Toronto theater blogger Chris Dupuis weighs in on the role of the critic, here.
One thought on “A case for criticism”
I think he’s nailed one of the main problems with a lot of reviews, that being the reviewer’s failure to understand the work’s intent. But there is another problem that too often unfairly colors a review: personal bias against the artist(s).
To illustrate, I once read a movie review in which the writer’s major beef with the movie was two of the actors’ names. And this guy was a professor of film studies at a major university!
IMO, that kind of crap should never be published. It’s unfair to the artists and the public and serves no purpose but to massage the ego of a faux journalist.
If reviews are needed as marketing tools, then I think they should focus on summarizing the work, without passing judgment, so that the public can decide for themselves whether it’s something that may be of interest. Once a reviewer says “this is good” or “this is bad,” the public (often) takes that as gospel.
I think he’s nailed one of the main problems with a lot of reviews, that being the reviewer’s failure to understand the work’s intent. But there is another problem that too often unfairly colors a review: personal bias against the artist(s).
To illustrate, I once read a movie review in which the writer’s major beef with the movie was two of the actors’ names. And this guy was a professor of film studies at a major university!
IMO, that kind of crap should never be published. It’s unfair to the artists and the public and serves no purpose but to massage the ego of a faux journalist.
If reviews are needed as marketing tools, then I think they should focus on summarizing the work, without passing judgment, so that the public can decide for themselves whether it’s something that may be of interest. Once a reviewer says “this is good” or “this is bad,” the public (often) takes that as gospel.