Roger Ebert lives up to his reputation as the only film critique to win the Pulitzer Prize.
Admittedly, I am not well read when it comes to quality film reviewers. I can claim no advanced knowledge or particular study into the subject matter. This being said, I have noticed a trend away from the artwork of the likes of Roger Ebert toward the shallow stream-of-consciousness blabs ala the boys over at Aintitcool.com.
Why write about film? I see two reasons:
1) To inform potential viewers into what avenue they should spill out their income.
2) To explore philosophical, social, psychological. and emotional themes that can be addressed in art more satisfyingly than in algorithm.
For those of us not employed by outlets with early screeners, we have little excuse. Let's use our intellect to dig tunnels of connection between film and life, rather than resigning ourselves to primal reactions. Let's be something more than beings of mere reaction.
For these reasons, for what it's worth, I desire to buck the trend. The focus of my writing on film shall be about myself the viewer as the vehicle by which I can come to meet a movie at some mental interstate. What previous experience I bring to a film penetrates my relationship with that film unrelentlessly. What I seek to explore is my internal relationship with the ideas that each film flashes before my eyes. Can a nuanced film experience redress or redefine my own life monologue?
All films somehow address the biggest question of all: what am I here for? Let's continue that conversation on the macro scale before we limit our vision.
wow, that's quite an accomplishment of Roger Ebert to become a critIQUE!
ReplyDeleteYou should read some books/essays on the purpose of criticism. It can be a VERY powerful tool.
(to limit criticism to personal reflection is to fall into the trap of our contemporary cesspool).