Critical Perspective

During this technological age in which everyone’s a blogger, Kris Vire moderated an online discussion between several critics of various mediums. The piece that was published in Time Out Chicago touched on topics ranging from what it takes to be a critic and the relationship between reader and writer. Among the involved perspectives, Don Hall stood out as a voice that understood both the changing culture and the time-tested tradition of critical writing.

The first question to stir a debate was whether a critic’s passion should outweigh his or her education. However, Hall was the first to observe that the two are inseparable. He insisted, “I think passion and education go hand in hand. If you’re passionate about theater, you’ll likely educate yourself about it.” Instead scaling the two qualities according to importance, Hall noted that knowledge of a certain craft follows one’s love for it.  Given the amount of fascination toward a subject, it is only logical that an individual would indulge in that love. Though he opts out of ranking passion over education, he does not undermine its value. Regarding a critic’s love, Hall remarks, “Which indicates that for all the bitching about money, money has little to do with this thing we do.”

Alongside passion and education, Don Hall claims awareness is also vital to the critical process. He asserts, “In order to appropriately criticize, a dollop of self-awareness is necessary - knowing your prejudices, etc.” By this, Hall means a critic must recognize his or her specific interests and tastes when reviewing any medium. This is important not because it forms a bias but because it allows the critic to recognize when preconceived notions are broken or confirmed. 

Lastly, Don Hall comments on the radical shift of dynamics between the reader and writer as a result of the Internet Age. Although online anonymity often creates a hostile environment, Hall braves the possibility of any reader response. Despite not knowing whether it’s narcissistic inclination mistaken for courage, Hall views the relationship as a “sharpening stone.” He says, “I like the comments from readers. I like it when they call me an ass.” According to him, fear should never restrain a critic from voicing an opinion. In today’s ever-developing society, that is a lesson beneficial to everyone, not just critics.

Comparison of Two Critical Reviews

Roger Ebert’s review:  

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100714/REVIEWS/100719997

Michael Phillips’ review:

http://chicago.metromix.com/movies/movie_review/movie-review-inception/2067575/content

In addition to expressing an opinion, a major component of the critic’s job is to offer the reader a sense of experience. In “Roger’s Little Rule Book” by Roger Ebert, the author writes, “No matter what your opinion, every review should give some idea of what the reader would experience in actually seeing the film.” While a review answers what the critic enjoyed or disliked, providing a sense of experience allows a review to inform the reader what he or she is jumping into. Looking at the reviews by critics, Roger Ebert and Michael Phillips, one can see that this guiding principle is where the two differ despite analyzing the same film. Although it may seem biased measuring one critic by the rule of another, it shows just how vital offering a sense of experience is to the reviewing process.

Much of the praise for Christopher Nolan’s film, “Inception,” surrounded the narrative’s intricate design. For many, the movie proved too challenging to wholly encapsulate the story. However, through simple yet effective vocabulary and emotional rather than structural focus, Roger Ebert clearly articulated the complex film-going experience. He starts his review by writing, “The film's hero tests a young architect by challenging her to create a maze, and Nolan tests us with his own dazzling maze. We have to trust him that he can lead us through, because much of the time we're lost and disoriented.” In two sentences, the review conveys an understanding of what the reader should expect - a plot labyrinth. During the rest of his critique, Ebert pinpoints key characters and specific visual moments to express the film’s intended emotional response. By ignoring plot points, Ebert does not confuse the reader with the film’s dense structure. After all, trying to cram the story within a linear style would prove futile. He reasons, “Here is a movie immune to spoilers: If you knew how it ended, that would tell you nothing unless you knew how it got there. And telling you how it got there would produce bafflement.”

Unlike Ebert, Michael Phillips fails to clearly express his viewing experience. For a portion of his review, Phillips refers to the movie’s jargon wastes time attempting to explain differences between dream layers and reality. Unfortunately, unless familiar with the movie, all this information registers as meaningless. In addition, Phillips fills his writing with diverse references ranging from “2001: A Space Odyssey” to “Rififi” to video games. Although he is attempting to create a context for the reader, these references only expand the reader’s expectations rather than define them. Instead of giving an idea of what to expect when watching “Inception,” Phillips loses out to details that fail to capture any significance. As a result, the film’s concept remains relatively untouched.

While both critics place the film in high regard, Ebert’s opinion holds more water simply due to the fact that he can vividly and coherently recall his viewing experience. Studying the two reviews, one can see the different approaches the two critics employed. Roger Ebert recognized the inevitable failure of placing the plot within a linear context and chose to focus on several of the film's emotional triggers. On the other hand, Michael Phillips only confuses the reader with tiny details and varying references. Certainly, an articulated experience can support and strengthen the overall effectiveness of a review.