I had a few (Leonard Maltin, mainly; still have Ebert's "Book of Film" - not really the same thing). People want to trust their own instincts and have settled for what they can find online. And I'm glad you're covering this!
Yeah I agree and I think it fits the larger trend of people reading less. So why would someone want to read one particular critic or publication? Which I think is a great shame, we need great thinkers and writing on film made visible.
David Thomson prefers to be called a "film historian" versus a "film critic." I know this because I attended a screening of "Vertigo" that he hosted and he discussed his background.
I remember my school library had some of the Virgin Film Guides for specific genres (the ones they had IIRC were horror, animation James Bond and comic book movies). I used to read them a lot and what I enjoyed about them was that, as well as plot synopsis and reviews, they'd have behind the scenes information as well. The comic book movies one talked about films based on comic in general not just specifically superhero films, so it included stuff like Ghost World or Road to Predition as well. The downside was that they would go over the entire plot of the film including the ending.
You're right, they do tend to give away a lot of the film's plot a lot of the time! I always tend to read their reviews after watching a film for that reason.
I think a reason is casual film fans aren't interesting in going out of their way to seek film. They're perfectly content watching whatever is marketed to them and is in the realm of popular culture. It is only cinephiles like us nowadays that seek out older films. I myself do this either by friends recommendations, IMDB and wading through Wikipedia pages of director's and actors filmography.
The film guides me and my friends had were Time Out, Variety, Halliwell’s and even Barry Norman had one. Halliwell’s was by far the most overrated as it featured every film ever made but perhaps only a superficial paragraph covering each one, and he never liked anything. The one I’m (slowly) getting through at the moment is 1001 FYMSBYD. I like the format, listing films chronologically with some great photos. I also noticed that film guides were gradually disappearing when I went to get an updated version. Clearly, the market is gone or they would still be churning them out. Maybe TH-cam video essays or internet articles have negated the need for them.
Yeah 1001 movies is a great reference book with a lot of films from such diverse genres, modes and tastes. Good luck on completing that, I've been (slowly) trying for decades haha.
Pre-internet, I relied a great deal on authoritative, print-media critics' film guides. The critics often had demonstrable credentials or expertise relevant to the profession, and appeared to have a working knowledge of the history of film. Whereas with the current "democratization" of "movie reviewers," there's a definite bias in favor of movies produced at the earliest post Hays Code (in the States), if not much sooner. In general, their knowledge of the Golden Age of Cinema through the '60s, let alone the B&Ws and/or silents, is virtually nil. I don't know, quite frankly, if the current era in which literally anyone can self-identify as a "film critic" is in any way superior to the more exclusive, albeit elitist, model that used to be the norm.
Hi GA you make some very good points, particularly in regards to whether the democratisation or safekeeping is preferable. I think the sweet spot is in between, anyone being able to voice their thoughts is great, so long as it's not conflated with informed opinion or expertise.
I had a few (Leonard Maltin, mainly; still have Ebert's "Book of Film" - not really the same thing).
People want to trust their own instincts and have settled for what they can find online.
And I'm glad you're covering this!
Yeah I agree and I think it fits the larger trend of people reading less. So why would someone want to read one particular critic or publication? Which I think is a great shame, we need great thinkers and writing on film made visible.
Great topic to cover.
Thank you.
Cheers Cheekster! Hope you enjoyed the video.
David Thomson prefers to be called a "film historian" versus a "film critic." I know this because I attended a screening of "Vertigo" that he hosted and he discussed his background.
I remember my school library had some of the Virgin Film Guides for specific genres (the ones they had IIRC were horror, animation James Bond and comic book movies). I used to read them a lot and what I enjoyed about them was that, as well as plot synopsis and reviews, they'd have behind the scenes information as well.
The comic book movies one talked about films based on comic in general not just specifically superhero films, so it included stuff like Ghost World or Road to Predition as well.
The downside was that they would go over the entire plot of the film including the ending.
You're right, they do tend to give away a lot of the film's plot a lot of the time! I always tend to read their reviews after watching a film for that reason.
I think a reason is casual film fans aren't interesting in going out of their way to seek film. They're perfectly content watching whatever is marketed to them and is in the realm of popular culture. It is only cinephiles like us nowadays that seek out older films. I myself do this either by friends recommendations, IMDB and wading through Wikipedia pages of director's and actors filmography.
The film guides me and my friends had were Time Out, Variety, Halliwell’s and even Barry Norman had one. Halliwell’s was by far the most overrated as it featured every film ever made but perhaps only a superficial paragraph covering each one, and he never liked anything. The one I’m (slowly) getting through at the moment is 1001 FYMSBYD. I like the format, listing films chronologically with some great photos. I also noticed that film guides were gradually disappearing when I went to get an updated version. Clearly, the market is gone or they would still be churning them out. Maybe TH-cam video essays or internet articles have negated the need for them.
Yeah 1001 movies is a great reference book with a lot of films from such diverse genres, modes and tastes. Good luck on completing that, I've been (slowly) trying for decades haha.
Pre-internet, I relied a great deal on authoritative, print-media critics' film guides. The critics often had demonstrable credentials or expertise relevant to the profession, and appeared to have a working knowledge of the history of film. Whereas with the current "democratization" of "movie reviewers," there's a definite bias in favor of movies produced at the earliest post Hays Code (in the States), if not much sooner. In general, their knowledge of the Golden Age of Cinema through the '60s, let alone the B&Ws and/or silents, is virtually nil. I don't know, quite frankly, if the current era in which literally anyone can self-identify as a "film critic" is in any way superior to the more exclusive, albeit elitist, model that used to be the norm.
Hi GA you make some very good points, particularly in regards to whether the democratisation or safekeeping is preferable. I think the sweet spot is in between, anyone being able to voice their thoughts is great, so long as it's not conflated with informed opinion or expertise.