DeParis wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:43 pm
The discussion upthread about gender representation and film criticism reminded me of a piece that ran in the
Washington Post recently, which compares the average Rotten Tomato scores of films reviewed by male and female critics to see when there's a divergence in scores.
Looking at the data (the last chart most notably), the discrepency is fairly within what we would expect of natural differences of opinion between human beings. The plotted dots are fairly aligned in a nice diagonal, and not all over the place, which indicates that men and women roughly agree about the values of films reviewed. Their widest discrepency scored is 11% when the rating is between 40 and 49 out of a 100. 11% is nothing.
We don't want to live in a world where everyone think alike, otherwise we would only need 1 critic in the world to set the ratings for every publications.
Miranda Bailey wrote:(from the article quoted) “Consumers are looking to buy things that people tell them are worth their money,” she says. “When it comes to film, those people are reviewers.”
I don't like the idea that film criticism is limited to the recommendation of a good night out, to be worth your money spent. And indeed this bears a distinct name : "movie reviewing", which is what Rotten Tomatoes aggregate and tally.
First people need to be adventurous and RISK the eventuality of a miss, or a misunderstanding. (Second viewing could redeem it). Cinema is an art and not an industrial flavour fit to accomodates all. It's like going to a restaurant, we can always dislike a 3 michelin stars menu, as a matter of taste and personal preferences. However it doesn't disqualify the inherent quality of the food, judged by objective standards.
Second film critics are meant to judge each film objectively, not solely from their own perspective, not for the best movie suited for their own taste, as if they were the only spectator of the movie, or if all readers were copycats of the reviewer. A critic ought to review beyond his/her own narrow subjectivity, or bubble. A critic ought to produce an informed "advice" that works for most readers, also for people who don't think, prefer, are biased like him/her. Not a prescription that only works for like-minded people, who already share a similar taste.
Criticism tends to be universal opinion, an educated one and should breaks through the barriers of language, gender, culture, generations...
A critique should be informative, i.e. giving solid arguments why a film is well made or not, whether it succeeds at the goal it sets out to achieve. And then, readers are free to interpretate whether it is made for them or not. I don't like reviewers who assume they know what is good for me, what is it I would want to watch.
That's why I only support gender equality in movie reviewing as a social improvement, not an artistic requirement.
Ben Zauzmer wrote:(from the article quoted) Part of the debate over critics’ demographics is to what extent the critic’s traits should match those of the movie’s main characters and/or its intended audience.
"It doesn't take a horse to review horse racing."
