gh perhaps more privately). Around this time every year there is an almost overwhelming sense of excitement in the film world as we (or at least I) wait to have our suspicions either confirmed, or else denied (which we then proceed to argue with and refute among friends). After watching one of this year's truly great (here I go again) films, Ratatouille (pictured left), the closing narration resonated strongly with me, "in many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read." This one simple, seemingly innocuous line is full of such truth; and I contend that the opposite is true too. Every year critics, bloggers, and just every-day people come up with their best movie (or movies) of the year and, while there is nothing inherently wrong with this act, it occurs to me that it is an unnecessary act which only serves to perpetuate this narcissistic system. Having only recently entered the blogosphere, this week I became overwhelmed at how many blogs have "10 Best" lists as their topics, and so I decided to explore our culture's prerogative of ranking the best films of the year or making Oscar predictions. The first post I found is by Peter Sciretta it is titled "The Definitive Top 25 Movies of 2007." This post covers not only the author's opinion, but also includes lists from other popular websites. The second blog I found was "Oscar Predictions: Filipino Cruise Ship Bartenders" by Peter Martin. This post is taken from his time spent on a cruise interviewing various bartenders (who have no special film experience) as to what they think will (or should) win at the Oscars. My responses to these blogs are offered below, as well as on the author's respective blogs."The Definitive Top 25 Movies of 2007"
Comment:
First I would like to very much thank you for your contributions in the blogosphere, though I am quite new at this I have found your posts both enlightening and engaging, and what more could anybody hope for? I would also like to commend your choice of There Will Be Blood as the best film of the year, I think that it is an excellent film. This, however, brings me to my question. Is there a necessity for popular culture criticism? And if there is a necessity for it, what is that necessity? One aspect of people's day to day life seems to be indulging in other people's opinions instead of those same people forming their own; even people who hold their own opinions (I make these same lists) seem to thrive off of examining, critiquing and disagreeing with others. To me what is even more bothersome is that more often than not these lists (at least many of the most prominent ones) tend to agree with each other; Richard Roeper and his partner Roger Ebert both have No Country for Old Men and Juno on their lists, and New York Times film critic A.O. Scott and Village Voice film critic J. Hoberman agreed that I'm Not There, Terror's Advocate and There Will Be Blood are among the best films of the year. Have we become a society that we now need some kind of vindication to hold the opinions that we do? Or is a movie only good if the mass majority thinks that it is? I read in an article in The Village Voice S.T. VanAirsdale, in his article titled "5 Steps to a Better View," proposed that we "eradicate the top 10 list" as it is "perhaps the ultimate cancer on contemporary film, a backslapping orgy of hype that prizes propriety and capsule-sized cleverness over any sort of art, revelation, or insight." Like I said before I admire your choice very much, and I too am guilty of doing these lists. I am, however, unable to understand what necessitates their existence. I truly hope I get to hear your opinion on this.
"Oscar Predictions: Filipino Cruise Ship Bartenders"
Comment:
I think that the approach that you used in your blog post is both interesting and innovative. As a film student I am often surrounded by people who are more than happy to o
ffer their opinions, and as a result the opinion of other people (those not in film school) often goes unnoticed. As I read your post I noticed that most of the predictions defied the popular belief as to what will/should win. When the list that you formed is put to comparison with the list voted on imdb.com (as of the time of this post) almost all of the bartenders' predictions seem pretty unlikely. The only one that the two lists agree on is best director for Joel and Ethan Coen (pictured right). I think that it is enlightening that many of the people that you interviewed, many of whom have not seen the films, are in almost complete disagreement with the majority of the imdb.com using world. You close your post by saying "I'll be watching to see if random friendly bartenders know more than seasoned Oscar pundits." My question then is, do you think that the Oscars do not accurately represent the masses? Do you think that they have a responsibility to? Many of the people that I know that are not "into" film do not even go so far as to see the films that are nominated (many of these same people feel that they are much more strongly represented by the MTV Movie Awards). Your post seems to make the point that the bartenders are being under represented (or not represented at all), but do you feel that they should be? It is stated on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences website that "the Oscar represents the best achievements of the year in the opinion of those who themselves reside at the top of their craft," do you feel that should factor in at all? I think that your post shed light on the arguable shortcomings of the Oscars, while at the same time being a unique list of Oscar predictions.
1 comment:
Great job on the post! I really like how you question the relevance of critics in the film industry. You are correct in that some critics must sway others in their decision making. It is very easy in the film world to jump on the bandwagon, which you yourself mention. I would love, though, to hear more about how critics compiling a top-ten list is narcissistic, since I am unclear on the matter. To me, it seems like these lists exist to spark discussion and to applaud stellar achievement in film making. it would be interesting to hear your take on this.
It was great to see the differences between the two blogs you commented on, seeing as one is a stuffy, run-of-the-mill "top 25" list, and the other is extremely informal. I was surprised at how seemingly similar, yet obviously different the Oscar picks were in each post. You raised great questions to the authors, of which I am excited to hear the responses. In terms of most critics agreeing on their 'Top 10' lists, do you think it is because they genuinely all loved the same movies, or is it because they feel those movies fulfilled some sort of "great movie" requirement or formula?
I would have loved to hear you ask the second author (though it might be somewhat of a heavy question) if he felt that race and culture had anything to do with the Filipino bartenders' decisions. It would be interesting to see if ethnicity and economic status affect which types of movies people regard as the best of the year.
Overall though, great post! It was an informative and unique way to explore different sides of the argument.
Post a Comment