Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Jesse Eisenberg's critique of film critics

Options
  • 19-11-2015 8:01pm
    #1
    Jon Stark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭


    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/an-honest-film-review

    I have to say that I found some of his stereotypes cliché but overall he's raised a point worth making.

    Everyone's a critic now, and have the power to destroy the potential of a film. Not through solid and relevant points though, but by pre conceived opinions of a director or an actor. Some people just go into a film hating it.

    That, or a film simply just hit a raw nerve which they hated. That could be a nerdy reason (this film is a rival to my own personal tastes and thus will ignore all merit) or it could be a personal one (I don't like how this guy can do this and has this but I don't, thus, automatic bad performance!).

    I think somewhere along the line criticism has become utterly vested: there's no critique anymore that's free of the mentality of "what's in it for me."


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,151 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Jon Stark wrote: »

    I think somewhere along the line criticism has become utterly vested: there's no critique anymore that's free of the mentality of "what's in it for me."

    I think that's absolute nonsense, TBH. I guarantee that any film I watch I can google and quickly find numerous on-point, balanced, intelligent, probing, illuminating and 'non-vested' critiques of. A welcome mix of personal response and formal analysis, opinion combined with smart reading of the text. Of course knowledge of a director's previous work is going to influence a viewer's response to it - I don't see that as a bad thing, but the way an individual's body of work naturally interacts with and builds on itself. Who could possibly watch a Wes Anderson film and not be influenced by what's come before?

    Yes, critics and viewers alike can ruin a film's potential. But that's the way of things these days - you part art out there, people respond to it. By the very same token, critics have the ability to spread the word about a particular film to a wide audience, acting as curators to the vast amount of film out there. I see that far, far more often than films buried because of negative critical response.

    Are there bad critics? Countless. Are there bitter critics? Very probably. Are there brilliant, enthusiastic, insightful critics? An absolute ****-tonne.


  • Options
    #3
    Jon Stark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Jon Stark


    Yeah apologies, I shouldn't have suggested all critics are the same. But it is a serious problem, illustrated by this collection of tweets in backlash from guys I've never heard of:

    http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a774560/jesse-eisenbergs-scathing-attack-on-film-critics-provokes-scathing-attack-from-film-critics/

    A few high profile examples of such critics would be Empire, Harry Knowles, Devin Faraci and Screen Rant; critics that have either been bought or who have extremely blinkered views, yet critics who have their fanbase.


  • Options
    #4
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,671 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    It's funny but doesn't ring true. I take the point he's trying to make, that some critics take their personal issues out on a movie, but that can result in them writing positive reviews just as often.


  • Options
    #5
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,151 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Jon Stark wrote: »
    Yeah apologies, I shouldn't have suggested all critics are the same. But it is a serious problem, illustrated by this collection of tweets in backlash from guys I've never heard of:

    http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a774560/jesse-eisenbergs-scathing-attack-on-film-critics-provokes-scathing-attack-from-film-critics/

    Not really sure what your point is here. I recognise and respect several of the critics quoted there, and feel they're perfectly right in responding to an article which in itself is a bit of a hatchet job. Have never read a review from David Ehrlich that comes across as anything as utterly sincere and honest, for example, even when I profoundly disagree with him (see: Godzilla).
    A few high profile examples of such critics would be Empire, Harry Knowles, Devin Faraci and Screen Rant; critics that have either been bought or who have extremely blinkered views, yet critics who have their fanbase.

    But there's hacks in every area of criticism and journalism, that's the way it is. Frankly I can spot 'em a mile away, the very same way one can spot a genuine critique of a film. Ignoring them works just fine, TBH.


  • Options
    #6
    Mezcita
    Registered Users Posts: 2,328 ✭✭✭Mezcita


    johnny_ultimate wrote: »
    I think that's absolute nonsense, TBH. I guarantee that any film I watch I can google and quickly find numerous on-point, balanced, intelligent, probing, illuminating and 'non-vested' critiques of. A welcome mix of personal response and formal analysis, opinion combined with smart reading of the text.

    Normally I'd agree with that. However, the British press' collective jizzfest about Spectre was pretty disappointing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Jon Stark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Jon Stark


    johnny_ultimate wrote: »
    Not really sure what your point is here. I recognise and respect several of the critics quoted there, and feel they're perfectly right in responding to an article which in itself is a bit of a hatchet job. Have never read a review from David Ehrlich that comes across as anything as utterly sincere and honest, for example, even when I profoundly disagree with him (see: Godzilla).



    But there's hacks in every area of criticism and journalism, that's the way it is. Frankly I can spot 'em a mile away, the very same way one can spot a genuine critique of a film. Ignoring them works just fine, TBH.

    Fair enough, I wasn't familiar with many of the critics quoted in that article. My point was that these guys tweeting their anger are getting their knickers in a twist over a humorous article. It just seems so silly that just maybe they are overegging their feelings in the hope that they'll get some media spotlight.

    And so they did. Not much different from a hack overreacting in a review in order to get those site clicks.

    Finally, yes there are hacks in every walk of life, not many of those pay as good as the film industry does though.

    It's corruption of an art for personal gain and I hate seeing it.


  • Options
    #8
    Chain Smoker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,484 ✭✭✭Chain Smoker


    What exactly are critics supposed to do? They lose if they respond and they lose if they don't...

    Eisenberg, a guy who has had almost all of the films where he was positioned to become a major mainstream actor (30 Seconds or Less, Now You See Me, American Ultra) receive critical maulings, fired the first shot and the idea that his article is immune to any kind of response is a clear double standard. It's a fairly low quality piece by New Yorker standards, all things considered too.



    Also, agree with Jon Stark on the Devin Feraci hate. The Canon is actually a pretty fun podcast but that guy never comes across as anything other than a moron to me; even when he's on the same side as me, I find the other host's arguments a lot more reasoned and interesting. Didn't realise he was a person who had a fanbase!


  • Options
    #9
    bur
    Registered Users Posts: 1,689 ✭✭✭bur


    Don't think i've read or heard anything from him that hasn't come across as whiny and entitled. Really don't get his success either, good in Zombieland but other than that he's just a better looking Michael Cera.


  • Options
    #10
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,671 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    Nice and fair to all involved response by Matt Zoller Seitz:

    http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/whatever-you-had-for-lunch-that-day-some-notes-on-the-presumed-objectivity-of-critics


  • Options
    #11
    Oafley Jones
    Registered Users Posts: 6,463 ✭✭✭Oafley Jones


    Jon Stark wrote: »
    Yeah apologies, I shouldn't have suggested all critics are the same. But it is a serious problem, illustrated by this collection of tweets in backlash from guys I've never heard of:

    http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a774560/jesse-eisenbergs-scathing-attack-on-film-critics-provokes-scathing-attack-from-film-critics/

    A few high profile examples of such critics would be Empire, Harry Knowles, Devin Faraci and Screen Rant; critics that have either been bought or who have extremely blinkered views, yet critics who have their fanbase.

    Faraci's reponse is well worth a look. He defends the piece, but uses it (in typical Devin style) to put the boot into his peers.

    Also, when was the last time that Knowles was anyway influential? Or had a fanbase for that matter.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Jon Stark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Jon Stark


    Chain Smoker wrote: »
    What exactly are critics supposed to do? They lose if they respond and they lose if they don't...

    Eisenberg, a guy who has had almost all of the films where he was positioned to become a major mainstream actor (30 Seconds or Less, Now You See Me, American Ultra) receive critical maulings, fired the first shot and the idea that his article is immune to any kind of response is a clear double standard. It's a fairly low quality piece by New Yorker standards, all things considered too.



    Also, agree with Jon Stark on the Devin Feraci hate. The Canon is actually a pretty fun podcast but that guy never comes across as anything other than a moron to me; even when he's on the same side as me, I find the other host's arguments a lot more reasoned and interesting. Didn't realise he was a person who had a fanbase!

    According to the article SP posted most of his performances have been looked kindly upon even if the film itself was panned.

    As I said in the op his article was cliché and not particularly smart but raised a point worth highlighting.

    For example, look at the likes of Armand White, who has made a career out of being a contrary knob. Has he hurt box office figures? Nah. Has he made a lot more money out of it than he should of? Absolutely he has.


Advertisement