Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site mtgzz.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!leeper
From: leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Why I am not a critic
Message-ID: <1194@mtgzz.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Sep-85 13:30:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtgzz.1194
Posted: Sat Sep 21 13:30:02 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 05:54:29 EDT
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 88

There has been some discussion of late in this category as to whether
there should be critics or not and what a critic's opinion means.
In some postings and some electronic mail people have gone so far as to
ask me what right have I to be a critic.  I would like to make a
statement of policy with regard to my postings in this regard.

My qualifications as critic:
		    Zilch!

My qualifications as a film reviewer:
1. I have been a fan of films for many years.  In a number of
entertainment genres I have seen a large percentage of the films that
have been made.
2. If there are people who are interested to discuss film, I am willing
to say what I think of a film.
3. Because it was an easy way to get to see a lot of films I took one
(1) course in the history of the cinema.  Enjoyed taking the course and
I learned a little bit about film doing it.  Only a little bit.

I have been asked what right do I have to rate a film.  People seem to
be intimidated by numbers and assume other people use them only for
very official things.  That's nonsense.  When I rate a movie, it is not
going to be imprinted on a metal tag and attached to every film can for
that film.  What does it mean when I rate a film a +1?  It simply means
that my impression of the film is that I liked it better than a bunch
of films that I came to rate as a 0, but not as much as films I rate
a +2.  At some point I took a few films and stretched then over a scale
and from that point on I measured films on that scale as films I liked
better or worse than that scale.  (One minor digression: the scale I
chose was 1 to 4 with half ratings included.  A college friend I liked
to discuss films with used 1 to 10.  When CINEFANTASTIQUE magazine
started rating films on a -4 to +4 scale, we both were attracted to the
symetry.  I think that 0 makes sense as a film you are neutral to
overall.  Somebody started describing 0 as the expectation of a film.
A +1 in a standard deviation of 1/2 better.  A +2 is a standard
deviation of 1 better, etc.  In fact that seems to be a pretty good
interpretation of the rating system, though it was not the original
intention of the rating system unless someone at CINEFANTASTIQUE
thought of it in those terms.)

When I rate a film that rating is not cast in concrete.  It certainly
is not telling people what they should think of the film.  It is merely
an expression of how I feel about the film.  It is one data point for
people trying to decide to see the film or not.  For people who have
seen the film, it is a reasonable way to see quickly if we agree on how
much we liked the movie.

There is one exception to the above.  There are occasions in which I
will pass a critical opinion on a film.  In the case of something like
some Ingmar Bergman films or CHARIOTS OF FIRE I will note that though I
did not like the film I had to admit that it was well made.  I will
express an opinion that a film was critically better than my feeling
toward the film.  I gave CHARIOTS OF FIRE a +1 and a critical rating of
+3.  I considered it a good film I did not happen to like very much.

Another digression and a touch of egotism here: the critical rating
of a film is ALWAYS as good or better than the enjoyment rating.  I
don't believe in guilty pleasures in films -- films that I like even
though they are bad.  If someone gets out of the gutter on 42nd Street,
takes a videocamera, and shoots 70 minutes of naked ladies jumping on
beds, and if he does it in such a way that I enjoy watching that 70
minutes, that film is a critical success as far as I am concerned.  I
doubt that I would enjoy watching such a film, but if I did it would
mean the film has entertainment value, perhaps more entertainment
value than HOUR OF THE WOLF.  Entertainment value is the name of the
game in filmmaking as far as I am concerned.  That is my answer to the
argument "You are too analytical (or critical) of films, I just go to
have a good time."  I, too, just go to have a good time.  I have a good
time by letting myself be pulled into a film.  If the filmmaker shows a
computer program that runs simulations of nuclear war scenarios just
being plugged in to run NORAD, that calls attention to the fact that
what I am watching is really very different from reality.  I can no
longer feel part of that film.  The credibility of the film is shot and
I become aware that I am sitting in a theater watching a film made by
someone with less of an understanding of how things work than I have.

Getting back to the subject at hand, Kelvin Thompson has asked how can
anyone pass an opinion on whether a film is good or not.  Whenever he
sees a film he is torn with doubt.  He sees good things and bad things
and he goes into a sort of mass-of-indecision mode.  That is really
sort of sad.  The poor fellow doesn't know whether he likes a film or
not.  I don't have that problem.  Through some magical process my
subconsious mind weighs what it liked and disliked about a film and
tells me if I enjoyed myself.  Then I just pass the information along
to whomever is interested.

				Mark Leeper
				...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com