a critical credo

[calimac]

"To be the primary critic of a monopoly newspaper is an overwhelming role. You have to tread softly and be fully aware that your taste is not the only valid taste. All these years, I pasted in the front of my mind that there are many ways to be good." -- Joseph D. McLellan, late music critic of the Washington Post

This is one reason why I'm happier as a reviewer if I know I'm just one small voice: I'm freer to voice my own views without worrying about whether they're idiosyncratic. When you are the only reviewer covering something, like it or not you're the voice of record, and a fair-minded person in that position will weigh your reactions against other possible reactions (especially, in the case of performing arts, the rest of the audience). This is particularly challenging if you had a strongly negative reaction but were the only person in the audience to feel that way: in that case I try for a "more in sorrow than in anger" tone. But if that's my reaction and I'm only one voice in the wilderness, then let 'er rip.

One of many reasons why it's best not to have monopoly newspapers. Let a thousand outlets bloom.

Comments

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

Two things I wish reviewers would do more often that might alleviate this common problem: (1) Provide more establishing background information behind his/her opinion. ("I tend not to like books where I can't relate to the protagonist"). (2) Provide more examples. Sometimes I see movie/theater reviews that make statements like "Jack Black was mugging" or "The dialogue is cliche" that would be more useful if more details were pvoided so you could make up your own mind whether you would think it was cliche. Contrast, for example, my bad review statement ("The sliding on the ice" Hallmark-moment scene in Central Park didn't work for me at all") with one from jbriggs ("I kept thinking here's a native of a tropical island experiencing ice for the first time. And apes have hairless butts. ")

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

What mystifies me in reviews is when a book (or something) that had gotten consistently good reviews is made into a film that gets consistently bad reviews, without any indication that the adaptation violated the source material.

Were changes made that the reviews just didn't mention? Was the material just somehow not suitable for the film medium, and if so how? Or was it just that the first item fell into the hands of reviewers who like that sort of thing, while the second item fell into the hands of reviewers who didn't?

This has sort of been the problem in the case of the Producers stage musical (good reviews) and its new film (bad reviews), but at least some of the film reviews have said that what worked on stage doesn't work on film and even ventured suggestions as to why.

It was certainly the case with the Ya-Ya Sisterhood book and film. The film reviewers scorned the whole concept, without implying that the film mauled the book. This seemed curious, but not knowing either book or film myself I couldn't penetrate the mystery.