Scientific Studies of Cinematic Creativity and Aesthetics.

[number6]

Interested in a statistical pattern for making a critically acclaimed film? A synopsis is here at http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=8290

[Jason Murphy]

Interesting read. This does, of course, assume that you trust your average critic to recognize a good movie; the state of film criticism in the US is, with a few exceptions, pretty abysmal, but that's a different story, I guess.

[number6]

Interesting read. This does, of course, assume that you trust your average critic to recognize a good movie; the state of film criticism in the US is, with a few exceptions, pretty abysmal, but that's a different story, I guess.

I'm no expert, but I agree with your take on film critics. I believe they look for a formula and if the film fits, they seem to go with it. It just seems that they review according to their oun tastes and the film-going public be damned. But maybe I'm being too critical of the critics.:)

[Poi Boy]

don't all critics be it film, food or whatever review according to their own taste ?
-A

[krd]

The first sentence pretty much gives it away: "A film that wins critical acclaim is likely to be an R-rated drama, adapted from a prize-winning play or book and based on a true story...."

What this describes is the inoffensive, middle-brow movie beloved by newspaper reviewers -- a "socially meaningful" drama with good intentions, one which, unlike a work of autonomous fiction, doesn't have the burden of being plausible or internally coherent since it's "based on real life", which has already received mainstream approval ("prize-winning play or book") and which reviewers can praise without recriminations from either the readership or the advertisers.

What this guy should be studying is the behavior of journalists and mainstream media, not movies or aesthetics. Or maybe he is, it's hard to tell for sure from the article....

[number6]

don't all critics be it film, food or whatever review according to their own taste ?
-A

Probably so; and therefore, anyone who can spell and has access to the public can set themselves up as a critic. As far as I know, there's no test... no curriculum to complete. I suppose there are many who need someone to suggest to them what to think, so critics have a place. And the good news, if we don't like one particular critic, we can always find another one who better fits our belief system.

[Ace]

don't all critics be it film, food or whatever review according to their own taste ?
-A

Actually, art critics are an exception. An art critic usually has studied the entire history of the art they specialise in, and are more like historians. They need to be, in order to properly criticise the piece and identify where it drew precedent, influences, what it stole from etc.. And in this way, they should be writing pieces which are purely critical and analytical. Real critics are essential to the art industry as it is them who often identify and encourage development in the field. During the past 15 years however, with the murdochisation of various press publications, weve seent he role of the critic change in some way. Film critics are now working for bosses which have vested interests in the very films they review and may not feel comfortable being seen in negative light at end of year christmas parties.

[number6]

Actually, art critics are an exception. An art critic usually has studied the entire history of the art they specialise in, and are more like historians. They need to be, in order to properly criticise the piece and identify where it drew precedent, influences, what it stole from etc.. And in this way, they should be writing pieces which are purely critical and analytical. Real critics are essential to the art industry as it is them who often identify and encourage development in the field. During the past 15 years however, with the murdochisation of various press publications, weve seent he role of the critic change in some way. Film critics are now working for bosses which have vested interests in the very films they review and may not feel comfortable being seen in negative light at end of year christmas parties.

Ace, by and large I agree with what you say. The exception being when someone says a huge lump of rusty iron sitting in front of a corporate or govt. building is art. I know scrap iron when I see it, and they are not going to fool this ol' contry pumpkin.

[explosive]

Interested in a statistical pattern for making a critically acclaimed film? A synopsis is here at http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=8290

I wonder if he takes marketing into account.

[explosive]

As far as I know, there's no test... no curriculum to complete. I suppose there are many who need someone to suggest to them what to think, so critics have a place.

True and true. I have also found that many critics are failed filmmakers with a sterile aesthetic who find it easier to deconstruct others work than to construct their own.