Comments on: First thing we do, let’s kill all the critics http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/ by Jeff Jarvis Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:12:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Brian Shields http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-114348 Brian Shields Mon, 21 Aug 2006 00:12:46 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-114348 Lou Reed said it best in the greatest live album of all-time, "Take No Prisoners". He goes off into this great rant about John Rockwell and Robert Cristgau and includes this gem: "Can you imagine working for an Fing year and you get a B+ from some A-hole in the Village Voice?" Lou Reed said it best in the greatest live album of all-time, “Take No Prisoners”.

He goes off into this great rant about John Rockwell and Robert Cristgau and includes this gem:

“Can you imagine working for an Fing year and you get a B+ from some A-hole in the Village Voice?”

]]> By: Brooklyn Kitchen http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-114314 Brooklyn Kitchen Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:30:23 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-114314 Do you mean me? How can I be hard to take when you've never heard of me before? Do you mean me? How can I be hard to take when you’ve never heard of me before?

]]> By: Jeff Jarvis http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-114129 Jeff Jarvis Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:01:59 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-114129 Brooklyn, Well, then, so can critics of critics, eh? ;-) Brooklyn,
Well, then, so can critics of critics, eh? ;-)

]]> By: Brooklyn Kitchen http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-114117 Brooklyn Kitchen Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:15:36 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-114117 Jeff: You can't officially use the past tense. You're still a critic, just not with regard to movies/television. And, let's face it...at times you can be a bit hard to take as well. Jeff: You can’t officially use the past tense. You’re still a critic, just not with regard to movies/television. And, let’s face it…at times you can be a bit hard to take as well.

]]> By: ashok http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113745 ashok Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:59:15 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113745 Old Grouch - you're right: to what degree is McGurk insisting on something more than being read? You've already said regular readers take her seriously; is there something about criticism that leads her to believe she is never being taken seriously? I think Mr. Jarvis found that "something," which drove McGurk's article, deeply offensive, and if that is the case, I agree. Old Grouch - you’re right: to what degree is McGurk insisting on something more than being read? You’ve already said regular readers take her seriously; is there something about criticism that leads her to believe she is never being taken seriously?

I think Mr. Jarvis found that “something,” which drove McGurk’s article, deeply offensive, and if that is the case, I agree.

]]> By: Old Grouch http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113717 Old Grouch Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:02:17 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113717 The unspoken assumption in McGurk's letter is that reading a review is a one-shot deal which makes no reference to past experience. That's silly: Readers (especially regular newspaper readers who read reviews by the paper's regular critic) aren't a blank slates. They've <em>already</em> read reviews-- and acted on recommendations-- by the particular reviewer. So they can be expected to have a handle on how closely the reviewer's judgement is likely to match their own. Take the stars, add the byline, factor in past experience, and bingo, they have a good quick assessment of how much they'll like the film. <em>Then</em> they can go on to read the review-- if they believe it will be worth their time. The unspoken assumption in McGurk’s letter is that reading a review is a one-shot deal which makes no reference to past experience. That’s silly: Readers (especially regular newspaper readers who read reviews by the paper’s regular critic) aren’t a blank slates. They’ve already read reviews– and acted on recommendations– by the particular reviewer. So they can be expected to have a handle on how closely the reviewer’s judgement is likely to match their own.

Take the stars, add the byline, factor in past experience, and bingo, they have a good quick assessment of how much they’ll like the film. Then they can go on to read the review– if they believe it will be worth their time.

]]> By: ashok http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113714 ashok Sat, 19 Aug 2006 17:56:25 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113714 David Crisp makes a really good point about her argument; I think her argument defeats role as critic in some way, as she doesn't give herself another avenue of speaking, but her arrogance doesn't make me despite critics generally. I love <a href="http://www.pajiba.com" rel="nofollow">Pajiba</a>, a site that's fun to disagree and agree with, and not afraid to show how their learning influenced their opinions. That's the thing critics can show, that all the rest of us can learn from. They can demonstrate that there's more than just argument behind speech or conversation. They can demonstrate that if you see such-and-such a film, or know this or that art movement, your way of seeing things is different, maybe even informed, and maybe even better. All opinions are not created equal. David Crisp makes a really good point about her argument; I think her argument defeats role as critic in some way, as she doesn’t give herself another avenue of speaking, but her arrogance doesn’t make me despite critics generally.

I love Pajiba, a site that’s fun to disagree and agree with, and not afraid to show how their learning influenced their opinions.

That’s the thing critics can show, that all the rest of us can learn from. They can demonstrate that there’s more than just argument behind speech or conversation. They can demonstrate that if you see such-and-such a film, or know this or that art movement, your way of seeing things is different, maybe even informed, and maybe even better.

All opinions are not created equal.

]]> By: David Crisp http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113670 David Crisp Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:52:05 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113670 Except that she's right. Ratings tell the reader nothing except whether the critic liked the movie. And knowing whether the critic liked the movie is useful only if the reader has some feel for what sort of movies the critic likes. And that feel can be gained only by reading what the critic has to say. Except that she’s right. Ratings tell the reader nothing except whether the critic liked the movie. And knowing whether the critic liked the movie is useful only if the reader has some feel for what sort of movies the critic likes. And that feel can be gained only by reading what the critic has to say.

]]> By: Wordblog » Blog Archive » Time Out circulation rise gives print critics hope http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113478 Wordblog » Blog Archive » Time Out circulation rise gives print critics hope Sat, 19 Aug 2006 08:14:14 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113478 [...] Jeff Jarvis has returned to the hornets nest he stirred up earlier in the week when he asked in his Guardian column: “Who needs critics?” A follow-up post on his Buzzmachine blog is headed: “First thing we do, let’s kill all the critics.” [...] [...] Jeff Jarvis has returned to the hornets nest he stirred up earlier in the week when he asked in his Guardian column: “Who needs critics?” A follow-up post on his Buzzmachine blog is headed: “First thing we do, let’s kill all the critics.” [...]

]]> By: Robert Feinman http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113232 Robert Feinman Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:19:33 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113232 I have movie critics watch movies for me so I don't have to. I also have a machine watch TV for me (VCR) so I don't have to do that either. As long as the critic or VCR has watched it I'm satisfied. Both these inventions save me a lot of time which I use to read books (and post on blogs!). Seriously Jeff, critics are just part of the promotion PR blitz. Everyone knows this and acts accordingly. It's not like they were telling us about WMD's in Iraq or anything. I have movie critics watch movies for me so I don’t have to. I also have a machine watch TV for me (VCR) so I don’t have to do that either. As long as the critic or VCR has watched it I’m satisfied.

Both these inventions save me a lot of time which I use to read books (and post on blogs!).

Seriously Jeff, critics are just part of the promotion PR blitz. Everyone knows this and acts accordingly. It’s not like they were telling us about WMD’s in Iraq or anything.

]]> By: Mark http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113231 Mark Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:19:29 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113231 While not a hard and fast rule, over the years I've generally found the less stars given by the MSM reviewers, the more I'd like the film. Though I don't think of them as MSM, "The New Republic's" Chris Orr is an exception and does good reviews of new release DVDs. While not a hard and fast rule, over the years I’ve generally found the less stars given by the MSM reviewers, the more I’d like the film.

Though I don’t think of them as MSM, “The New Republic’s” Chris Orr is an exception and does good reviews of new release DVDs.

]]> By: George Allen http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113205 George Allen Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:22:02 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113205 Mumblix is right, the liberal infatuation with gay inter-racial sex is an abomination. Mumblix is right, the liberal infatuation with gay inter-racial sex is an abomination.

]]> By: Mumblix Grumph http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113187 Mumblix Grumph Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:21:04 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113187 I learned long ago how to decode our local critic's movie rating method. The more gay or inter-racial love scenes, the more stars it got. Anti-Republican themes were also good for a few stars. I think his ideal movie would be watching Ronald Reagan getting slapped by Castro while Rosie O'Donnell and Margaret Cho slow danced at the Moulan Rouge. I learned long ago how to decode our local critic’s movie rating method.

The more gay or inter-racial love scenes, the more stars it got.

Anti-Republican themes were also good for a few stars.

I think his ideal movie would be watching Ronald Reagan getting slapped by Castro while Rosie O’Donnell and Margaret Cho slow danced at the Moulan Rouge.

]]> By: ashok http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113167 ashok Fri, 18 Aug 2006 20:51:40 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113167 I think giving a film one or zero stars says a lot, without any words having to be wasted. Grades and stars aren't just a matter of convenience. It's a matter of how one wishes to communicate, beyond the word count. I think giving a film one or zero stars says a lot, without any words having to be wasted.

Grades and stars aren’t just a matter of convenience. It’s a matter of how one wishes to communicate, beyond the word count.

]]> By: Mike G http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113165 Mike G Fri, 18 Aug 2006 20:48:21 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/08/18/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-the-critics/#comment-113165 Instead of the 4=great, 3=good, 2=fair, 1=poor scale, the British film magazine Sight & Sound used to use a scale that went something like this: 0 stars= average, needn't bother with it really 1 star= something of interest 2 stars= one of the better films of this year 3 stars= quite remarkable 4 stars= masterpiece for the ages By making the scale mainly cover gradations of goodness, it dismissed the run of the mill as exactly that and concentrated on the higher end of the art. I've always thought there was something to be said for that emphasis on the films worth paying attention to, versus calibrating the precise degree to which a movie that sucks sucks. Instead of the 4=great, 3=good, 2=fair, 1=poor scale, the British film magazine Sight & Sound used to use a scale that went something like this:

0 stars= average, needn’t bother with it really
1 star= something of interest
2 stars= one of the better films of this year
3 stars= quite remarkable
4 stars= masterpiece for the ages

By making the scale mainly cover gradations of goodness, it dismissed the run of the mill as exactly that and concentrated on the higher end of the art. I’ve always thought there was something to be said for that emphasis on the films worth paying attention to, versus calibrating the precise degree to which a movie that sucks sucks.

]]>