In theatrical productions, the same play could be performed identically two nights in a row, one with an incredibly enthusiastic audience and a standing ovation, and the other with a few scattered claps. It depends on the energy of the audience for that particular evening, and that makes all the difference...to the performers, the future of the production based on reviews.
Whether it’s film, theater, music, or any other media of mass communication, the make-it-or-break-it factor isn’t the talent, it’s the audience. So the question is at what point should plots be compromised and lyrics toned down in order to target a larger market, versus one of a more selective nature.
Let’s take “Shutter Island” as an example. I thought it was another genius film by Scorsese. Really well done. But it got some pretty mixed reviews.
(From Rotten Tomatoes, professional critics)
“DiCaprio and Scorcese are a dynamic movie duo but when you add in the brilliant storytelling of Lehane you get movie magic.”
and then...
An overlong, nauseating thriller lacking palpable suspense and clever twists which can't be saved by its exquisite production values and solid performances.
But movie goers were just as conflicted: (From Moviefone.com)
CQBRA03
This movie is a complicated mess that has an ending that for me was very unrewarding and a letdown. Is it all really happening, or is it just in his head? The acting was excellent, but the coming attractions were a lot better than the movie. Just a little to weird for me.
JZekeRed
one star for decaprio...pretty darn good acting BUT, what a sucko storyline - not cohesive, twisted, interesting, frustrating...save your money .
Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but clearly these people just didn’t get it. But does that mean that the movie industry should cater to the less, shall we say, adept. There is a “type” of entertainment for everyone, so perhaps verbal members of the public need to admit if a certain genre isn’t their cup of tea, instead of just ragging on it.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with critics and reviewers saying, “this movie is fabulous if you have an inquisitive mind, don’t bother if you’re just looking for entertainment”. But they don’t differentiate because of the fear of alienating the audience. Rather, they take it out on the film makers.
Perhaps critics should just take a little step back from their self-proclaimed lime-light. Just because you hated or loved it doesn’t mean everyone else will. I know it’s your job to be critical and offer you opinions, but keep in mind is only opinions that you are offering.
Bottom line: offering different perspectives for different audiences would be much more effective than only taking your own views into account.
Very insightful posting. You make a great point that reviewers ought to recuse themselves when they're reviewing a movie genre they're not interested from the get-go. It does a disservice to consumers to read reviews by people who are essentially predisposed to give unfavorable reviews. I suppose, the issue, however is reviewers are typically employed by larger media structures than themselves alone and hence their loyalties are not to consumers solely but to their corporate hierarchy also. Under such a situation you can see how a focus on getting sales might translate into encouraging reviewers to give very poignant reviews or may result in hiring reviewers who show a tendency to do so independently. The area where they can take your concluding advice, I suppose, is if they can find a balance between making their reviews sound interesting enough to get sales, but also remain truthful. And one would think that is quite doable.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think many of the negative reviews of Shutter Island came as a result of the film not being up to the five star par that Martin Scorsese has created for himself as one of the top film directors in the world. It was different in genre and tone than all of his previous work, and it certainly seems that some critics reacted negatively to the fact that this Scorsese picture was not as Scorsese-esque as they had originally expected.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I absolutely loved the film. The tension and suspense that Scorsese created throughout the film was reminiscent of Hitchcock, a legendary director that Spielberg draws more comparison to than Scorsese. And also unlike his past work, Scorsese leaves the ending open to interpretation, having a different meaning to every audience member.
So far, Shutter Island is my favorite movie of 2010. It has been a long time since I have thought so much about a movie after I finished watching it.
Check out my posting on Shutter Island:
http://greenlightblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/the-“shutter-island”-experiment-did-it-work/
I have watched films one day and hated them, and then on another day (possibly in a different mood) I have re-watched them and felt completely different. For example, I had a massive paper to write, but before I started I watched Dead Poets Society. It was very inspirational, and it provided me with a great deal of motivation to get it together and write the paper. It helped put things in perspective and reminded me that attitude is everything.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, if I had watched that after doing terribly on a test or getting defeated miserably in a sporting event, I might suggest Dead Poets Society was too goody goody, too idealistic, or something of that nature. A lot of your opinion of any work of art depends on your mood at the time, and as you mentioned, I think is much the case with Shutter Island.