http://blog.spout.com/2008/02/29/blockbusterly-illiterate/ Daily coverage of what is truly interesting in the film world Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:15:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 http://blog.spout.com/2008/02/29/blockbusterly-illiterate/#comment-81441 JIMBELL Mon, 03 Mar 2008 01:56:00 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/2008/02/29/blockbusterly-illiterate/#comment-81441 The number or the list of movies you've seen has almost nothing to do with your ability as a film critic. You can be a stultifying bore and have seen 5,000 movies, or you can be stimulating and insightful and have seen 200. Think of how else you could develop as a film critic. STudy literature! Make films! Read philosophy! Learn the cinema of another culture! Watching classic movies seems one of the least effective ways of developing as a worthwhile critic. The number or the list of movies you’ve seen has almost nothing to do with your ability as a film critic. You can be a stultifying bore and have seen 5,000 movies, or you can be stimulating and insightful and have seen 200. Think of how else you could develop as a film critic. STudy literature! Make films! Read philosophy! Learn the cinema of another culture! Watching classic movies seems one of the least effective ways of developing as a worthwhile critic.

]]> http://blog.spout.com/2008/02/29/blockbusterly-illiterate/#comment-81341 alsolikelife Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:34:34 +0000 http://blog.spout.com/2008/02/29/blockbusterly-illiterate/#comment-81341 LaSalle's follow-up defense still doesn't address my main problem with that article. The breadth of films that one watches is not so much the issue as quality of insight. I think many of us will agree that we gravitate to our favorite film critics and writers not because we know they've seen thousands of films, but because they write in such a way that, whether their opinion is favorable or unfavorable towards a film, they demonstrate enthusiasm for film as entertainment and art, and that enthusiasm is passed on to us as viewers. In other words, their job is the cultivation of a healthy and vibrant film culture. The problem I have with LaSalle's "reviews" of those films is the pedestrian quality of his insights, which does nothing to make movies sound like more than something we do just to pass the time away. LaSalle’s follow-up defense still doesn’t address my main problem with that article. The breadth of films that one watches is not so much the issue as quality of insight. I think many of us will agree that we gravitate to our favorite film critics and writers not because we know they’ve seen thousands of films, but because they write in such a way that, whether their opinion is favorable or unfavorable towards a film, they demonstrate enthusiasm for film as entertainment and art, and that enthusiasm is passed on to us as viewers. In other words, their job is the cultivation of a healthy and vibrant film culture. The problem I have with LaSalle’s “reviews” of those films is the pedestrian quality of his insights, which does nothing to make movies sound like more than something we do just to pass the time away.

]]>