Apparently some guy named Anghus Houvouras wrote an article about how Siskel and Ebert ruined film criticism by doing to it what McDonald's did to the hamburger (reduce it to shit and package it for mass consumption).

Matt Singer at IndieWire wrote a great response, and IMO, hit the nail right on the head with this observation:

"Comparing "Siskel & Ebert" to McDonald's isn't wildly off base, but I see it differently. I look at the show more like cigarettes: the gateway drug to the heroin that is the wider world of film criticism. First I got hooked on "Siskel & Ebert," then I got into the stronger stuff. Certainly, "Siskel & Ebert" wasn't the most profound form of film criticism, but without it, it's very possible I (and a lot of people) would have never discovered Sarris and Kael and Bazin and Agee and Farber and Hoberman and all the rest."

I pretty much feel the same way. Especially when I was younger, I definitely give Ebert credit for introducing me to tons of independent and foreign films I'd never have known about.

Here's the swipe of Singer's piece:

http://blogs.indiewire.com/criticwire/two-thumbs-up-how-siskel-ebert-inspired-a-generation-of-film-critics

Seems like every week film criticism dies a new death. The latest murder suspects, according to Anghus Houvouras at Flickering Myth, are Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, whose iconic syndicated television series, he says, both "helped popularize film criticism" and directly contributed to its "deterioration as an art form."

Houvouras goes on to lay the blame for a lot of stuff at Siskel and Ebert's feet -- and their thumbs. Those four little digits, he says, and the ratings system they popularized ruined modern film discourse. "The information age," he writes, "has reduced everything to simple, definable value. And the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel." Siskel and Ebert's Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down ratings, he adds, did more than give a handy hook to their reviews: it destroyed an entire generation of critics:

"The real impact of this wasn't felt until well after Siskel passed away and the show faded from pop culture mainstay to a forgettable, oft repackaged mess. It was those influenced by Siskel and Ebert who stepped up and became the modern day film critics. The ones who launched websites, or in the early days took to BBS boards. These were the film critics of tomorrow. Average Joes who didn't learn about film in a classroom but from a video store. Analysts who dictated from a place of common sense and shed the traditional trappings of actual film criticism in favor of stripped down, frills fee approach. A generation of film and entertainment writers inspired by the fast food film criticism of 'Siskel & Ebert.'"

Yes, Houvouras also compares "Siskel & Ebert" to a McDonald's hamburger, "the reduction of food to its simplest state:"

"It has all the pieces: meat (supposedly), a bun, and some rudimentary fixings slapped together in a paper wrapper and mass produced for high quantity consumption. Siskel and Ebert reduced criticism to the same state. Simple, easy to understand, and palatable for the masses."

Which brings us to today, where, according to Houvouras:

"Once again there was a need for simplification. To cut through the clutter and place everything into a convenient easy package. Thus was born sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic and a popularization of the simple metric which has become commonplace on the sites and apps used by people to find films. Websites like Fandango, Moviefone, and Flixster."

So to recap: Siskel and Ebert's thumbs inspired people to take up film criticism, and they in turn had no respect for "the traditional trappings of actual criticism" and so they went to video stores rather than schools to learn about movies, and then they started Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic and ruined criticism forever.

This sort of argument infuriates me, and, admitedly, part of the reason is personal -- Houvouras' article isn't so much an attack on Siskel and Ebert (who he admits he used to watch) as an attack on me and any other "modern day film critics" who were inspired to get into this field because they watched and loved the show. In fairness, Houvouras isn't entirely inaccurate in his characterization of "Siskel & Ebert" as a television show. It was criticism for the masses, and it did spur people to consider film studies as a career path. It certainly spurred me.

But did it really inspire people to abandon "the traditional trappings of actual criticism?" (Also: what are "the traditional trappings of actual criticism?") Houvouras seems to think you can't learn about film in a video store (no one tell this to Quentin Tarantino) and implies film critics must be taught in a classroom. But Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris and most of the great writers who I presume were the practitioners of the "traditional trappings" were never taught in the classroom -- they learned by going to the movie theater or watching the late show on television. Modern film studies programs didn't exist at the college level until the late 1960s and early 1970s, where enrollment was no doubt fueled by the popularity of Sarris and Kael -- and later, Siskel and Ebert. There are a lot of amateur film critics on the Internet. But thanks to programs at NYU, USC, UCLA, Columbia, Yale, University of Chicago, University of Iowa, and many, many more, there are also more trained film critics now than there ever were in the past.

Comparing "Siskel & Ebert" to McDonald's isn't wildly off base, but I see it differently. I look at the show more like cigarettes: the gateway drug to the heroin that is the wider world of film criticism. First I got hooked on "Siskel & Ebert," then I got into the stronger stuff. Certainly, "Siskel & Ebert" wasn't the most profound form of film criticism, but without it, it's very possible I (and a lot of people) would have never discovered Sarris and Kael and Bazin and Agee and Farber and Hoberman and all the rest.

It's also worth noting that while your average review on "Siskel & Ebert" was never all that in-depth -- five or six minutes in the early days, as little as three or four in the later years -- the show often put aside its traditional clips and crosstalk format for half-hour specials on specific topics from the world of cinema. Siskel and Ebert were the first people to explain to me why colorization of black and white movies was bad, and what you were missing when you watched pan-and-scan videos. They devoted episodes to filmmakers like Steven Spielberg and Spike Lee and took on controversial topics like the MPAA ratings system. There was a lot more to "Siskel & Ebert" than two sets of thumbs.

But even if there hadn't been, can we really blame them for every single development in film criticism (and, apparently, most of Internet communication) that's happened in their wake? Did Siskel and Ebert invent the idea of one person telling another whether they should see a film or not? Critics serve many functions; consumer guide is one of them. True, "thumbs up" is a crude, blunt way of recommending a film. But is it such a horrible concept if it encourages people to seek out movies they would otherwise avoid? How many independent or foreign films succeeded at the box office because of "Two Thumbs Up?" Siskel and Ebert may have been the McDonald's of film criticism, but if you were really paying attention to what they were talking about and took their recommendations seriously, they would have introduced you to some very adventurous cinema -- the filmic equivalent of a molecular gastronomic feast.

I feel the same way about Twitter, which Houvouras dismisses as "the reduction of complex thought into 140 characters" where "film criticism continues to die one tweet at a time." Again, Twitter -- like the Internet, like anything -- is what you make of it. It puts limits on length but not on reach, and in its first few years of existence it has mobilized critics to champion films that might have gotten lost in the shuffle without it. A few months ago, critic David Ehrlich began tweeting up a storm in support of a tiny film he loved called "Girl Walk // All Day." After he wouldn't shut up about it, I watched it myself -- for free, legally, on the film's website (the Internet, it seems, is not entirely devoid of redeeming value for cinephiles). I loved it, and began recommending it myself. It wound up on my top ten list, and I encouraged the listeners of my Filmspotting: SVU podcast to watch it themselves. In the days that followed, I received countless thank you notes from appreciative listeners who fell madly in love with a movie they never would have heard about if not for Twitter.

You can blame Siskel and Ebert for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic if you want -- although Metacritic's numerical rating system doesn't actually reflect the insidious "binary theory" that the two Chicago critics supposedly invented, but whatever. Even if they did, has that killed film criticism? As a guy who reads criticism all day every day as a job, I find that hard to believe. The recession has hurt film criticism, the collapse of traditional print media has hurt film criticism, the urge to write about and judge movies before they've even come out has hurt film criticism, audiences' and journalists' endless fascination with box office numbers as some kind of reflection of a movie's quality has hurt film criticism, but none of these things have killed it. There are more places to read criticism -- smart, in-depth criticism that bears little to no visible "Siskel & Ebert" influence -- right now than there ever was in any mythological, idealized past.

Houvouras is far from the first person to blame "Siskel & Ebert" for the death of film criticism. He's not even the first to compare them to McDonald's; Richard Corliss did both in a Film Comment essay entitled "All Thumbs" back in 1990. Back then -- back when Sarris and Kael were still on the beat, back when every newspaper in the country still had its own film critic (back when there still were newspapers in this country) -- Corliss wondered if there was a future for film criticism in a world where people want "McNuggets" instead of meals. Ebert wrote an effective response in the next issue of Film Comment, but the best argument I've read against Corliss' piece is the one published 17 years later in Time Magazine called "Thumbs Up For Roger Ebert." Its conclusion:

"No one has done as much as Roger to connect the creators of movies with their consumers. He has immense power, and he's used it for good, as an apostle of cinema. Reading his work, or listening to him parse the shots of some notable film, the movie lover is also engaged with an alert mind constantly discovering things — discovering them to share them. That's what a great teacher does, and what Roger's done as a writer, public personality and friend to film for all these years."

That quote's author: Richard Corliss, of course.

In the years between Corliss' two pieces, and between Corliss' second piece and Houvouras' essay, criticism didn't die. It just changed, like so many other facets of our lives. And by inspiring people to think, talk about, and most importantly to love and care about movies, Siskel and Ebert helped change it for the better. If you think criticism is dead, the problem isn't criticism. The problem is you. You're reading and listening to the wrong people.

----

There's nothing really wrong with Pardon the Interruption, ESPN's show with two Chicago sportswriters debating various topics. The problem is that the show spawned hollower copycats (Side Note: I'm surprised nobody's tried an entertainment version of Around the Horn yet) and it helped push debates from longer articles/interviews to minute long pods of people just arguing their opinion (essentially, sports radio with relatively smarter people.)

So I agree with both sides of the above post. Siskel and Ebert helped bring criticism to the masses and shed light on some indie projects (which is why, to be fair, they were a notch above PTI) but, at the same time, they unwittingly helped undermine real criticism by making bite-sized critiques acceptable and turning disagreement between the two hosts into a draw.

That last part is the key and is who really killed film criticism. The audience. Most people would rather watch Siskel and Ebert argue over a movie or some online critic eviscerate a film or dispense a funny, usually profane recap. True film criticism was and never really will be popular. It's still out there, it's just buried under a mountain of noise now.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

>(Side Note: I'm surprised nobody's tried an entertainment
>version of Around the Horn yet)

*runs out of the thread to make a phone call*

Jokes. All good points though.

_
Yo! That’s My Jawn: The Podcast - Available Now!
http://linktr.ee/yothatsmyjawn

(Side Note: I'm surprised nobody's tried an entertainment
>version of Around the Horn yet)

Before we started doing the new podcast.

It is a damn good idea. It just requires more money and logistics than it would likely earn-- even Ebert can't stay on the air anymore, why would a show with more snobbery make even more revenue?

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Ebert's last attempt at "At the Movies" was unwatchable, and I say that as a film fan. I can't imagine why anyone outside of filmlovers ever wanting to spend a second watching it.

The ATH of Entertainment would be less like At the Movies and more like a combative debate version of Best Week Ever.

The key would be the personalities but I wouldn't be stunned if you could get guys like Rob Zombie, Kurt Sutter, Ted Nugent, to spice things up alongside Sepinwall, A.O. Scott, Devin Faraci, etc. Then get some younger people and maybe a comedian or an actor trying to promote their movie. If it is just once a week, this week's episode could be about: Lupe at the inauguration, Prince's new single, Timberlake's new single, Jeremy Renner's star status, cancellations of Ben and Kate and B in Apt. 23, Movie 43, the trailer for The Call, Is Ahnuld done?, etc.
Given the set-up, you could always sneak in some more high minded questions but then come back to a sillier debate heavy topic after that.

And to kill time/show the audience something, you could play the singles/trailers, they'd be discussing, etc.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

>So I agree with both sides of the above post. Siskel and Ebert
>helped bring criticism to the masses and shed light on some
>indie projects (which is why, to be fair, they were a notch
>above PTI) but, at the same time, they unwittingly helped
>undermine real criticism by making bite-sized critiques
>acceptable and turning disagreement between the two hosts into
>a draw.

In other words, just because the reviews are "bite-sized," they're not necessarily lacking in substance. Watch the segment they did on Goodfellas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvMiW5wWrGE

They spend a solid five minutes talking about the movie, which might not seem long but might be longer than you'd expect. And they make some astute observations. (About how at the end, Ray Liotta's character has the worst kind of guilt - not where you're guilty that you've done bad things, but guilty that you want to keep doing them, and how Scorsese is taking a moral stance on the mobsters, etc. They even touch briefly on how the style and form of the picture change when Liotta gets into drugs.) I guess the point was, looking back, people think the reviews were little more than "Two Thumbs Up!" or whatever, which clearly isn't accurate.

I don't know. I don't think what's in that clip undermines "real" criticism, which is kind of a dubious term to begin with. If anything, it's a gateway to Ebert's written reviews, which have fallen of lately but were great in their prime, especially the Great Movies series, which in turn were probably a gateway to more high-brow critics.


>That last part is the key and is who really killed film
>criticism. The audience. Most people would rather watch Siskel
>and Ebert argue over a movie or some online critic eviscerate
>a film or dispense a funny, usually profane recap. True film
>criticism was and never really will be popular. It's still out
>there, it's just buried under a mountain of noise now.

I actually think the internet has made good film criticism more plentiful and easier to find than ever.

----

As MrHood noted, the problem wasn't there criticism. It was that bite sized criticism became acceptable and the people who tried to copy them didn't do it well. Same with PTI, which was a good show but then Around the Horn took the premise and turned it into people disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing and just trying to concoct personalities for themselves.

As for the internet, I've found far more opinions shouted as criticism than anything else. Yes, there is good criticism out there but, to me, the web is like this board. For every good discussion we have, there are five posts of agendas, and another five of fans talking to one another.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

that came up through New YOrk and then the Redskins

~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." © Jay Bilas
"I don't read pages of rap lyrics, I listen to rap music." © Bombastic
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

He and Wilbon met up in DC, not Chicago (where Siskel and Ebert met up.)

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

>That last part is the key and is who really killed film
>criticism. The audience. Most people would rather watch Siskel
>and Ebert argue over a movie or some online critic eviscerate
>a film or dispense a funny, usually profane recap. True film
>criticism was and never really will be popular. It's still out
>there, it's just buried under a mountain of noise now.

That other shit is insecure social science grad program
dropouts who are looking for a territory to colonize
and build their self-esteem around.

Stanley Crouch's reviews of 'Pulp Fiction', for example,
are no more revealing or insightful than S & E's.

Sometimes all that we care about is the shit we watch
on screen.

Not the dumbass references



----------------------------

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

And that's my problem with most reviewers today is that they don't really give either. Siskel and Ebert weren't great at giving smart reviews that sometimes delved into deeper criticism, as with the Goodfellas link above; they just don't talk about how good the movie is, they mention how refreshing it was to see criminals portrayed as scum rather than romanticized.
Ebert's books were where he got into deeper film criticism.

Today, critics are trying to mash in their personal reaction to the movie up with attempts at clever writing and then some deeper film criticism all while not spoiling the movie, which is all but impossible.

I started reading reviews after seeing movies and I eventually stopped because I'd just get so annoyed. Even times I agree with critics, their attempt to be clever had me defending the movie.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

'Cause I'm a comic book head, I usually hear it with stuff like, "Alan Moore and Frank Miller killed comics. They were the first to popularize 'Dark' comics in the '80s, people less talented keep biting their style, and now comics suck." Well, it's not their fault their imitators suck, it's the imitators fault.

People who try to do what Siskel and Ebert do (or in the Siskel's case, did) and do it badly are the problem, not the innovators.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

The most divisive form of this is all the people who hate QT because of all the terrible movies that his films spawned.


**********
"naive as the dry leaves on the ground looking past the trees to the blue sky asking 'why me?'" -Blu

Why I still fuzz with the Lesson
http://open.spotify.com/user/brothersport86/playlist/3DhEhilho77Z0UCPbJlEJf

People used to use the same dumbass, poorly thought out logic to shit on Rawkus records.

"Well they created this really successful indy model and that allowed Master P to create No Limit in a similar way and that was the beginning of the downfall of hip hop"

It's just a complete lack of reasoning skills. Interestingly enough, it's precisely this same level of idiot thinking I see employed when people review movies.

Word? Jonah Hill in The Babysitter sends the message that fat fuck losers will always get the hot girl in the end and all black people will run to his rescue? Gotcha. There's a list a mile long of reasons why that's an embarrassingly poor conclusion.

Movie criticism in general invites all manner of nitpicking and failures of logic because, you know, "that's just my opinion" and whatnot. It's no small irony that the jackass who wrote this did so on that same level.

>'Cause I'm a comic book head, I usually hear it with stuff
>like, "Alan Moore and Frank Miller killed comics. They were
>the first to popularize 'Dark' comics in the '80s, people less
>talented keep biting their style, and now comics suck." Well,
>it's not their fault their imitators suck, it's the imitators
>fault.
>
>People who try to do what Siskel and Ebert do (or in the
>Siskel's case, did) and do it badly are the problem, not the
>innovators.

But it's not just their imitators. Siskel and Ebert themselves sucked. I remember catching the syndicated show every week as a kid and even then I felt like what they were doing was very facile and glib. I do agree with the OG post in that it was because of them that I discovered Pauline Kael. Honestly, I think Peter Travers is probably better than Ebert

"Capitalism will never fail because socialism will always be there to bail it out." - Ralph Nader

>Honestly, I think Peter Travers is probably better than Ebert

I mean, I could honestly probably come up with well over 100 pieces by Ebert that are better than anything Travers ever wrote. That being said, Ebert has fallen off over the last few years, but when he was in his prime he was great. I mean, if you said right today A. O. Scott and Wesley Morris are better than Ebert, I'd agree, but you said he was always a hack, which is nonsense.

Check out that classic movies post on the front page today. I posted a link to Ebert's Great Movies piece on Taxi Driver, and it's definitely deads any all talk of him being a hack.

----

.

but keep doin your thang

But there has been some really exceptional, witty, insightful film criticism written over the past 80 years. Even current dudes like A.O. Scott and Wesley Morris can dazzle from time to time.

----

You can throw a dart at a board full of critics, open a file of all the movies they've reviewed, throw a dart at those, and wind up with something that typically falters under minimal analysis. It really is that bad. I've really glaring examples of shitty 'criticism' that makes no real logical sense and remains etched in memory, but by and large anytime I read a review of a movie I've actually seen by someone who is seriously critiquing the movie, it turns out to be a balloon filled with the reviewers own flatulence.

I prefer to listen to people simply talk about movies more than so-called serious critics. At least then, when the reviewer has a poorly thought out point, there's no (or at least less) pretense involved. But yeah, it's a shit profession in general.

While I agree that most newspaper writers and bloggers aren't very good, and that the position is primarily filled with old white men which inherently creates bias even past their own egos...

... the occupation itself isn't hack work, nor is the art (yes, it can be an art) of criticism. It is the home of many hacks, but not hacky in and of itself. I take issue with your phrasing more than anything.

I should also say that it's hard to decry the position when so many people merely call themselves film critics yet aren't paid for it or making a living doing it. Not to rail on bloggers, but most of the shitsippers on Rotten Tomatoes aren't professional. Which is why their writing is so poor-- if they were better writers, they'd be getting paid to write it.

Furthermore, there are probably 20-30 writers I read with some regularity, primarily paid writers online though some still get some print work, who are exceptional writers with varied tastes. There are bigger names like Stephane Zacharek and Wesley Morris ( who won the Pulitzer this year), and lesser names primarily online like Jim Emerson, Eric Kohn, Guy Lodge, Mike D'Angelo, Calum Marsh, David Ehrlich.

So anyway. I don't really wish to defend most of the people claiming this profession, or even some professionals within this profession who do poor work... but I do want to defend the validity and the existence of the profession itself. If that makes sense.

Btw, this has nothing to do with "defending myself," as I neither claim to be a professional film critic nor do I wish to be one. It's just a hobby of mine, thus it's usually yeoman work at best.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

and in today's world saying if they were better writers they'd get paid is also FULL OF SHIT. many paid writers speak on how they still do shit for little or no pay just to build resumes and get bigger work.

in the internet age you have to read a lot of good and bad shit to see who hold a strong pen game and valuable opinion/critique

you and cold truth are both correct in a way

I'm a guy with a blog and a hobby. I have no credentials at the moment, I get paid rarely, and I do it for fun, not a job. If I got press credentials, I would do it predominantly to get to go to movies for free, not under some illusion that I'm a real film critic. Otherwise I'd spend way more time on my word choice and sentence structure.

There's a different between good writers and good critics. And to get paid real money to write, enough to sustain yourself as a living, you have to be a good writer. Armond White is an incredibly good writer. He's not a good critic for a number of reasons, but his writing is top-shelf. The top people, the ones making a living, even the ones I vehemently disagree with, are overwhelmingly very good writers.

Now, there are plenty of people who do junkets, radio and TV personalities, who give their thoughts on films as part of a publicity piece/interview segment. But again, those aren't critics to me. Shawn Edwards shouldn't consider himself a film critic. *shrug*

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>While I agree that most newspaper writers and bloggers aren't
>very good, and that the position is primarily filled with old
>white men which inherently creates bias even past their own
>egos...

Nah, movie critics suck as a whole to me. Too many wildly baseless opinions on on end, and too much film school snobbery on the other.

>... the occupation itself isn't hack work, nor is the art
>(yes, it can be an art) of criticism. It is the home of many
>hacks, but not hacky in and of itself. I take issue with your
>phrasing more than anything.

I can agree with this and fall back on the totality of my statement, because you're right. Not sure sure about an 'art' of criticism though. Well constructed critiques are one thing- but artful?

Rather than be an ass and dismiss this outright, I suppose I would like to read an example of an artful critique provided you know a good one off top. Otherwise I'll just accept your word on it- though I would still like to see an example.

>I should also say that it's hard to decry the position when so
>many people merely call themselves film critics yet aren't
>paid for it or making a living doing it.

Interesting. You're drawing the line between the pros and Joes, but is payment really a valid dividing point?

>but most of the shitsippers on Rotten Tomatoes
>aren't professional.

I mean, I've read quality critiques on Yahoo. I personally don't see a divide between the pros and Joes other than pros tend to write better.

>Which is why their writing is so poor--
>if they were better writers, they'd be getting paid to write
>it.

See, you're drawing this divide at the quality of expression as opposed to the ideas being expressed. That's the sort of thing I'm gettng at; a well crafted expression doesn't make the idea expressed valid or interesting; in truth, it's the literary equivalent to a stunningly beautiful woman with a sack of flour for brains.

You also draw the relatively false conclusion that getting paid to write means you have good content to bolster your pretty words. Stephen King's personal definition of talent notwithstanding, it doesn't hold water to me. While it's safe to say there are many who get paid to do a job and do the job well, the inverse is NOT really true- unless you think everyone who gets a pay check is good at their job. Does that really hold water to you? Do you really believe everyone who gets paid at something is good at it? Doubtful, yet that's the strong implication of your statement regarding film critics.

>Furthermore, there are probably 20-30 writers I read with some
>regularity, primarily paid writers online though some still
>get some print work, who are exceptional writers with varied
>tastes.

Cool. I hear you, though I'm troubled by the divide of paid and unpaid.

>So anyway. I don't really wish to defend most of the people
>claiming this profession, or even some professionals within
>this profession who do poor work... but I do want to defend
>the validity and the existence of the profession itself. If
>that makes sense.

Fair enough. Of course. Like I said, it's nothing personal. I don't have a vendetta against film critics. Granted, I have not read every piece written by every critic, so I should dial my comments back a little.

>Btw, this has nothing to do with "defending myself," as I
>neither claim to be a professional film critic nor do I wish
>to be one. It's just a hobby of mine, thus it's usually yeoman
>work at best.

You don't really come across that way though. You come across as a guy who loves movies and loves to talk about them, not a guy who can't wait to shred them to pieces. I never sent you a full review of your show (I listed to several more and never got around to giving further thoughts) after posting my thoughts on the Dark Knight Rises ep.

Your show is more in line with my preference, personally. From time to time there is the ep where it just feels like people can't wait to get out their one liners and that irks me, but by and large I prefer the entertaining show where people are talking about movies as opposed to the guys trying to do a case study.

I also don't perceive you as defending yourself; I love movies and like to talk about them, but not as much as you do, so you're clearly going to be better versed in the world of critics and care more, so it's natural to defend the profession. I got no beef with that.

I just knew folks would read that and reply "well, you ARE a film critic!" (see above, lol)

There's a great anthology of film criticism called... fuck, I don't remember the name. But the essence of it is a series of essays written about controversial films. Whether regarding gender, sexual orientation, race, political beliefs, or the depiction of violence, they put two essays back to back that were written at the time of the film's release that show both sides of the coin. Now, some of these are INFURIATING (the old-school guys writing about violent films presenting itself as proof of the decay of the society's moral fiber), but it's a beautiful example of how gifted writers with strong passions can help you see film in a different way. They can encourage the deeper look, for better or worse.

For me, personally, that's where the art lies. Like a really good book about history can place you in that era, or a really good fiction can make you feel like you're there, a really good film critique can put you in another human's shoes to see what they see and feel what they feel. Whether you agree or not is almost secondary-- when reading criticism as art instead of as a necessary compass for potential moviegoers, it can really illuminate the artform of film itself. It's like the adverb that modifies the adjective.

I'll try and find some specific ones, and I'll come back and edit this when I find that book's title to share it (my books are still in boxes until I have all of my shelves mounted, lol).

But I also acknowledge that some things just aren't everyone's cup of tea, and that well-done criticism certainly feels like the exception now rather than the rule. It's like country music: overall, I really despise it, but I've without question heard a few country songs that have deeply moved me.

Anyhow. Thanks for your thoughtful response. I'll try and find that book title soon enough.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

About to start calling people latte sippers or whatever.

This is just pointing the finger at Siskel & Ebert for becoming household names, and thinking that it has anything whatsoever to do with more academic film criticism. It's apples and oranges, and there will always be both.

The line about film critics coming from the video store and not film class is incredibly elitist and offensive.

Siskel and Ebert carved out a good niche for themselves with mainstream audiences, and Ebert continues to do so. They and those inspired by them are totally removed from academic or more in-depth film criticism. Acting like they're driving future generations from giving us the "next Pauline Kael" is a bunch of bullshit.

Do I have to say anything?

Ask me and I will.

But I shouldn't have to.

Y'all are gonna start seeing it.


----------------------------

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

Might as well come out with it, lol.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Its the people who create opinions because they
have them


vs.


the people who create opinions only after they've
weighed them against other opinions. Hipsters, of
course, live here, pay taxes, dues and are the ruling
party.


The latter is what has dominated film (and music) discussion
for the last decade. Okayplayer is crawling with (but not entirely
dominated by) these folks (The Lesson is more than PTP is).

Siskel and Ebert weren't born in this era. In their era, they
saw movies and talked about it. It was harder to find a venue
to vet their opinion against others, or compare their opinion
to others, or weigh their opinion against others. There were
very few ways for them to know if their opinion was original,
or catchy, or cute.

They just saw the fucking movie and spoke on it. That's why
they are the best: when they have opinion on movies we felt
was wrong, its because they sincerely felt differently about
a movie than we did. Not because they saw it and actually liked it,
but wrote a different opinion because they wanted to one-up
the kid at indiewire, or pre-emptively shit on dude who writes
for the Village Voice.


Or because they walked into the film with the review already
written, and were more interested in the review than the movie.


Enter the hipster rebellion.

The idea of actually watching a movie and forming an opinion
is currently an endangered species. Few people under 50.
do it. Nobody under 30 does it.


Opinions are now less about the thing being reviewed (the
film or album or song) and more about the author of the
opinion putting their stamp on the review, so as to get more
people to follow or admire them.

Check this review of 'Broken City'

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/01/how-broken-is-mark-wahlbergs-box-office-bomb-broken-city/267382/

Reviewer already decided they were going to write this review
before the movie. The point of the review was to be cute,
not to review the movie.

Shocker: Roger Ebert liked the movie. Orbit_Established liked
the movie.

Why? Because we sat down and fucking watched it and formed
our opinion based on the things on the screen.

We didn't base our opinion on how our review would look
in print.

We weren't worried about putting our opinion through a critical
sieve, to blast it against all existing opinions, and make
sure ours was the catchiest and cutest.




And to this bitchfest against Siskel and Ebert?


Hipster anti-nostalgia at its best (worst): Hipsters hate
the past. They don't believe in nostalgia and don't believe
in revering people just because they are old (lest you think
I'm lying, 80s parties are much bigger thing amongst yuppies
than hipsters. Think about it).

Problem is this: not only is there nothing wrong with liking
the past for the sake of the past (because its just kinda
cool to respect old shit just for being around), but often
times the past actually does shit better. And often times,
film is certainly one of them.

Sorry hipsters -- Quentin Tarantino couldn't have been a
PA on an Alfred Hitchcock movie.

'Girls' is about 1/100000000th as interesting or intellectual
as 'Good Times'


Siskel, god rest his soul, and Ebert were and are better at their
job than any modern hipster is at theirs.

















































































































That's what I have to say.




----------------------------

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

Ebert is guilty of that as well. Dude loves Angelina Jolie. I think it was AO Scott who called him out about it after Ebert gave the second Tomb Raider a positive review.

Siskel and Ebert were great together because they'd state their opinions, argue about them but then also try to defend their stances by pointing out some objective arguments. Today,

We've moved into a purely subjective discussion of film and one that believes that a critics prejudices are viable opinions on a film's quality. Now it's "I knew that would suck." "Yeah, it wasn't supposed to be great which is why it's great." "No, that just means it sucks." "Whatever, you're just not with it."

A lot of shows get labeled as "There are a couple of great scenes but the rest is kind of whatever." but whether or not the critics focus on the former or the latter part of that statement is based more and more on a prejudged take of the show and, even worse, critics defend that prejudice rather than stepping back and trying to discuss the show objectively.

Take "The Mindy Project". People wanted to like that show, it sucked but they still rode for it and talked up the few good moments in each episode, and it took until it became obvious that it wasn't getting much better that critics started (mostly quietly) abandoning ship.
People will defend the stupidity of the relationship scenes in "The Newsroom" because they like the show's politics.
Some of the criticism of this season's "Girls" by fans of the show strikes me as as funny because they are points that people were making in the first season (and criticisms that the same critics dismissed bac then) .

Basically, and you might not like this part, the problem with current criticism is that people are more focused on their personal agendas than the actual films.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

Primarily because of the open-ended nature of TV shows. It's easier to support them for potential-- it's chess not checkers. It's also easier to dismiss a show since, well, there are so many goddamn new shows.

But the nature of the expression of film critic biases is a good point. No one does it anymore.

And for the record, I think Tomb Raider 2 is totally fine, and way better than the first, lol.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

There is hope for improvement in TV that doesn't exist with film but the benefit of the doubt is usually given based on the prejudices of the critic. Very rarely do you see a critic dislike a show but say that things could get better.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

Especially your point about "groupthink": the next big thing will always be great to them, and people who have made a stinker or two will always stink. Your winner or loser status is woven into your DNA to these people.

Are you "cool" or "not"? These things are generally decided by publicity pre-release, and non-professional critics or quasi-professional bloggers are wildly susceptible to this publicity. Now, so are some of the big name critics-- they're not exempt. Peter Travers, I'm looking at you. But they'll still have moments of integrity and unpredictability, whereas I can set my clock to what the Rotten Tomatoes score of a given film will be weeks before it opens due to knowing how the blog masses will respond.

They tend to value directors and the auteur theory more than stars, writers, or the general conceit of the film. Which is why you see folks shit all over folks like Nic Cage most of the time and ignore his great films, but you see people ignore or make excuses for the disappointments of the majority of their favorite directors.

This is only disappointing because critical response has a MUCH bigger impact on the population than most people would have you believe. Sure, some movies are critic-proof, but if a movie like Broken City opened to a 75+ on Rotten Tomatoes, it would've made more money opening weekend and had more legs.

I've beaten up on bad films before. It's easy and can be fun. But there's waaaaaaay too much mistaking disappointment for low quality. See: tons of people naming Cloud Atlas the worst film of the year last year. That's "hipster criticism" as you put it at its finest. Taking something big and ambitious and earnest and shitting on it for not being cool enough.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

I think especially with amateur online film writers or bloggers, there's a lot of posturing and groupthink going on.

Whenever I read someone write some shit like "I'm not quite sure what the fuck I just saw, but I know I liked it" (which happens quite a bit, actually) a huge red flag goes up. Sure, it's possible to like something without knowing exactly why, but if you're an aspiring film writer, you should be able to articulate your reaction to a film a little more clearly than that.

One minor disagreement though is that I still think there was a certain amount of groupthink even back in the pre-internet days too. Back then, critics attended screenings with other critics and discussed stuff amongst themselves before writing their reviews, plus the festivals still created buzz and could lead to critical consensus well before movies were actually released. Plus, I think directors reputations have always been a big factor in the way people receive movies. (Which is what you feel is the case with someone like QT nowadays.)

That was the beauty of Ebert for me though, too - he never seemed scared to go against popular opinion (such as panning some of the early David Lynch stuff that had a lot of buzz, or even this year giving a lukewarm reviews to The Master and Zero Dark Thirty when a lot of critics, especially online ones, were drinking them up). He doesn't necessarily do it often, but you at least know that when you read Ebert he's giving you his honest opinion.

----

>Or because they walked into the film with the review already
>written, and were more interested in the review than the
>movie.

Coming from the guy who had 100 posts on Django before he saw the thing.

---------------------------------
Photo zine(some images NSFW): http://bit.ly/USaSPhoto

"This (and every, actually) conversation needs more Chesterton and less Mike Francesa." - Walleye

the very first reviews in that django post were mixed at best. and O_E was going hard at it even at that point (once the positive reviews started coming in, he came completely unglued). so, no, he wasn't saving us all from groupthink, because there was no groupthink to save us from. certainly not that early in the game. people saw the film and weighed in on it, one by one. there was no consensus, there was no conspiracy, there were no hipsters. meanwhile, O_E had a preconceived idea of what the film was, and he went with it for weeks before seeing a single frame. and, unsurprisingly, stuck with it after he'd seen it. pretending like he was doing a service to anyone but himself is a joke.

"i smack clowns with nouns, punch herbs with verbs..."

And has received nearly unanimous critical raves, excepting a few major critics. Bloggers across the board did love it.

Not to mention for those who indulge in January of trying to predict what will be at the Oscars the following year, nearly everyone included Django.

It was expected to be an Oscar movie. And it became one.

Also, there were multiple posts on Django before the final one, and they were all filled with people nearly unanimously excited for the film. The dissenters were the minority.

Now, I'm not saying that the film doesn't have merit (it does), nor am I siding entirely with you or with OE on your opinions of the film-- I fall somewhere in the middle. But to imply that people don't assume Tarantino's brilliance even before the film comes out simply isn't true.

You can say that he's earned it through his body of work, and that's one side of the argument, no question. The other side of the argument would be that his films are elevated in the collective societal mind from "well-executed genre films" to "best of the year" because "the man who did Pulp Fiction" is behind them. I'm not sure which side of that argument I'd agree with-- again, I think there's some validity to both extremes-- but it's not like groupthink doesn't exist or that Tarantino is necessarily exempt from being an accused benefactor.

Certain filmmakers do get passes from critics and others don't. You can look up some turds from big-name guys that have astounding Rotten Tomato scores from the online critical circle (Kingdom of the Crystal Skull comes to mind), and you can look up some surprisingly well-executed remakes, sequels, or genre films that because they sound iffy on paper get absolutely trashed in print.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

maybe i haven't been following his career closely enough, but i thought he was one of the more polarizing filmmakers in hollywood. the pop culture references, the violence, the snappy dialogue, the fascination with black culture, the complicated relationship with the N-word-- i thought he was a love-him-or-hate-him guy. i knew he had his stans certainly, but i didn't realize he had earned anything close to a pass or his films were being elevated beyond their worth. i mean, if this is the case, where are all his statues for the kill bills and jackie brown? three well received films, three entertaining films that were mostly ignored by the awards circuit. where was the elevation?

i'd always seen tarantino as a really talented guy who put it all together for one film and got rightfully recognized for it, but hadn't been able to get back to that mountaintop since. then he made inglourious, and the recognition returned. again, rightfully so. but nothing about that series of events suggests that his next film would be universally lauded no matter what he put out. no, django is being lauded because it's a fantastic film. tarantino is one of the most unique voices in film, and he's clearly hit his stride with his last two films. that's where the acclaim is coming from, not groupthink. for me personally, "the mind behind pulp fiction"-- which i loved-- has always also been "the mind behind reservoir dogs"-- which i didn't. so i just take tarantino's films as they come (which is how i take all films, really; the phantom menace was the death of hype for me), and i assumed most everyone else does as well.

whatever. anyway, all this is to say that i just don't think groupthink applies to QT. i think his last two films have been embraced because they're the best he's made. i also think the word "groupthink" around here is just code for any film/performance that's receiving accolades that doesn't line up with people's personal agendas. O_E has used it with the slavery caking flick and the affleck beard and coat show, and basically any well-received film that he started hating on two months before it came out, thus exposing his moronic guessing game for what it is. there is definitely groupthink in hollywood, and argo (a really good film that i wouldn't put in the conversation of 2012's best) appears to be the latest beneficiary of it. but let's not mix up actual groupthink with O_E's hipster conspiracy version of groupthink, which is really just plea copping for failed agendas.

"i smack clowns with nouns, punch herbs with verbs..."

In fact, Ryan M (who loves Tarantino) wrote
the EXACT SAME REVIEW as me I did.

It was a silly comic book.

My *actual review* was about the MOVIE. Not
about the ambiance. Not about who Tarantino's
mother was fucking.


So all that other madmaking shit is irrelevant


If I thought it was a virulent fuck you to the confederate
south, i would have sad it.


I thought it was a fun, but utterly forgettable goofball
movie slightly more serious than 'Grindhouse'.

The more you voice anticipation about a film, regardless of whether you're seasoned enough to remove yourself from your anticipation when you step into the theater (I'd like to think I've gotten good at this over the years), no one will believe you.

If you say, "This is gonna be great! Director X is a genius!" and then it IS great, and you say, "It's great!" people will think, "Yep, OE's in the tank for this guy. He was from the beginning."

Same goes for the vice versa. "Acclaimed Director X's past works have been fine, not great," and then the new film is also fine, not great, and you say so, people will think, "Yep, OE went in wanting to hate it."

I wrote a piece about how I was getting concerned about The Dark Knight before its release, because I loved Batman Begins when it dropped, but the deluge of Ledger publicity crossed with the "greatest film ever" crossed with the "this should be in the Oscars" and all of this pub being shouted from every corner... it was excessive in my opinion, being someone who still at that point was a big fan of everything Nolan had done. So I wrote a piece on how we should calm down some. People didn't like that. Then, when I gave the film 3 out of 4 stars, I received a bunch of "you're a faggot" emails and "you were always going to hate it." As if 3 out of 4 is a symbol of hatred.

With the internet being more and more about "let's be first to talk about a film so we can be part of the genesis of the buzz, for better or worse," anticipation is becoming something that to some degree colors our opinions but, even worse, it colors how people respond to our opinions if our anticipation didn't match their anticipation. If that makes sense.

Like, I could tell you right now which films this year will hit 400+ replies, 300+, 200+, down the line. And it all has to do with which films are going to have the most anticipatory buzz and on the flip side anticipatory anti-buzz ("it doesn't look THAT good" etc).

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

You saw it as a comic book. I saw it as a well-told story, and even explained to you why I thought it worked, and you chile graped that because you did not want to be part of a discussion where someone else thinks QT can coherently tell a story- because of your own preconceived biases against QT and the bizarre either/or nature that apparently envelops him and Tyler/M Night in these parts (btw, I never understood where that comparison came from).

Which in the end DOES affect your review.

---------------------------------
Photo zine(some images NSFW): http://bit.ly/USaSPhoto

"This (and every, actually) conversation needs more Chesterton and less Mike Francesa." - Walleye

He liked it less than I did, thought it was a dumb
comic book (look at the post)

So what were you saying?

----------------------------

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

>
>Opinions are now less about the thing being reviewed (the
>film or album or song) and more about the author of the
>opinion putting their stamp on the review, so as to get more
>people to follow or admire them.
>

You might be on to something, because this is how I'm beginning to feel about the publics relationship with Christoper Nolan

You have to find clever ways to detract from either.

You cannot be a good critic and actively think either
are hacks. If you do, you lose your artistic license.

That's how the leviathan operates.

Same way you have to find clever ways to say good
stuff about Michael Bay. You can't actually think his
movies are good.

Criticism has become a leviathan.

Hell, take a guy like Kevin Smith.

Never been funny. Ever. It took critics damn near 15
fucking years to admit it that he's a hack.

----------------------------

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

When I think "hack," I think someone who phones in something dull. This week's Parker, for example, has no clear creative voice, no vision whatsoever. It's hack work. Nolan and Tarantino do have distinct voices and they have talent with a camera. So I wouldn't define them as "hacks." They do both have deep flaws that keep me from loving *most* of their films though.

I should note, there are good critics that discuss these negative attributes openly. There was the famous big piece about Nolan around the time of Inception, and more and more write negatively about Tarantino as the years pass. Mike D'Angelo is held in crazy high esteem in the critical circle, and I love his piece about Django Unchained's (and QT's) problems, mostly because I agree with nearly every word written here:

"Opening scene encapsulates the pleasure and the problem, serving as a fractal representation of the movie as a whole. A great deal of strained politesse; a sudden eruption of violence (fine); further politesse, now rendered overtly comic by the aftermath; then further violence that in an ordinary film would have been merely implied, the necessary action having concluded (less fine). Because Django is coded as an exploitation flick, QT has given himself license to do what he wants in certain respects—complaining about those respects is tantamount to criticizing the genre itself. There are precious few truly great straight-up exploitation flicks, though, and by taking on their license he also takes on their inherent limitations. A less long-winded way of putting it is that the film becomes problematic for me when it arrives at Candyland (following what one eventually realizes is a very, very long prologue) and proceeds to "turn ugly" without actually turning ugly. Smart people I know place Reservoir Dogs at or near the bottom of QT's oeuvre but there's more genuine feeling and (especially) serious moral inquiry in the Orange-White relationship than in this entire three-hour bloodsport fable, which even tosses aside its most potentially powerful moment (Django and Hildy's initial reunion) in favor of a cute gag. Foxx gives a monumental performance until QT fits him with anachronistic designer shades and starts moving him around like the iconic mannequins of his beloved '70s films; again, it's justifiable on the most basic level, but that doesn't stop me from wishing he'd demonstrated more intelligence and less retro-cool, since we know very well he's capable of much more. (He was actually capable of ending the film in a particularly unexpected spot that would have transformed Django into a brilliant mirror-image companion piece for Basterds, rather than just a more amusing rehash. That this would also have spared us his ghastly attempt at an Australian accent is further cause for regret.)"

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

...then you bring up Tarantino AGAIN.

And I'm all like,

What the fuck was that shit about Vietnam? WHAT THE FUCK DOES ANYTHING HAVE TO DO WITH VIETNAM?!?!?!?

I can't count how many times I've stood my ground on some shit, only to hear "yeah? Well all these other people disagree with you! Look at what super-respected opinion writer says! Oh even the actor/player/mc/singer/producer/etc also disagrees with you!" buzzsaw of debate triumph.

I give a fuck what anyone else thinks.

I don't even care if my shit winds up wrong in the end (say, someone points out some shit I can't refute or whatever), at least I know I see shit from MY point of view and not the aggregate opinions of other people.

...acting like insiders. Above if and not fans. If you read Ebert, or Kael or take it back to Truffaut and Goddard, they are fans of movies. No "Well, the original screenplay was so much better" "this has to work to get so and so out of director/actor jail" shit like that. Prejudices have always been in film crit, but this idea of reviewers thinking they are in the know is why I can't read half the reviews that hit the web. They're worried about numbers and release schedules and who's working on it, and buying into awards buzz before the trailer even comes out, more so than whether or not they liked the film.

_
Yo! That’s My Jawn: The Podcast - Available Now!
http://linktr.ee/yothatsmyjawn

PS3/Xbox ID: BackDo Do
Wii: Solaam

On the more literary side people are still pumping out those 5,000 word essays on how the symbolism in 'Raiders of the Lost Arc' was really about Post-WWI multiculturalism and homophobia in snobby journals. Professors trying to get tenure gotta eat.

On O_E's point on 'follow the leader' film criticism has always been an issue... remember how over-hyped Gladiator(watered down Braveheart) and Crash(Hollywood Against Racism!) were? Professional reviewers have been playing follow the leader for a minute...especially considering how Hollywood is run in the background where it's not a meritocracy but more of an equal opportunity betting/bribery ring.

Only thing that's changed iover time is film criticism is available to everyone. Ive probably read dozens of reviews on Django unintentionally; Facebook feeds, quick twitter blasts, etc. And we won't touch that through the wonders of streaming (and illegal ways of downloading movies) the times where if you lived in Bumblefuck, Minessota and only had Will Smith movies to watch the world is opening up to you.

And while on social media you get plenty 'It sucked' or 'It rocked' people have no idea expounding on what worked for them and what doesn't and it's pretty on point more often then not...more so then what you would find in casual music criticism for instance.