At most film festivals, most critics from huge publications are shown the films before the rest of the festival. Press and Industry screenings typically start about five full days before the actual festival. I know someone that had seen 4-5 of the competition titles before it had started, but they must wait to publish the review while also being afforded the opportunity to catch it a second time during the actual festival's programming. Also, they do premieres of the larger films in concurrency with other cities. For example, I Saw The TV Glow premiered in NYC at the same time it premiered in Park City.
This honestly kind of reads as a tone-deaf explanation to justify why you liked/disliked certain movies that differ from other, assumedly more professionally-established, critics might not have. Indiewire, NYT, LA Times, etc. are all given ample amount of time for their reviews. Now, I do think you raised some valid points, even I had a few films I panned that others did not, but that is not because of some knee-jerk reaction on my part.
Film criticism hasn’t been relevant since Roger Ebert died. The idea that this is a dark age because of bad takes is a remarkably myopic and self-delusional bad take in and of itself. I of course agree that there are many bad critics, but they hardly hold the power you ascribe to them. Audiences no longer take their cues from critics, and the money guys never have. They respect awards, yes, but the list of films with great reviews that never got support is long and distinguished. Frankly so is the list of bad films with bad reviews that still made a lot of money. Unless you write for the NYT or Variety, who even has time to read reviews n Park City? This might have made sense 20 years ago but doesn’t track in 2024. Also comparing art like the Maysles to a basic polemical like the Amazon union doc is professional malpractice. Come on, now!
James, you're totally incorrect. I'm not making some broad claim about the national-level Ebert-style impact of reviews; I'm talking about what happens within the film festival marketplace. If you want proof, just see this Facebook post from filmmaker and Oscar doc branch member Dawn Porter: "After I read this I went out and saw Union. Beautiful film. I’d pushed it down on my list after reading a pretty negative review. It was beautiful cinema verite filmmaking . Reviewer totally missed it. It was glorious to sink into something that was just observational. Full portraits of the protagonists - Oh and everyone go see it."
Really great piece
Thank you! Excellent article.
Thanks for this.
should just be “Why Film Review Are Dangerous”
Amen brother
At most film festivals, most critics from huge publications are shown the films before the rest of the festival. Press and Industry screenings typically start about five full days before the actual festival. I know someone that had seen 4-5 of the competition titles before it had started, but they must wait to publish the review while also being afforded the opportunity to catch it a second time during the actual festival's programming. Also, they do premieres of the larger films in concurrency with other cities. For example, I Saw The TV Glow premiered in NYC at the same time it premiered in Park City.
This honestly kind of reads as a tone-deaf explanation to justify why you liked/disliked certain movies that differ from other, assumedly more professionally-established, critics might not have. Indiewire, NYT, LA Times, etc. are all given ample amount of time for their reviews. Now, I do think you raised some valid points, even I had a few films I panned that others did not, but that is not because of some knee-jerk reaction on my part.
Film criticism hasn’t been relevant since Roger Ebert died. The idea that this is a dark age because of bad takes is a remarkably myopic and self-delusional bad take in and of itself. I of course agree that there are many bad critics, but they hardly hold the power you ascribe to them. Audiences no longer take their cues from critics, and the money guys never have. They respect awards, yes, but the list of films with great reviews that never got support is long and distinguished. Frankly so is the list of bad films with bad reviews that still made a lot of money. Unless you write for the NYT or Variety, who even has time to read reviews n Park City? This might have made sense 20 years ago but doesn’t track in 2024. Also comparing art like the Maysles to a basic polemical like the Amazon union doc is professional malpractice. Come on, now!
James, you're totally incorrect. I'm not making some broad claim about the national-level Ebert-style impact of reviews; I'm talking about what happens within the film festival marketplace. If you want proof, just see this Facebook post from filmmaker and Oscar doc branch member Dawn Porter: "After I read this I went out and saw Union. Beautiful film. I’d pushed it down on my list after reading a pretty negative review. It was beautiful cinema verite filmmaking . Reviewer totally missed it. It was glorious to sink into something that was just observational. Full portraits of the protagonists - Oh and everyone go see it."
One comment is not proof of anything. It’s not even a story. It’s hardly even gossip.
It's whispers of gossip!