color my view of it. i do think that’s happening with inception because the critics who are panning the movie have never cared for nolan. pinkerton, shager, white, o’hehir, edelstein, etc, have all been very eager to proclaim that the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes when it comes to nolan, so is it any surprise that these guys are no fans of inception? granted, shager and o’hehir give somewhat mixed reviews of the film, but ultimately, they were never going to like it.
my problem is when someone like armond white starts extrapolating and making moral judgments about a filmmaker based on a film. i could’ve made an easy $100 betting that white would throw in the word “nihilism” in his review of inception, which is what he *always* does, but he, of course, never really explains *why* the movie is an example of nihilism. it’s just that the movie offends him in some way, thus it must be nihilistic.
also, in a very nuts and bolts way, he gets a lot of stuff factually wrong. this has been noted amongst many other people, but he frequently makes incorrect observations about a film, e.g., saying that a scene takes place in one city or region, when in reality it takes place in another city or region. he’s done this dozens of times and it calls into question his perceptive abilities. how much of a film is he actually taking in and *viewing* and how much of it is just him projecting?
i remember a friend said that one of the “plot holes” in TDK was the hong kong sequence and how batman was able to fly in and out of hong kong without the government being aware. he was like, “omg, man, HUGE plot hole!” i said, “actually, if you had been paying attention, bruce told alfred that the plane is manned by south korean smugglers who *fly in and out of pyongyang under radar*” pause. “oh, well, whatever, dude.” this, i think, is a major problem with film criticism. “i don’t get it, therefore it sucks.” rex reed is a glowing example of this and i keep getting whiffs of it elsewhere, with more “serious” critics. if pointing this sort of laziness out is wrong, well, as the cliche goes, i don’t wanna be right.
22 7-15-2010 at 8:35 am
Guy Lodge said...
@Jim: Yes, you’re making sense. And if you’re referring to opinions grounded in reasoning that is hateful or social prejudiced, obviously those are easier to discredit. And while I believe that there are no right opinions, there are certainly ones that are better-reasoned than others.
@Robert: You’re probably onto something. I don’t even want to think about the “O” word right now.
@JJ: If you think a film fails by the standards it sets for itself, then you think it fails. I can certainly understand that. I don’t agree with those who are flat-out trashing the film either — but I can still find a lot of salient points in their reviews, simply tempered to taste.
23 7-15-2010 at 8:42 am
G1000 said...
Guy: you’re probably right that criticizing Zacharek as a critic just because I almost never agree with her is unfair. I was merely attempting to illustrate why I don’t take her opinion very seriously. She is a very good writer, I’ll concede that.
But my point about Reed’s review still holds.
24 7-15-2010 at 8:42 am
Guy Lodge said...
@Michael: As I say in the piece, some of the film’s detractors are unnecessarily belittling the praise of others — but many aren’t, and don’t deserve to be tarred with the same reactionary brush. As Jim says in his comment above, one should always be sure that the evidence is in the writing before one presumes the motives behind an opinion.
And I’m sorry, but I can’t stand by that Gene Siskel quote at all. Where do you draw the line then?
25 7-15-2010 at 8:43 am
Morgan said...
I agree that everybody needs to calm down a little (or a lot) — I am as excited for this movie as anybody, probably moreso, but at the end of the day, it is just a movie. It is not a definitive barometer of taste. People disagree. I tend to gravitate towards critics whose opinions closely match my own because I typically use reviews as an indicator of whether or not I should see a film. Kris saying that film is excellent is not necessarily going to get me to a theater, because we have very different tastes; Guy extolling the virtues of White Material, for instance, has made me much more interested in it because I have often agreed with him in the past. But that’s not to say that I don’t find Kris’ reviews interesting, or don’t respect his opinion. I just tend to like different things.
That said, I think that some of the most negative reviews of Inception have been troubling. Edelstein’s comments about the other critics were just unprofessional, and Rex Reed’s attack of Nolan at the beginning of his review was pretty indefensible. Rip the movie apart if you want, but keep to the movie. It’s those kinds of injections into reviews that make me take the reviewers less seriously, and it does make you wonder what it is about Inception that is provoking this crazy, polarizing response.
26 7-15-2010 at 8:45 am
JJ said...
I didn’t get THE PRESTIGE (funny enough, the fact that it is Nolan has nothing to do with my comment) after the 1st time I saw it.
After a 2nd viewing months later, I got it. But my initial opinion was not overly hampered by the “I don’t get it” because I recognized and ENJOYED the quality onscreen. I loved the performances, mood, tone, editing, cin, sets, costumes, sound, score. I just didn’t get the ending, which aggravated me to NO end … but at least it challenged me, and it didn’t sink the movie for me. I wonder if that is the case with INCEPTION.
27 7-15-2010 at 8:50 am
JJ said...
Agreed, Morgan. It IS just a movie. I’ll see for myself this weekend.
And well said, Guy.
28 7-15-2010 at 8:52 am
Ben M. said...
This is just crazy, not only it is clear that the film is not for everyone given there is a decent amount of negative reviews up (its 72 on metacritic, for instance, is fine but no where near best of the year material) but even if almost everyone loved the film it is okay for some people to have different opinions.
It is even weirder that many attacking any negative reviews have not seen the film; I am looking forward to seeing Inception (probably on Saturday) and think it could be a very cool film, but I have to admit that part of me wants to see the film flop at least at the box office just because of the crazy fans.
29 7-15-2010 at 8:55 am
Kristopher Tapley said...
All of this, of course, is agreeable in principle. It should be noted that early irritation stemmed from a reviewer using his forum to attack other opinions. Any time the argument becomes framed in a “you don’t have a right to disagree” sort of way, that is, of course, wrong. Nevertheless, the idea of “professional envy” isn’t far off the mark in one or a few of those instances.
But as I said, I welcome dissent here. God knows I’ve never had a problem going against the grain (WALL-E) and I have no problems with others doing the same…as long as it’s about the material, not wrong-headed reactionism.
30 7-15-2010 at 9:06 am
DRM said...
Kris, what do you think of how WB rolled the film out? I think they shouldn’t have played favorites. Edelstein wouldn’t have commented on other reviews he’d read if all the critics saw it at the same time. It is ultimately up to the reviewer to stay away from that kind of namecalling, but WB basically set it up to happen like this by being so careful in who they allowed to see it. I just think it created even more polarization than the film itself might have generated on its own terms if everyone saw it at the same time.
31 7-15-2010 at 9:09 am
Carlo said...
Hi Guy!
Carlo here from the Philippines. Just went through the Slant review and I have to say it sounds like it’s pretty well argued. Haven’t seen the film though so I didn’t want to delve too much into the spoilers but his comparison with Shutter Island leaves me kinda expecting that sort of ‘say it rather than show it’ film when I see it this weekend.
I have to agree with your post but I have to admit I sometimes fall into the category of impassioned opinions such as Sasha’s over at AwardsDaily. I guess you could say that it’s pretty much easier said than done to simply accept wholeheartedly criticism of a widely accepted film. I totally think that we SHOULD make an effort to do such to promote discussion, but that may be in an ideal world.
Maybe the reality of it all is that an opinion is an opinion and a lot of people will stand up for it no matter what:)
32 7-15-2010 at 9:22 am
the other mike said...
its posts like this that make me wonder if Guy is the greatest film blogger alive.
33 7-15-2010 at 9:34 am
Guy Lodge said...
I’m really, really not. But I’m flattered!
34 7-15-2010 at 10:15 am
thespirithunter said...
Long time reader of both Incontention and Awardsdaily, rare poster
I’m 40 years old and have been in the watching Oscar game since 1982. I can remember the times pre-Internet where nominations didn’t spring up from archaic and imperceptible movie ratings percentages. I lived and read Kael, Sarris, early Ebert/Siskel. Say what you will, and I didn’t agree all the time, they did not have to defend their ideas by undermining their contemporaries, mostly because they all read their respective reviews at the same time, sometimes well after they had posted their own.
I remember being genuinely shocked and sometimes elated by surprises such as Kevin Kline for A Fish Called Wanda, or Morgan Freeman for Street Smart – nominations that people did not see coming. Films that at the time, would have registered below the “cut-off” for Oscar material as judged by MC or RT grades.
I think it’s time (IMHO of course) to see that this obsession with having to reach a certain percentage grade from the critic consensus sites is more detrimental in the long run to our enjoyment of cinema. Most awards watchers believe and even try to prove through scientific and historical detail that unless a movie gets to a certain plateau percentage grade, it has no chance to be an “Oscar-worthy” film, and therefore, not worth our time and effort. This is ludicrous. I realize that some of this is what constitutes the fun of “Oscarwatching”. I’m often amused by some of the posts given up by Kris, Guy, Chad, Sasha, Dave Poland, but just as often, I’m often moved and challenged by them as well. I appreciate the work of Ebert, Chang, Levy, and I appreciate the work by Lodge, Stone, Hartigan, and Tapley.
But I think it’s time for supporters and detractors alike to revel in the difference of opinion out there, and not to become victims of a mathematical assemblage of consensus that attempts to boil down the essence of a film, when in all honesty, it cannot, nor should not, be attempted.
35 7-15-2010 at 10:18 am
Rob said...
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Sasha Stone is fucking stupid.
I don’t know her personally, and she may be a delightful person, but virtually every diatribe/piece of writing from her is almost always completely ill-advised, illogical and/or non-sensical. She has spelling and grammar skills, for sure, but the thought process behind everything that comes out of her head is stupefying.
36 7-15-2010 at 11:02 am
red_wine said...
You can’t really compare the reception of bad reviews for Inception & TS3. TS3 literally had no bad reviews, the bad reviews were truly an aberration and were met more with exasperation & amusement than with hate speech and slander.
There was none of this incredulity and intolerance because it was loved across the board. Contrast that to Inception, which whatever the fans of Nolan might want to believe actually has mixed notices though leaning positive.
I must say I’m surprised by the films reception. The first few days with Kris’s & other reviews, it really did feel like the second coming and I thought we were looking at this years There Will Be Blood or the most acclaimed film of the year. Consequent days have brought a more sobering reality with many people outright tearing the film apart.
The reaction in this case is troubling where the fans claim that dissenting voices are few and far between(and therefore misinformed) and almost everyone is genuflecting before Nolan’s greatness. I have never seen such a movement to stifle any alternate assessment other than ‘masterpiece’ but I think it all gives after the foaming-at-the-mouth rabid fanaticism of The Dark Knight which has sparked all this.
I’m very excited to see it though!
37 7-15-2010 at 11:26 am
JJ said...
thespirithunter, good post. I wrestle with that whole thing, too.
I can’t tell you how many Oscar-nominated films from recent times, and from decades ago I have loved, and obviously Oscar-voters loved, and I find that a critical consensus was heavily negative on it/them.
It hurts when you love something for whatever reason, and a consensus thinks differently; and that measurement in percentages IS damaging.
But like you also said, that’s ‘oscarwatching’. And I’d be very sad without it, so.
38 7-15-2010 at 11:46 am
Chad Hartigan said...
These things consistently surprise me. I don’t read reviews by anyone, except occasionally after I’ve seen a film and am curious to hear some other thoughts. Why would anyone have so much stock in what someone else cares or writes?
39 7-15-2010 at 12:11 pm
JJ said...
Speaking for myself, I think it could be some personal, deeply imbedded, subconscious thing.
When I love a movie people hate, I tend to feel incorrect. And when I hate a movie people love, I feel snooty.
All relatively speaking, of course. I don’t really give a s*#t. But part of my subconscious does feel that way, at times. Can’t explain it, but there it is, Chad. :-)
40 7-15-2010 at 12:39 pm
JJ said...
James Berardinelli’s 3.5/4 reviews calls attention to the “confusion”:
“Undoubtedly, some reviews are going to describe Inception as confusing. Such a description confounds me, and may be more indicative of how accepting people have become of screenplays that allow for no ambiguity and traverse plotlines by blazing trails that even a blind man could follow. For those who pay attention, Inception is not confusing. It is smart, taut, and does not reward indolence. If you zone out or make a trip to the snack bar, it will lose you. All it asks of viewers is that they do something rare: engage the intellect. “
41 7-15-2010 at 1:05 pm
Justin said...
You are such a douchebag and you have a stupid name. Critics who trash good films are only doing it so they can get attention from the online community. Giving a film like inception a 1 star review is bull crap you have to atleast respect a film that dares to be different. Just because you don’t like The beatles album sgt pepper and the lonely hearts club that means its a 1 star album no you have to atleast give it some respect. People hate on good things because they are haters.
42 7-15-2010 at 1:37 pm
Guy Lodge said...
I like my name. It’s not for everyone — which is just as well, being mine and all.
Anyway, I’ll forward your complaint to my parents. It’s kind of their fault.
43 7-15-2010 at 1:46 pm
Lev Lewis said...
Justin: Right. Because, I think we can honestly compare “Inception” to “Sgt. Pepper”. We’re not getting ahead of ourselves at all now, are we?
44 7-15-2010 at 1:46 pm
Matthew Starr said...
No Guy I think it’s time you take some responsibility and change your name.
45 7-15-2010 at 1:55 pm
James D. said...
I always thought Guy Lodge was a stage name, personally.
46 7-15-2010 at 2:08 pm
Chad Hartigan said...
Sgt. Pepper is so good! Let’s talk about that instead.
47 7-15-2010 at 2:13 pm
brian said...
I like this Justin fellow.
48 7-15-2010 at 2:20 pm
Guy Lodge said...
The White Album, Abbey Road and Revolver all > Sgt. Pepper.
49 7-15-2010 at 2:29 pm
Chad Hartigan said...
Abbey Road > The White Album > Sgt. Pepper > Revolver > Rubber Soul > everything else by anyone
50 7-15-2010 at 2:42 pm
Guy Lodge said...
Switch Sgt. Pepper and Revolver and we’re in agreement.
51 7-15-2010 at 7:19 pm
James D. said...
Abbey Road may indeed be the best, but I have a soft spot for Let it Be. An underrated masterpiece.
52 7-15-2010 at 10:26 pm
Justin said...
That is awesome I got you guys to go off topic. Peace be with you