Assignment #3: Three Critics

The three critics:


#1: Roger Ebert

Since I began getting into film seriously maybe eight or nine years ago, Roger Ebert has to me always been the man when it comes to film criticism.  Over the years, he's written some of the most masterful reviews and breakdowns of film that I've ever read, and has consistently kept pace in bringing to the forefront unknown films that deserve more recognition.

The thing I love most about Ebert's reviews is how he is able to simplistically breakdown even the most complicated film into what makes it work and why, and to go into major detail in some of his longer form critique on why or why not certain films walk the edge of masterpiece.  Two reviews really stand out in my mind when I think of Ebert.

The first is his amazing analysis and attempt to understand Michael Haneke's puzzling film Cache, which he approaches to the extent of even breaking down individual shots.  He also is willing to ask new questions in his review, rather than try to answer the simple ones a viewer would most likely have about the film.  While many of his reviews seem simple on the surface, it's only a facade for one of the best in the business at film breakdown.

The second review of his I love is simply because of one line in it.  In his review for Robert Rodriguez's Predators, he talks about how one character is able to with limited knowledge discern the major plot point that the main cast of characters are part of a Most Dangerous Game style hunt with aliens.  Ebert makes one simple comment:  "It would be more interesting if the characters never did figure this out."  This comment struck me then, and still does today as it shows how looking at one's own work as a critic can bring about questions and valuable information towards the creative process.

You can find Ebert at:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/

#2: Armond White

Yes, Armond White.  Probably the internet's go-to critic to hate and lambast because of his tendency to berate and attack critically successful films while contrastingly lauding critically hated films.  This is the guy that gave a thumbs up to Jack & Jill, but gave Django Unchained a thumbs down.

So why do I like Armond White?  If anything, his reviews are something different entirely.  He tends to either attack or laud elements of a film that will rarely if ever make an appearance in a single other review.  He's been called a troll in the film criticism world, but his reviews are far from mindless blathering but incredibly eloquent and put together.  In Armond's case, I'll take an interesting review any day over a generic one.

Read more of Armond's Reviews at:

cityarts.info

#3:  Red Letter Media (Mike Stoklasa and Jay Bauman)

As the third and final critic, I'm going for something unconventional.  The website redlettermedia.com ran by Mike Stoklasa is one of my favorite, and one of the most comprehensive film review sites on the internet.  All of the reviews are presented in a video essay format, and films reviewed as part of the Half in The Bag series are presented more in the style of a podcast with video elements.

The reason this website works is humor mixed with a blunt breakdown of films that so many other critics seem to miss.  The website first came into the internet's spotlight after they published a 70 minute video review of Star Wars: A Phantom Menace which broke down every aspect of the film and deconstructed many plot and story elements which had been negated by almost every other reviewer.  In doing so, they also managed to implant their review with a ton of humor, most of which was simply a humorous take on how poorly constructed the film is.

These guys are some of the best, and show that a critical analysis of a film no longer has to be a written document, but that a video essay can be just as powerful.

Check them out at:

redlettermedia.com

Assignment #2

I read the two articles.

I understand where the author of the first article is coming from, particularly in some of the flaws he sees that befalls critics of television who become fans of their own shows rather than an objective critic, while also knocking the point that there isn't enough depth for analysis in most television shows.

However, the creeping lure of fandom does seep into many criticisms of television shows, while failing to actually break down the show element by element.  While film and TV criticism are different, both should seek the same objective to offer an analysis of what worked and what didn't as opposed to simply harping on aspects of the show that the critic thinks are great.

One example:

It would be with Game of Thrones on HBO, where I've seen dozens of reviews lauding many particular scenes (which are great) but it seems fandom clouds many blatant points of criticism about the show.  For those unfamiliar, the series is based on a book series that may rival Tolkien in the various names and locations a person has to follow to make sense of it all.  Even the book itself takes out a section for a comprehensive map and appendices to help follow the characters.  Somehow though, this confusion rarely gets mentioned in any critical form, but on offhand references from people who actually watch the show, this is a major concern.

What two links did I click?

The first one I did was about the Community critic getting himself a cameo appearance within the show.  I just had to make sure that this wasn't a joke, and sadly it wasn't.  That is probably one of the lowest forms of low within any criticism circles.

There's a story I heard awhile back that I'll paraphrase offhand about a certain critic who gets invited onto all the sets of big budget films (particularly the ones ranked Rotten on rottentomatoes) and after having been given star treatment conveniently writes a hype piece out about the product.  It's a scumbag move.  Shame indeed.

The second was the AV Club dialogue about the state of TV criticism, and it no longer seems to be focused on actually turning someone onto a show.  The best you'll seem to get now is "The best show on TV" or "The funniest show on TV" or one of those terrible variations.  Very rarely anymore do reviews complement a show like Breaking Bad about being a masterpiece in black comedy, or the phenomenal character arc the show's been able to pull off.

I recently read a review for HBO's Girls which argued that the show was good because of the lifelike portrayal of these characters.  Of course.  That's the subject of the show.  Never did the article dive into the cringe humor aspects or anything else, just a simple reiteration of "It's good" or "It's bad".

Assignment #1

Lists:

(1) Current Shows:  Girls (HBO), Justified (Online Download), Sons of Anarchy (Netflix), Carnivale (HBO GO)

(2) Peripheral Shows: The Daily Show & Colbert Report (via Cable)

(3) Guilty Refusals:  30 Rock, Lost, Parks and Recreations, Community

(4) Guilty Pleasures:  Hell's Kitchen, Master Chef

(5) All Time Favorites: The Sopranos, Band of Brothers, Deadwood, Rome, Kenny Vs Spenny, Breaking Bad

(6) Shows I Used to Like:  Dexter, Weeds

(7) Shows I Resisted:  Buffy, The Sopranos

(8) "Ugh" Shows:  Any of the American Idol, X Factor, The Voice variants.

(9)  Acclaimed Shows I tried but couldn't get into:  The Office (UK Version), Luther, Mad Men