| Revision as of 18:15, 26 March 2015 editSpiderjerky (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users81,584 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Revision as of 22:26, 9 April 2015 edit undo71.246.118.22 (talk) →Journalistic criticismTag: blankingNext edit → |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
|
'''Film criticism''' is the analysis and evaluation of ]s and the film medium. In general, it can be divided into journalistic criticism such as appears regularly in ]s and other popular, mass-media outlets and academic criticism by film scholars that is informed by ] and published in academic journals. |
|
'''Film criticism''' is the analysis and evaluation of ]s and the film medium. In general, it can be divided into journalistic criticism such as appears regularly in ]s and other popular, mass-media outlets and academic criticism by film scholars that is informed by ] and published in academic journals. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
who cares |
|
==Journalistic criticism== |
|
|
Film ]s working for ]s, ]s, ], and online publications, mainly review new releases, although some reviewers include reviews of older "classic" films.<ref name=Classics>{{cite web|title=The Classic|url=http://www.abc.net.au/atthemovies/classic/|work=At the Movies with Margaret and David|publisher=ABC.net.au|accessdate=26 May 2014}}</ref> The plot summary and description of a film that makes up the majority of the review can have an impact on whether people decide to see a film. |
|
|
|
|
|
In recent times, the impact reviews have on a film's ] performance and DVD rentals/sales have become a matter for debate. There are those who think modern ], using pop culture convention appearances and social media along with traditional means of advertising, have become so invasive and well financed that established reviewers with legitimate criticism cannot be heard over the din of popular support. Moreover, this has led, in part, to a decline in the readership of many reviewers for newspapers and other print publications. The vast majority of film critics on television and radio have all but disappeared over the last thirty years, as well.{{citation needed|date=February 2014}} It can be observed that most of the discussion of film on television is focused on the amount of box office business a film does, as if financial success were the only criterion needed to define artistic success. Today arts criticism in general does not hold the same place it once held with the general public.{{citation needed|date=February 2014}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Conversely, it's been claimed{{by whom|date=February 2014}} positive film reviews have been known to spark interest in little-known films. For example, independent films with smaller marketing budgets, such as '']'', are promoted more widely thanks to the positive reviews they received. There are those who believe critics are biased towards art-house films (examples: '']'', '']'') and against commercial blockbusters (examples: '']'', '']''). However, many critics analyze a film by its inexhaustibility, or the range of its impact and appeal on to generations of fans beyond its original release date. |
|
|
|
|
|
Today, fan-run film analysis websites like ] and Box Office Guru routinely factor in general public film review opinion with those of more experienced reviewers in their projections of a film. Other websites, such as ], combines all reviews on a specific film published online and in print to come up with an aggregated rating known as a "freshness rate." |
|
|
|
|
|
Some well-known journalistic critics have included: ] (''Time'' (magazine), ''The Nation''); ]; ] (''The New York Times''); ] (''Chicago Sun-Times'', At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper); ] (''The New Yorker''); Derek Malcolm (''The Guardian''); ] (''Chicago Tribune''); and ] (''Good Morning America''). |
|
|
|
|
|
===Online film reviews=== |
|
|
Some websites, such as ], ], and ] seek to improve the usefulness of film reviews by compiling them and assigning a score to each in order to gauge the general reception a film receives. Other sites such as ] review sites with ratings such as "rent it" or "matinée" to tell the viewer in what setting to watch the film rather than a numerical score. Some go so far as to recommend the number of beers you will need to enjoy a movie such as ]. The ], an international professional association of Internet-based cinema reviewers, consists of writers from all over the world. For Independent Films sites such as ] offer reviews for amateur/independent film titles and then rely on social to spread the word. Sites like this are filling the gap between Hollywood and Independent film makers. |
|
|
|
|
|
A number of websites allow Internet users to submit movie reviews and scores to allow a broad consensus review of a movie. Some websites specialize in narrow aspects of film reviewing. For instance, there are sites that focus on specific content advisories for parents to judge a film's suitability for children (e.g. ]). Others focus on a religious perspective (e.g. CAP Alert). Still others highlight more esoteric subjects such as the depiction of ] in fiction films. One such example is ''Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics'' by ]. One Website, ], allows anyone to publish film reviews and comment on them. There are even websites for special interest groups such as the Christian review site, Movieguide. |
|
|
|
|
|
Blogging has also introduced opportunities for a new wave of amateur film critics to have their opinions heard. These review blogs may focus on one genre, director or actor, or encompass a much wider variety of films. Friends, friends of friends, or complete strangers are able to visit these sites, and can often leave their own comments about the movie and/or the author's review. Although much less frequented than their professional counterparts, these sites can gather a following of like-minded people who look to specific bloggers for reviews as they have found that the critic consistently exhibits an outlook very similar to their own. |
|
|
|
|
|
Websites like ] are now blending the gap between movie blogs and movie review sites. These community based websites allow users to publish movie reviews from their own blogs the site, meaning the content is community driven. This method gives amateur and professional movie reviewers an equal platform to express their opinions and comment on each other's work. These kind of websites allow smaller bloggers the opportunity to showcase their work to a wider audience, and submit their ratings on movies which help to establish an overall score for that particular movie. |
|
|
|
|
|
Community driven review sites have allowed the common movie goer to express their opinion on films. Many of these sites allow users to rate films on a 0 to 10 scale, while some rely on the star rating system of 0–5 or 0–4 four stars. The votes are then culled into an overall rating and ranking for any particular film. Some of these community driven review sites include Reviewer, Movie Attractions, ], ], ], and ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Some online niche websites, such as Cinefile Review, provide comprehensive coverage of the independent sector; usually adopting a style closer to print journalism. They tend to prohibit adverts and offer uncompromising opinions free of any commercial interest. Their film critics normally have an academic film background. |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Criticism and Lexical Creativity === |
|
|
'''Undulating Curve of Shifting Expectations''' refers to both the title of a recurring entertainment industry feature in ] by cultural critic Adam Sternbergh and also to a concept of media analysis co-developed by writer Emily Nussbaum.<ref></ref><ref></ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
UCoSE refers to the dynamic tension between pre-release promotional efforts and subsequent audience reactions to entertainment media. |
|
|
|
|
|
"...what the UCoSE does is provide us a way of analyzing the trajectory of entertainment products as they metamorphize their way through his theorized seven-stage growth chart: Pre-Buzz, Buzz, Rave Reviews, Saturation Point, Overhyped, Backlash, and finally, Backlash To The Backlash." <ref></ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Academic criticism== |
|
==Academic criticism== |
