Excellent comments. You might appreciate one of my favorite descriptions of film criticism, from the introduction to John Simon's 1981 collection, Reverse Angle (originally from a 1975 essay titled "The Critical Condition" in New York magazine; I've just found that the entire essay, worth reading, is accessible via Google Books):
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - What is film criticism all about? Praise for our product, says the industry. Recognition, or failing that, constructive suggestions, say the film-makers. Reliable guidance, says the public. All of those things, say the reviewers, except, of course, praise only for good products. None of these things principally, say critics. Critics are after something harder and more elusive: pursuing their own reactions down to the rock bottom of their subjectivity and expressing them with the utmost artistry, so that what will always elude the test of objective truth will at least become a kind of art: the art of illumination, persuasion, and good thinking and writing. The industry is not to be indulged, any more than the film-maker is to be told how he should make movies: the one would be dishonest, the other presumptuous. The public, to be sure, is to be guided, but not in the simplistic way it hopes for.
It is not for the critic to do the reader’s thinking for him; it is for the critic merely to do his own thinking for the reader’s benefit. This may seem like a slight difference, but it is in fact tremendous. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A note on terminology: whereas most of us use the terms "reviewer" and "critic" interchangeably, it is a fairly common shorthand in film writing to distinguish, broadly speaking, between shorter, journalistic articles on new work (especially by what Roger Ebert has termed "quote whores") and longer, semi-scholarly essays taking a broader view. However, for Simon I think the difference here is strictly one of purpose and/or quality: what you're describing is what Simon would call "criticism" rather than "reviewing"; he certainly saw his own work that way (and surely would describe reviews by Shaw as criticism), even though he typically wrote 2,500 words (covering two or more films) every other week.
Apropos of scribblerworks' remarks: Simon, also a theater critic, is known for walking out of plays he dislikes at intermission, and yet reviewing them, with a note on his early departure. (Probably about one percent of his reviews concern such occasions.) He has compared the practice to a food critic choosing not to finish a bowl of rancid soup. Some people may find the analogy faulty.
no subject
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What is film criticism all about? Praise for our product, says the industry. Recognition, or failing that, constructive suggestions, say the film-makers. Reliable guidance, says the public. All of those things, say the reviewers, except, of course, praise only for good products. None of these things principally, say critics. Critics are after something harder and more elusive: pursuing their own reactions down to the rock bottom of their subjectivity and expressing them with the utmost artistry, so that what will always elude the test of objective truth will at least become a kind of art: the art of illumination, persuasion, and good thinking and writing. The industry is not to be indulged, any more than the film-maker is to be told how he should make movies: the one would be dishonest, the other presumptuous. The public, to be sure, is to be guided, but not in the simplistic way it hopes for.
It is not for the critic to do the reader’s thinking for him; it is for the critic merely to do his own thinking for the reader’s benefit. This may seem like a slight difference, but it is in fact tremendous.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A note on terminology: whereas most of us use the terms "reviewer" and "critic" interchangeably, it is a fairly common shorthand in film writing to distinguish, broadly speaking, between shorter, journalistic articles on new work (especially by what Roger Ebert has termed "quote whores") and longer, semi-scholarly essays taking a broader view. However, for Simon I think the difference here is strictly one of purpose and/or quality: what you're describing is what Simon would call "criticism" rather than "reviewing"; he certainly saw his own work that way (and surely would describe reviews by Shaw as criticism), even though he typically wrote 2,500 words (covering two or more films) every other week.
Apropos of scribblerworks' remarks: Simon, also a theater critic, is known for walking out of plays he dislikes at intermission, and yet reviewing them, with a note on his early departure. (Probably about one percent of his reviews concern such occasions.) He has compared the practice to a food critic choosing not to finish a bowl of rancid soup. Some people may find the analogy faulty.
-MTD/neb