Welcome back, everyone. I have another post today, and I think this one will become an occasional feature. Here, I plan to settle massive disputes that have gone on since the dawn of time, possibly later, by showing how both sides actually can or already do agree with each other.
First off: the critics vs. the proles. The avant-garde vs. the layperson. The Andy Warhols vs. the Joe the Plumbers.
In one corner, we have we have the normal people. (Trust me: the critics wouldn't take that as a slight against them.) The normal people enjoy drinking, making loud noises, watching Two and a Half Men, and listening to Lil' Wayne and Eminem. They earn good money, but not great money, and go out to bars or clubs on weekends with friends. The men tend to enjoy yelling rude things at women whilst holding a bottle of Jack Daniel's and slurring their speech, while the women enjoy dying their hair blond, wearing little to no clothing, and getting offended by the hollering men. Most of them are under 30. Some of them enjoy knitting.
In the other corner, we have the critics. The critics enjoy drinking (the finest vintage Chardonnay from a small village in France destroyed during the Second World War), making (quiet, respectful) noises, watching Mad Men, and listening to The Arcade Fire, Lil' Wayne and Eminem. Except Eminem's later stuff--according to critics, around 2004, Eminem "started to suck". They don't earn that much more than the typical person--in fact, some struggle quite hard to earn money by writing about someone else's work--but you wouldn't know that by looking at the Ivory Tower they hold themselves in. (That's not always a metaphor, either: many critics actually live in an ivory tower.)
Since the dawn of time, the not-abnormal folk have taken issue with the fact that critics seem to prefer artier, less-immediate music, and because they are so well-regarded ("by other critics," a regular person like my fat neighbour Hulio might contend), no one hears about how great their favourite group is. If critics had their way, Nickelback wouldn't be a household name! If no one listened to critics, blogs featuring nothing but pictures of kittens would get the recognition they deserve! If everyone thought like Joe Blow, the world would know that The Boondock Saints IS THE SHIZNIZNIT!! (*for the record, some critics actually like The Boondock Saints, but to my knowledge, none of them have referred to said film as 'the shizniznit'.)
Critics, meanwhile, have regarded these acusations with abruptness, amazement, astonishment, astoundment, attack, awe, bewilderment, bombshell, consternation, curiosity, curveball, disappointment, disillusion, epiphany, eureka, eye-opener, fortune, godsend, incredulity, jolt, kick, marvel, miracle, miscalculation, phenomenon, portent, precipitance, precipitation, precipitousness, prodigy, rarity, revelation, shock, start, stupefaction, suddenness, thunderbolt, unexpected, unforeseen, whammy, wonder, and wonderment. Doesn't the common woman or man recognize that the creativity and style present in "Revolution 9" make it the best song on The White Album? That film studio executives who repeatedly make slow and stately adaptations of undeniably classic novels (like The Men Who Stare at Goats! What legendary nonfiction!) need to be praised and rewarded, unlike people who make simple films with breasts and explosions, like Michael Bay? The dime-a-dozen citizen responds that they don't have time to look that hard at everything, and goes back to, and I quote, "actually living life." (The person quoted went on to spend most of his life watching TV, attending restaurants, going to the movies and listening to music.)
Well really, these people would understand each other a lot more if they just listened a little harder--or less hard, for critics. The fact is, individual critics are obsessed with some element of the human experience, be it film, music, or things I didn't mention like food, fragrances...just about anything. One way or another, they end up learning a whole lot about what interests them, and decided to make studying it a career. Some go on to do work in a field that creates more of their chosen art to study, or become historians, but the people I speak of here chose to reward people who make the best art by writing about them in a public forum.
So, what makes a critic disapprove of your favourite film? They've likely studied thousands more films than you have, and while a popular film in wide release may be slick and/or filled with action, more advanced viewers will look for something more--or they're wrong. It happens.
What makes a regular dude like popular tunes, while the critic scorns them? Because occasionally, a great artist will be both great and popular, but there are so many artists who don't have an audience like popular artists do that there's almost always someone out there doing the same thing in a different--dare I say, better?--way. Three other things:
That's all. Battle settled. Critics and everyday people, you can like each other now. Thank me later.
(Thanks to Thesaurus.com for that middle section)
First off: the critics vs. the proles. The avant-garde vs. the layperson. The Andy Warhols vs. the Joe the Plumbers.
In one corner, we have we have the normal people. (Trust me: the critics wouldn't take that as a slight against them.) The normal people enjoy drinking, making loud noises, watching Two and a Half Men, and listening to Lil' Wayne and Eminem. They earn good money, but not great money, and go out to bars or clubs on weekends with friends. The men tend to enjoy yelling rude things at women whilst holding a bottle of Jack Daniel's and slurring their speech, while the women enjoy dying their hair blond, wearing little to no clothing, and getting offended by the hollering men. Most of them are under 30. Some of them enjoy knitting.
In the other corner, we have the critics. The critics enjoy drinking (the finest vintage Chardonnay from a small village in France destroyed during the Second World War), making (quiet, respectful) noises, watching Mad Men, and listening to The Arcade Fire, Lil' Wayne and Eminem. Except Eminem's later stuff--according to critics, around 2004, Eminem "started to suck". They don't earn that much more than the typical person--in fact, some struggle quite hard to earn money by writing about someone else's work--but you wouldn't know that by looking at the Ivory Tower they hold themselves in. (That's not always a metaphor, either: many critics actually live in an ivory tower.)
Since the dawn of time, the not-abnormal folk have taken issue with the fact that critics seem to prefer artier, less-immediate music, and because they are so well-regarded ("by other critics," a regular person like my fat neighbour Hulio might contend), no one hears about how great their favourite group is. If critics had their way, Nickelback wouldn't be a household name! If no one listened to critics, blogs featuring nothing but pictures of kittens would get the recognition they deserve! If everyone thought like Joe Blow, the world would know that The Boondock Saints IS THE SHIZNIZNIT!! (*for the record, some critics actually like The Boondock Saints, but to my knowledge, none of them have referred to said film as 'the shizniznit'.)
Critics, meanwhile, have regarded these acusations with abruptness, amazement, astonishment, astoundment, attack, awe, bewilderment, bombshell, consternation, curiosity, curveball, disappointment, disillusion, epiphany, eureka, eye-opener, fortune, godsend, incredulity, jolt, kick, marvel, miracle, miscalculation, phenomenon, portent, precipitance, precipitation, precipitousness, prodigy, rarity, revelation, shock, start, stupefaction, suddenness, thunderbolt, unexpected, unforeseen, whammy, wonder, and wonderment. Doesn't the common woman or man recognize that the creativity and style present in "Revolution 9" make it the best song on The White Album? That film studio executives who repeatedly make slow and stately adaptations of undeniably classic novels (like The Men Who Stare at Goats! What legendary nonfiction!) need to be praised and rewarded, unlike people who make simple films with breasts and explosions, like Michael Bay? The dime-a-dozen citizen responds that they don't have time to look that hard at everything, and goes back to, and I quote, "actually living life." (The person quoted went on to spend most of his life watching TV, attending restaurants, going to the movies and listening to music.)
Well really, these people would understand each other a lot more if they just listened a little harder--or less hard, for critics. The fact is, individual critics are obsessed with some element of the human experience, be it film, music, or things I didn't mention like food, fragrances...just about anything. One way or another, they end up learning a whole lot about what interests them, and decided to make studying it a career. Some go on to do work in a field that creates more of their chosen art to study, or become historians, but the people I speak of here chose to reward people who make the best art by writing about them in a public forum.
So, what makes a critic disapprove of your favourite film? They've likely studied thousands more films than you have, and while a popular film in wide release may be slick and/or filled with action, more advanced viewers will look for something more--or they're wrong. It happens.
What makes a regular dude like popular tunes, while the critic scorns them? Because occasionally, a great artist will be both great and popular, but there are so many artists who don't have an audience like popular artists do that there's almost always someone out there doing the same thing in a different--dare I say, better?--way. Three other things:
- People have a desire to be on the cutting-edge, to know what's really good, and when someone goes on and on about how great a popular artist is, it's human nature to try to stand out by saying you like someone different. Critics are probably a little more immune to this, but will still have a list of bands/movies/etc. that they like just as much as your favourite artist.
- When that lousy "critic-shmitic" gives your favourit Linkin Park album a 6, it's entirely possible that when they end the article by saying it's an alright album...they mean it. Really! Many if not most critics aren't in a position where they have to pander to interests by humoring the band with a three out of five, and genuinely thought the band was okay. Just--y'know--not as good as a few of the other CDs she or he's heard that week. And honestly, does everyon HAVE to love the same music you do?
- When a critic wonders out loud why everyone is going to see this terrible film when it is "clearly" a piece of utter trash, it's because they know all about film, they go out of their way to support good filmmaking, it's because they love their genre, they're paid to talk about it, and YOU PAID MONEY TO SEE TRANSFORMERS 2. WHAT THE HELL. DID YOU SEE THOSE RACIST ROBOTS?! AND (spoiler ahead) WASN'T THERE SOME KIND OF GIANT SPACE CANNON UNDER THE PYRAMIDS?! You're better than that! And then studios look at that, see what sells, and sure enough, Warner Bros. releases GanGstAA RoWWBawwwtz II: aTTAK O' da MinnI-Vanns (feat. Adidas) in 2010. They can't help but be mad, friends.
That's all. Battle settled. Critics and everyday people, you can like each other now. Thank me later.
(Thanks to Thesaurus.com for that middle section)
No comments:
Post a Comment