The Onion's Scott Tobias on why critics should be able to change their minds...
11-02-05, 09:17 AM
#1
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
The Onion's Scott Tobias on why critics should be able to change their minds...
Scott Tobias is one of my favorite movie critics. Most of his opinions are close to my own and he seems resistant to the rampant bandwagoning that seems to happen in critical circles.
He has, of course, been wrong on occassion, but he's now become the first critic I can think of who admits his mistakes. I wish other critics would do the same with some of their missteps (Roger Ebert's refusal to withdraw his four-star review of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome springs to mind)
Here's the article:
http://avclub.com/content/node/42143
It makes me particularly happy because it contains this retraction of his very positive review of my own personal Most Hated Movie of All Time:
Yes, yes. Excellent. Let the American Beauty backlash begin.
Now if we can just get people to admit that Titanic, Gladiator and the first Matrix are vastly overrated, we'll be getting somewhere.
He has, of course, been wrong on occassion, but he's now become the first critic I can think of who admits his mistakes. I wish other critics would do the same with some of their missteps (Roger Ebert's refusal to withdraw his four-star review of Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome springs to mind)
Here's the article:
http://avclub.com/content/node/42143
It makes me particularly happy because it contains this retraction of his very positive review of my own personal Most Hated Movie of All Time:
Of the honking errors I’ve made in my eight years writing for The A.V. Club, there’s only one review I’d like to take back, which is my rave for American Beauty. Obviously, I was not alone in liking the film at the time—it won an award or two, if I recall—but what first appeared to be an audacious and daring comedy from a major studio now seems like a Hollywood gloss on well-trodden indie territory, leavened by “transcendent” moments like that goddamn floating plastic bag. How could I overlook the leaden irony of iron-fisted dad Chris Cooper’s suppressed homosexual impulses? Or the overplayed Stepford Wife brittleness of Annette Bening’s performance? The film makes me wince with regret whenever it pops up on cable, and all I can say in my defense is that its surfaces (courtesy of the late, great cinematographer Conrad Hall) are so seductive that one can be forgiven for overlooking the hollowness inside.
Now if we can just get people to admit that Titanic, Gladiator and the first Matrix are vastly overrated, we'll be getting somewhere.
11-02-05, 09:21 AM
#2
Moderator
Originally Posted by Hiro11
Now if we can just get people to admit that Titanic, Gladiator and the first Matrix are vastly overrated, we'll be getting somewhere.
People in this forum bag on all three of those films all the time.Also, Roger Ebert gave Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome three stars.
Last edited by Groucho; 11-02-05 at 09:23 AM.
11-02-05, 10:35 AM
#5
Moderator
I agree with him. The first time I saw American Beauty I thought it was great. The second time I had serious reservations. By the third time I had started to hate it.
Herein lies the problem with your average film reviewer who works for a general readership publication, either a newspaper or a magazine - you see a lot of movies, and you don't have much time to form a cogent critical opinion of most of them. After a while I'm sure they all start to run together, given the sameness of most larger studio output. Things like a high level of professionalism in editing and set design can make a shallow, juvenile film like American Beauty seem better than it really is on first sight, by giving it a veneer of quality. We could call this the "Merchant/Ivory Syndrome".
On the other hand, most average filmgoers don't care. They want to waste time for two hours being entertained. So, if a movie is revealed to be hollow and artificial on repeated viewings, so what? They'll probably never see it more than once anyway, and, in my observation, most moviegoers don't develop the kinds of critical thinking skills to uncover these flaws even with repeated viewings. With this the case, a critic's first reaction might be the most appropriate on which to base a review aimed at the typical movie watcher.
Herein lies the problem with your average film reviewer who works for a general readership publication, either a newspaper or a magazine - you see a lot of movies, and you don't have much time to form a cogent critical opinion of most of them. After a while I'm sure they all start to run together, given the sameness of most larger studio output. Things like a high level of professionalism in editing and set design can make a shallow, juvenile film like American Beauty seem better than it really is on first sight, by giving it a veneer of quality. We could call this the "Merchant/Ivory Syndrome".
On the other hand, most average filmgoers don't care. They want to waste time for two hours being entertained. So, if a movie is revealed to be hollow and artificial on repeated viewings, so what? They'll probably never see it more than once anyway, and, in my observation, most moviegoers don't develop the kinds of critical thinking skills to uncover these flaws even with repeated viewings. With this the case, a critic's first reaction might be the most appropriate on which to base a review aimed at the typical movie watcher.
Last edited by wendersfan; 11-02-05 at 10:38 AM.
11-02-05, 10:35 AM
#6
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Groucho
People in this forum bag on all three of those films all the time.
Also, Roger Ebert gave Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome three stars.
11-02-05, 10:46 AM
#11
DVD Talk Hero
OK, just read the article. The author touts his unique ability to admit changing his mind then declares that amongst his reviews there is ONLY ONE he would change.
Huh? I guess one is more than zero, but it doesn't really support his attack on other critics very much.
Huh? I guess one is more than zero, but it doesn't really support his attack on other critics very much.
11-02-05, 10:59 AM
#12
DVD Talk Godfather
I was thinking of this the other day, especially with music. You'd need to hold on to an album and listen to it at least a week or two to really give a concrete "rating".
The funniest example of review changing was on AMG where they rated Coldplay's Parachutes as "sleepy" and "boring" --- then they get big and lo and behold that review disappears.
The funniest example of review changing was on AMG where they rated Coldplay's Parachutes as "sleepy" and "boring" --- then they get big and lo and behold that review disappears.
11-02-05, 11:15 AM
#13
DVD Talk Legend
I've disliked American Beauty from the day I first saw it. Of course, I also dislike Gladiator and The English Patient, so I went through a few years there where Oscar was driving me crazy.
And Ebert HAS changed the stars on a few of his reviews...I've heard him talk about it before, but for the life of me can't remember which movies they are now. I think one of them might have been UNFORGIVEN, which I think Roger gave two stars on his first review.
And Ebert HAS changed the stars on a few of his reviews...I've heard him talk about it before, but for the life of me can't remember which movies they are now. I think one of them might have been UNFORGIVEN, which I think Roger gave two stars on his first review.
Last edited by Shannon Nutt; 11-02-05 at 11:18 AM.
11-02-05, 12:09 PM
#15
Moderator
The original poster trashes Ebert for not withdrawing his review. And then trashes Ebert for changing the review from four stars to three? 
Make up your mind!
Make up your mind!
11-02-05, 12:10 PM
#16
DVD Talk Legend
I thought Ebert was against changing reviews -- I remember after he gave South Park 2 1/2 stars he talked about how he actually might recommend it (3 stars), but didn't want to change his review. Interesting.
I love American Beauty, Titanic, Matrix, and Gladiator.
I love American Beauty, Titanic, Matrix, and Gladiator.
11-02-05, 12:19 PM
#17
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Originally Posted by Numanoid
And Ebert's most egregious refusal to alter a review is his one-star review of Blue Velvet.
Off topic, but it does involve critics. Is anyone else finding themselves rapidly disagreeing with Berardinelli? He seems to have become incredibly jaded. Can't say I blame him though.
11-02-05, 12:22 PM
#18
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
I had never heard of people changing their opinions on films until I discovered the internet. If a critic isn't lucid or intelligent enough to form an honest opinion on his initial viewing of a film, then perhaps he shouldn't be reviewing films. I always find reversals of opinions completely disingenuous. I can understand an opinion changing slightly over time, but going from liking a film to not liking a film is ridiculous. I question the motive for such a change.
11-02-05, 12:26 PM
#19
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
I think Pauline Kael is partly to blame for the obstinance of today's critics. Her claim that she only ever needed to see a movie once always struck me as the height of arrogance.
11-02-05, 01:43 PM
#21
Moderator
Originally Posted by DodgingCars
I've never read Pauline Kael, but everything I've ever read about her made me never want to read her reviews.
11-02-05, 02:42 PM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt
...I think one of them might have been UNFORGIVEN, which I think Roger gave two stars on his first review.
There was another, I cannot recall which one, where he blasted it pretty hard even going so far as to say "they never even told you her [main character] name!" ... when in actuality they did at the opening scene, heh heh.
11-02-05, 03:55 PM
#23
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Groucho
The original poster trashes Ebert for not withdrawing his review. And then trashes Ebert for changing the review from four stars to three? Make up your mind!
Make up your mind!There's a difference between reasonably admitting you made a mistake (or simply have a different opinion after a while) and changing a review and surreptitiously changing the star rating you gave to a film.
11-02-05, 03:58 PM
#24
Moderator
How do you know it was surreptitious? Maybe there was a retraction that you never saw? Maybe there never was a four-star review as you claim?
I know he changed his Unforgiven review, confessing that personal matters at the time clouded his judgement of the film.
I know he changed his Unforgiven review, confessing that personal matters at the time clouded his judgement of the film.
11-02-05, 04:10 PM
#25
Enormous Genitals
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a small cottage on a cul de sac in the lower pits of hell.
Posts: 37,267
Received 589 Likes
on
337 Posts
I really liked American Beauty when I first saw it, and I still like it. Maybe I just don't know enough about indie films. So, edumacate me - what's wrong with American Beauty? Why is it shallow?
I loved the performances by Spacey, Benning and Cooper (and Mena Suvari was pretty good too - I never understood the raves about Thora Birch, though).
I loved the performances by Spacey, Benning and Cooper (and Mena Suvari was pretty good too - I never understood the raves about Thora Birch, though).
