Bibliography

I apologize if my annotations are becoming too verbose! The last source I did was 16 pages long, so there was a lot of useful evidence. And I always have a lot to say!

> Experience." //The Sacramento Bee// 4 Feb. 2008: n. pag. //SIRS Renaissance//. Web. > 13 Oct. 2010.  hst-article-display?id=SPL2870-0-7013&artno=0000272656&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=fi > lm%20criticism&title=Film%20Has%20Gotten%20Better%20at%20Portraying%20African-Ame > rican%20Experience&res=Y&ren=Y&gov=Y&lnk=N&ic=N>. The author, Bruce > Dancis, is a journalist who appears to write primarily for the Sacramento > Bee. He has also written for the Chicago Sun-Times and Detroit News Online. > This article is an overview of how the African-American film experience has > shaped into something more accurate and therefore worthwhile. While it is > informative - if not in a very general sense - the author seems opinionated > and there is definitely a bias. Part of this may account for his judgment > on the African-American experience when he is not black. The intended > audience is a common newspaper reader; this is evident because it is > written simply, generally, and with relatable examples. > > The author's thesis is exactly what the title says: film has > gotten better at portraying African-American experience. He breaks this > into two main arguments; the first is that film used to do a poor job of > conveying blacks. Dancis writes, "the legacy of such famous films as > 'The Birth of a Nation' (1915) and 'Gone With the Wind' (1939) was to give > the public a distorted view of slavery, the Civil War and Reconstruction > while offering portrayals of African Americans that were either virulently > hateful or condescending" (Dancis 1). According to Patricia Turner, > professor of African American studies at University of California Davis, > "Mississippi Burning" (1988) "glorifies the FBI and is not > historically accurate" (Dancis 3). Dancis's second argument is that > there ARE films that depict the African American experience with relative > historical accurately. He cites Alex Haley's 1977 miniseries > "Roots" as evidence of this. Another example is 1962's "To > Kill a Mockingbird," which Roberto Pomo, a professor of theater and > film studies at California State University, Sacramento describes as > "a landmark Hollywood film that vividly portrays racism in the > 1930s" (Dancis 3). Moreover, Pomo states that"Sweet Sweetback's > Baadasssss Song" (1971) "makes an important comment about > American politics through the eyes of a black American director" > (Dancis 4). > > While Dancis brings up many good points and adequately charts the > evolution of African-American-based cinema, his thesis and his > sub-arguments/evidence do not line up. His thesis, that film has gotten > better at portraying African-American experience, implies that the > portrayal has gradual improved over time. However, his examples contradict > this statement. If we can categorize films that accurately portray the > experience as "good" and ones that do not as "bad," the > order of the ones he mentions would go bad ("The Birth of a > Nation," 1915); bad ("Gone with the Wind," 1939); good > ("A Raisin in the Sun," 1961); good ("To Kill a > Mockingbird," 1962); good ("Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss > Song," 1971); good ("Roots," 1977); bad ("Mississippi > Burning," 1988); bad ("Glory," 1989); good ("Malcolm > X," 1992); good ("Sankofa," 1993); good ("A Great Day > in Harlem," 1994); good ("Amistad," 1997). True, > African-American film is "better" now that it was in 1915, but > the two "bad" movies in the late 80s throw off this trend. > Despite this, Dancis provides valuable background information. It is > general, but as this is an overview, that is acceptable. The author is > slightly biased, because a) he is not African-American and b) he was not > alive to experience slavery first hand. Thus, he makes judgments based on > second-hand historical accounts, which are supposedly reliable, but still > not 100%. Based what he knows or thinks to be true, he argues the position > that film has gotten better at portraying the African-American > experience. > > At first glance, this source may seem irrelevant to my research > on the importance of film criticism. However, I intend one of my > sub-arguments to be that moviegoers may not know that the film they are > viewing is a distorted version of reality. A professional film critic could > point out the flaws of a film's portrayal of a certain group of people; for > example, a historically-knowledgeable critic could inform readers that > "Birth of a Nation" and "Gone with the Wind" do not > convey African-Americans accurately. Knowing this truth is important to > one's understanding of the world around him. Awareness leads to control, > and had people known the truth in many situations, they could've done more > to assist or ameliorate a situation. Additionally, what a film does not > include is as important if not more important than what it does include. > Filmmakers may omit important details to manipulate the minds of the > viewers, and film critics can straighten the moviegoer's views. > Web. 27 Oct. 2010. . Tim Dirks is > the senior editor of filmsite.org, which is owned by AMC (American Movie > Classics). He has a Bachelor of Arts in sociology from the College of > Wooster, a masters in education from Stanford University, and a Master of > Divinity in religion from Yale University. He used to be a member of the > Online Film Critics Society and is currently a member of Greatest Films. > Dirks has taught film studies courses and written newspaper and magazine > articles on film. His website has been recognized by the highly renowned > film critic Roger Ebert. The purpose of this specific work is to > analytically review "The Graduate" in terms of historical > context, thematic implications, and motifs. His intended audience is anyone > who has seen this film or has an interest in seeing it, and film buffs in > general. > > The author's thesis is that "The Graduate" "is one > of the key, ground-breaking films of the late 1960s, and helped to set in > motion a new era of film-making" (Dirks 1). Though this review is > nearly 16 pages long, Dirks has only two major sub arguments, with copious > evidence for each. His first is that the main character, Benjamin > "Ben" Braddock, feels "emptiness and alienation from his > surroundings" (Dirks 2) as the result of the generation gap. He says > that the generations are separated in various dualities: "the two > rival women (young innocent doe-eyed daughter Elaine and the older > seductress Mrs. Robinson), the two California settings (Los Angeles and > Berkeley) and S. and N. California cultures (materialistic vs. > intellectual), and the division in Benjamin's character (morally drifting > and indecisive vs. committed)" (Dirks 1). He argues that this theme of > generational isolation has historical significance, as the film mirrors > "the anarchic mood perfectly for America's youth of the 60s during the > escalation of the Vietnam War" (Dirks 1). Dirks also cites the lyrics > of Simon & Garfunkel's (their music comprises all of the tracks in the > film) "Sound of Silence": "People talking without speaking, > people hearing without listening. / People writing songs that voices never > shared, no one dared disturb the sound of silence" (Dirks 2). A sub > argument within this sub argument is that Ben's alienation is symbolized > through a glass motif. At one point, "[h]is face is viewed through his > fish tank's glass as he stares into it and studies it - possibly envying > the peaceful position of the plastic deep sea diver" (Dirks 3-4). > There is also the glassed-in lobby phone booth in which Ben calls Mrs. > Robinson and the glass lobby door of the hotel in which Ben has the affair > with her. The author's second major sub argument is that there is no > passion or genuine love in the affairs Ben has with Mrs. Robinson and then > her daughter Elaine. With the former, "Benjamin blankly stares into > space against a black background - the image emphasizes his sterile > environment" (Dirks 9). When he attempts to make conversation with > Mrs. Robinson, he is "struggling with his own disintegrating sense of > self-worth" and "forlornly attempts to instill more meaning in > their relationship than actually exists, by initiating an awkward > conversation" (Dirks 10). Dirks ties both of these sub arguments > together by describing the film's final scene: "The final image views > [Ben and Elaine] through the rear glass windows of the providential bus as > it pulls away, separated from their families - and from each other" > (Dirks 16). > > Dirks' criticism is very cohesive and is written in a sensible manner. > He provides profuse evidence from the film, mostly in the form of dialogue, > which is comparable to textual support in the realm of literature. The > source taught me about the implications of a lot of the topics in "The > Graduate" he covered, such as historical context, theme, the glass > motif, the water motif, and the significance of the soundtrack. He did not > include the automobile motif or commentary on gender roles, but as I have > this information from another source, I am quite happy with this review. > The author attempts to analyze "The Graduate" through an > objective eye, and he does a fairly good job. While his apparent penchant > for the film could influence bias throughout the review, Dirks mostly goes > through "The Graduate" chronologically with analysis that is > relatively subjective. > > This source was helpful to my research because, paired with the > other source I found on "The Graduate," it will serve as the > basis of my case study on the importance of film criticism. With this as > evidence, I intend to argue that criticism brings out details the majority > of filmgoers will have missed. For example, I did not recognize the glass > motif or water motif before reading this. I knew that the music greatly > influenced the film, but I could not explain why. I also did not pinpoint > that the theme of the film was Ben's alienation from his parents' > generation. This source helped me to do that. Moreover, it gave me a > perspective - even if dramatized or distorted - of life in the 1960s, and > knowing/understanding the past is very important. > Performance." 22 May 2008. International Communication Association. > Montreal. //All Academic//. Web. 29 Sept. 2010.  meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/3/2/8/0/p232808_index.html>. The > author, Arseli Dokumaci, is doing post-graduate Ph.D. research at > Aberystwyth University in the UK. The work is primarily an informational > report, but there is a fair amount of opinion and personal insight. The > intended audience is college students and professors. > > The author's thesis is simply the first sentence: "Although > not immediate and concrete enough to spot, film criticism has a very > significant effect on the consumption, interpretation and production of > media." One argument is that film is like "a corpus on the > autopsy table waiting to be dissected and imbued with a history," and > that the critic is there to operate (Dokumaci 5). Criticism acts as a > bridge between the film and its viewer, because the critic turns images and > sounds into "an object of rational contemplation" (Dokumaci 8). > Dokumaci's evidence is quotes from critics/writers, such as David Bordwell > and Della Pollock; directors, such as Robert Lepage; and experts on > linguistics. > > The research is not entirely logical or clear. The writer uses > large words and pompous phrasing, which obstructs his message. A lot of his > writing is descriptions of theatrical review and opinion, but his article > lacks clear-cut facts and bona fide evidence. I put the essay down feeling > confused about what I had just read and the author's purpose. Thus, the > topic has not been adequately addressed. The author has argued a specific > point, that film criticism is important to media. > > However, this source was helpful to my research because Dokumaci > included a LOT of names of other critics, critics of film criticism, and > scholars. This will help me refine my searches and find more articles, ones > that may be more relevant. Additionally, Dokumaci provides some insightful > quotes. (Don't worry - I will not randomly drop these quotes in just to use > these source; I will include them circumspectly.) > //Education// [Washington D.C.] 28 Feb. 2010: n. pag. Web. 26 Sept. 2010. > . > Thomas Doherty is a professor of American studies at Brandeis University > and has a Ph.D. in American studies from the University of Iowa. The > article is an informational report intended for college and university > faculty members, administrators, and students to read. > > Doherty's thesis, as the title states, is that film criticism is a > dying art and has been declining since its peak in the 1970s. He argues > that in the current "blogosphere," people are more likely to read > Harry Knowles Ain't It Cool News that the more-scholarly perspectives of > Robert Ebert and Gene Siskel. He also points to the scaling-back of > newspapers around the country, alluding to their need to cut positions such > as critics. He provides statistics on the number of readers of certain > online blogs to back his point, as well as lack of relevant degrees in > current critics. > > The work is logical, clear, and well-researched. It shows the > progression of movie critique in chronological order, from the beginnings > of film in the early 20th century to the modern day. The topic is broad, > but it is addressed enough to give a reader scope of the film critique > industry. The author's stance is bias, because some might argue that > criticism on the internet from "average" people is better. > > The source provides background to my topic, which is film criticism. > It pointed me toward lots of names and other research books that will help > my search. The discussion of criticism in the past has made me think of > changing my research question to: "How has film criticism evolved and > what is its future?" > //Film Criticism: Film History and Contemporary American Cinema//. Ed. Joanne > Hershfield. Vol. 2. New York City: Peter Lang Publishing, 2004. 1-20. > Print. The author of this book, Walter Metz, is Associate Professor in the > Department of Media and Theatre Arts at Montana State University-Bozeman. > He teaches courses in history, theory, and criticism of film, theatre, and > television. Metz was also a Fulbright senior scholar at the Free University > in Berlin. The purpose of his work is informational. His seems to gear his > audience more toward professors, scholars, or students in the realm of > film, but it is appropriate for anyone who simply wishes to gain more > knowledge in the subject matter. > > The author's thesis is that despite the common man's often negative > views of scholars, it is critical to interpret film intertextually as > opposed to in a simple manner for popular journalism. This underlying > message is best summed up in his quote, “Over the years, a divide has > developed between what film criticism does mean – popular, journalistic > reviews – and what it could mean if fully incorporated into the academic > discipline of film studies” (Metz 1). Thus, the author argues a shift from > these popular, journalistic reviews to analytic academic criticism. One of > his arguments involves that popular reviews - ones which only scratch the > surface - do not reach the full potential of film criticism. His evidence > for this is that "[m]ost newspapers feature a local movie critic, and > few of these columnists have had formal schooling in film history and > theory” (Metz 2). The also says that "the job of the popular film > critic is to help the reader decide how to spend his or her money; it is > not to pose difficult questions about a film’s larger place in historical > or social circumstances” (Metz 2). A second argument is that academic film > "is a joyful and and important enterprise: it is joyful because making > meaningful connections to history and society that deepen the understanding > of our cultural artifacts is a satisfying enterprise" (Metz 2). In > other words, viewing film from different lenses can lead to a greater > understanding of an era's social, political, economic, and cultural > circumstances. In this regard, a trained critic is required to make these > connections in a meaningful way, much literary critics due for novels. One > piece of evidence is the geopolitical lense: “In the post-Cold War era, > viruses, aliens (e.g., Independence Day [Roland Emmerich, 1996], and the > weather (e.g., Twister [Jan de Bont, 1996]) serve to solidify a need for > Hollywood’s heroes and their acts of bravado to protect the nation” (Metz > 8). Another lense that serves as evidence for this viewpoint is gender > identity; for example, Metz describes The Graduate "as a backlash > against second-wave feminism" (Metz 9). Academic critics are necessary > because many viewers cannot come to these conclusions on their own. > > Metz's work is logical, clear, and well-researched. He appears to have > a deep understanding of the elements of film and how to apply cinematic > terms properly. His introduction appropriately defines and elaborates upon > intertexuality and lays the framework for analysis of individual films. He > argues the view of an academic - likely because he is one - which is that > film must be analyzing in its historical context by people trained in the > cinematic field. This depicts a love of learning and observing. > The only problem I had with Metz's writing is that he assumes the > reader has seen all of the films he discusses. True, he provides some > background information, but his commentary on The Life of David Gale and > Beyond a Reasonable Doubt and True Lies means little to me, since I have > not seen these movies myself. Even so, he used some general terms that were > helpful to my research, and I learned how to view film through lenses that > lead to greater historical and social understanding. His arguments will > help me prove that film criticism is important and should head in a > scholarly direction, as to giver movie-goers a broader world view and a > deeper understanding of their surroundings. > Canyon, and Moonlight Mile." //Engaging Film Criticism: Film History and// > //Contemporary American Cinema//. Ed. Joanne Hershfield. Vol. 2. New York City: > Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2004. 107-128. Print. The author of this book, > Walter Metz, is Associate Professor in the Department of Media and Theatre > Arts at Montana State University-Bozeman. He teaches courses in history, > theory, and criticism of film, theatre, and television. Metz was also a > Fulbright senior scholar at the Free University in Berlin. The purpose of > his work is informational. His seems to gear his audience more toward > professors, scholars, or students in the realm of film, but it is > appropriate for anyone who simply wishes to gain more knowledge in the > subject matter. > > Metz's thesis is that "The Graduate" is a social > commentary on both the parental-induced repression of freedom and new-wave > feminism in the 1960s, and that it has greatly impacted postfeminist films. > However, I chose to focus only on the critical analysis of "The > Graduate," as I have not seen the other three films discussed. One of > his sub arguments is that Ben's "parents’ generation, linked to > corporate capitalism and represented as predatory and life-draining, > threatens Ben’s emotional and spiritual well-being at every turn” (Metz > 122). Evidence for this is that "southern California represents the > hollow world of his parents’ suburbia, while the north represents the youth > culture of Berkeley in the 1960s” (Metz 107). This ties in with the > automobile motif: Ben's trips down the freeway symbolize his repressed > freedom at home, as his parents and their friends constantly question his > future plans. There is also the water motif. When Ben, per his father’s > request, dons scuba gear and sinks to the bottom of the pool, “it only > reinforces his isolation from his father’s generation” (Metz 118). This > action "signifies the drowning of freedom" (Metz 119). Says > Michael Ryan and Douglas Kellner in "Camera Politica," > "images of immersion in water suggest the claustrophobia of the > bourgeois world, the cloying sense of its hypocrisy and emptiness, which > many young people of the time were experiencing” (Metz 119). Another sub > argument is that the film "is thoroughly misogynist in its > representation of women” (Metz 112), and that it exemplifies the “belief > that feminism constructs women as passive victims” (Metz 112). His evidence > is the character attributes of the film's women: "Elaine, in > particular, has no function in the film except to serve as a backdrop for > Ben’s desire for normalcy. Even more egregiously, Mrs. Robinson is a cruel > predator – we often see her in leopard-skin clothes – who is completely > unconcerned with Ben’s feelings” (Metz 110). I plan to use these sub > arguments and evidence as a case study for my other sub arguments and > evidence, to prove the point that film criticism elucidates themes, > symbols, and motifs and establishes a historical context, which may have > not been previously accessible to viewers. > > It is clear that Metz knows what he is talking about and has an > expert, scholarly view on postfeminism, and more specifically, critical > interpretation of "The Graduate." He has covered the topic for > the most part, but as he juxtaposes "The Graduate" with > "Mother," "Laurel Canyon," and "Moonlight > Mile," the presentation of the film's deeper meaning is very > scattered. Thus, I may need to find more research on film criticism of > "The Graduate" to be able to analyze it more holistically. Metz > seems motivated to argue an objective stance, but as is always the case, > there is bias; moreover, as this film criticism, his writing is > interpretive rather than factual. > > This source taught me a lot about themes, gender roles, symbolism, > and motifs in "The Graduate," as stated above. This gave me a > greater appreciation of the film and presented me with some valuable life > lessons. I can use these feelings to illustrate that film criticism is > important to understanding the film, and more importantly, its > social-historical context. I believe that a movie is an artifact of its > time, and this specific critique affirms that view. > 62.1 (2008): n. pag. Web. 1 Oct. 2010.  ?s=the+rise+and+fall+of+film+criticism&submit=Search>. Geoffrey > Nowell-Smith is a Project Director for European Filmography and Fellow of > the European Humanities Research Center at Oxford University. He graduated > from New College, Oxford with first-class honors in Italian and French. He > has also had temporary appointments at the University of Iowa and > Northwestern University. He has written "The Oxford History of World > Cinema." > > The author's thesis is that film criticism rose from not being > taken seriously in the 1950s, but then fell as criticism turned to > "snap-judgment reviewing and celebrity gossip" (Nowell-Smith 3). > In the 1950s, Nowell-Smith explains, "the kind of criticism that > involved writing at length about a work which the reader already knew and > which he or she already had an opinion (Nowell-Smith 1) hardly existed. > This enhances my argument that film criticism should be like literary > criticism, in that it should analyze instead of simply informing the reader > on how "good" a movie is. He argues that "Film > Quarterly" was ahead of its time at its founding in 1958, and then > "Definition" (1960), "Motion" (1961), > "Moviegoer" (1964) jumped on the bandwagon as magazines that took > the cinema seriously. Evidence of the contrast between film criticism and > review is the reviewers' struggle when rule-breaking films such as > "Breathless" and "L'avventura" came out. > > The work is logical and clear, but much of it is opinion and personal > analysis that is not backed by evidence, e.g. events, statistics, or > quotes. Nonetheless, his reasoning is valid and supports my arguments. The > scope is not particularly broad, as the article is merely 3 pages. I will > have to do a lot more research to get into the details of the rise and fall > of criticism. I still have a lot of remaining questions: who were the > prominent film critics in the twentieth century and the beginning of the > twenty-first century? Have studies shown that film criticism is significant > and has an impact upon the reader's viewing habits? How has it evolved as > media has largely shifted to the internet? Nowell-Smith has just skimmed > the surface. His stance is objective. For example, he speaks highly of > "Film Criticism," but that may be because he is writing for > "Film Criticism." His bias is that film criticism is superior to > film review. > > I learned about the evolution of film criticism from the 1950s to > the 60s, that movies such as "Breathless" and > "L'avventura" have impacted the practice of film criticism, and > about the difference stances of writers on film criticism, as presented in > various works. The evidence regarding the two aforementioned films supports > my argument that in a changing media environment, film criticism should not > resort to being based on merely a few sentences and a star scale. This > information helped me organize and articulate my thoughts. > //Network//. //The Daily Beast//. N.p., 3 Oct. 2010. Web. 8 Dec. 2010. >  the-social-networks-women-arent-prizes-theyre-props/2/>. > //Film Criticism//. By Roberts. Santa Monica: Santa Monica Press LLC, 2010. > 11-15. Print. Jerry Roberts is an award-winning journalist who has been the > executive editor of the Santa Barbara News-Press and the managing editor of > the San Francisco Chronicle. He is currently the student adviser for the > University of California at Santa Barbara's newspaper, The Daily Nexus. He > has also lectured at Stanford and the University of California at Berkeley. > He is well-versed in politics as well as film. We writes this book as an > informational report on the history of film criticism from the silent era > to the "golden age" of the 1970s to present-day, but the section > I am annotating, the introduction, is an overview. He explicitly states his > intended audience: "This book is intended for the more committed > moviegoer or passionate movie buff” (Roberts 14), though he also cites it > as an acceptable read for critics, as well. > > Roberts' thesis in this section is the film criticism has shifted > dramatically - and at several different times - since its inception. He > writes, "There were seismic changes in the presentation of film > reviews as the movie culture continued to turn away from the so-called > “expert” and proclaimed anyone a critic who had an opinion and Internet > access” (Roberts 11). He also says that over 30 newspaper and magazine > critics have left their positions since 2006 (Robert 11), which provides a > viable reason for why he has written this book. He adds that regardless of > time period, "critics have educated generations of discriminating > moviegoers on the difference between good films and bad, and, more > importantly, pointed out what was good in bad films and was bad in good > films” (Roberts 12). One of sub arguments is that the "proliferation > of outstanding critics occurred in the 1970s" (Roberts 15). His > evidence is that this was due to "a renaissance from such protean > talents as Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, and other filmmakers” > (Roberts 15). Another one of his sub arguments about the changing nature of > film criticism is that "[s]equels, teen films, and copycat films led > to the doldrums of the 1990s" (Roberts 15). His evidence for this is > that “[d]epression among film critics was expressed by David Denby, Richard > Corliss, Peter Rainer, J. Hoberman, Jonathan Rosenbaum, and others” > (Roberts 15). This shows that the quality and status of film criticism is > not only dependent on the state of technology, but also on the quality and > status of the films themselves. This supports my argument by showing > different factors that cause film criticism to be considered > "bad." Low quality of the films themselves is definitely not the > cause of the decline in 21st-century review, because the decade has seen > many great films, such as "Inception," "Slumdog > Millionaire," "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," > "Million Dollar Baby," "Hotel Rwanda," "The Hurt > Locker," "Sideways," and "A Beautiful Mind." Thus, > the reason for the downfall is likely the proliferation of online > media. > > Roberts' work is logical, clear, and well-researched. He seems to be > very knowledgeable about many different critics, their work, and the films > they have reviewed. This will guide my further research well. His > introduction is cogent and clear, covering the broad points that an > introduction should. Even so, the introduction is more informative than > most. The author's stance is slightly biased, as he is a journalist rather > than a scholar. However, he is objective for the most part, as this book is > factual rather than argumentative. > > This source helped me by giving me the names of many > different film critics, such as Manny Farber, Robert Warshow, Pauline Kael, > Judith Crist, Roger Ebert, Vincent Canby, Gene Siskel, Richard Schickel, > Dwight Macdonald, Otis Ferguson, John Simon, James Agee, Andrew Sarris, and > Stanley Kauffmann. I trust that these critics are reliable and are the best > of the best. Thus, researching their names may yield reviews that serve as > case studies for my argument. Also, looking at readers' comments will help > me grasp the impact of film criticism. As for the information about film > criticism itself, the author has helped my argument by showing its ups and > downs throughout history. I could see myself making a sort of > "timeline" to show the best and worst of criticism. > 21 July 2010: n. pag. Web. 19 Oct. 2010.  25/movies/25scott.html>. A.O. Scott is the film critic for the New York > Times and has been since 2000. He is also on the editorial staffs of Lingua > France and the New York Review of Books. He graduated magna cum laude from > Harvard University in 1988 with a degree in literature. > > The author's thesis is, "Any movie worth seeing is worth > arguing about, and any movie worth arguing about is worth seeing" > (Scott 1). One of his sub-arguments is that the hype of previous movies and > the reputation of director's in part contributes to a movie's appeal. His > evidence is "Inception." Scott points out that the director, > Christopher Nolan, also directed "The Dark Knight," "the > most widely viewed, intensely debated, passionately embraced movie of the > summer of 2008" (Scott 2). Additionally, the lead character is played > by Leonardo DiCaprio, who starred in the engaging "Shutter > Island" earlier that year. Scott brought up the questions, "Do > certain directors inspire unreflecting loyalty from both professional > critics and passionate movie fans? Does the perception of this kind of bias > plant seeds of skepticism that blossom into overstated negative reactions? > What role does expectation (or hype, if you prefer) play in the audience’s > experience of a movie?" (Scott 2). Factors such as director and > actors/actresses can create tremendous build-up for a film; thus, how great > is the actual role of the film critic, especially when many critics > disagree? While some of this information seems contrary to my argument, I > feel that Scott brings up some critical points. An argument that DOES seem > to support mine is that the contemplative nature of a movie - even if it > has received both glowing and dismal reviews - makes it worthwhile. Further > research may prove that the element of insight, introspection, and > philosophy contributes to box office sales. > > The problem in using this as a research material is that Scott brings > up a lot of valid, insightful questions but does not answer them. As he > primarily focuses on "Inception," his thesis is lacking in scope > and examples. He is also biased, since he did not view > "Inception" as a visionary masterpiece. While parts of the > article made good points, I was left confused by the message Scott was > trying to portray; it seemed that his arguments were not brought > full-circle/tied back to a cogent thesis. In some statements, he seems to > imply that film criticism is not significant, but this would contradict his > entire profession. > > Overall, however, this article deepened my thinking. I began to > wonder, "I'm focusing on how critical reception of a movie contributes > to its overall success, but how does anticipation contribute to > reception?" This was a question I had not considered before. > Web. 25 Oct. 2010.  do-movie-critics-matter>. Armond White is a film and music critic who > has written for the New York Press, Film Comment, and the City Sun. He > received a Master of Fine Arts from Columbia University's School of the > Arts. White has taught courses on men, women, and cinema; 70s road movies; > and film noir at Columbia and Long Island University. He is a member of the > New York Film Critics Circle, the National Society of Film Critics, and New > York Film Critics Online. Besides film, White won the 25th Annual ASCAP > Deems Taylor Award for music criticism. His work is an editorial, because > he answers his posed question, "do movie critics matter?" in the > affirmative. The intended audience seems to be anyone interested in film > criticism, or even someone who is against film criticism, as White tries to > change this view. > > White's thesis is that despite the practice of critical thinking about > films being under assault, "we need film critics to help us understand > the state of movies, our cultural life, and our general moral and political > being" (White 1). His first argument is that art, reflection, and > human expression need the attention of critics "in order to be > nurtured and preserved" (White 1). He cites critics' opinions on the > goals of criticism as evidence. For instance, the constitution of the New > York Film Critics Circle says that their goal is "to recognize the > highest creative achievements in the field of motion pictures and thereby > to uphold the dignity and significance of film criticism" (White 1). > In 1974, Pauline Kael said that, "criticism is all that stands between > the public and advertising." While many people view critics as pompous > and over-scholarly, White cites their importance in saying, "[w]e > judge movies because we know movies, and our knowledge is based on learning > and experience" (White 2). A second argument is that "[i]n the > current war between print and electronic media, in which the Internet has > given way to Babel-like chaos, the critical profession has been led toward > self-doubt" (White 2). Evidence is that there is a lot of "hype, > gossip, and reformulated press releases" (White 2) online, all of > which do not constitute criticism. Rather, the public needs critics who > have studied "related forms of history, science, and philosophy" > (White 2). The critics are necessary because "[a]rt > appreciation...derives from knowledge of a form’s history and standards, > not simply its newest derivations or mutations" (White 3). The critics > are there because filmgoers and filmmakers must "understand that > politics and morality are still part of the artistic equation, even at the > movies" (White 3). > > The author's work is logical, clear, and well-researched. He writes it > for the common man, so his arguments and evidence are easy to understand, > and he provides copious examples to articulate a point clearly. He has > adequately addressed the main arguments of why movie critics matter. The > only area in which I believe he could have improved is that he did not cite > enough specific films. As is the case with many of the sources I have been > reading, the information is more opinion, logic, and philosophy than fact. > As of yet, I am uncertain if this will work as evidence for a research > project, so I will make sure to research a) the history of film criticism > and b) criticism for specific films (I will be using "The > Graduate" as a case study) to supplement this kind of research. The > author's stance is biased, because he argues that movie critics matter, > whereas other people would be content with "cheap" online reviews > or no reviews at all. > > This source provided me with a lot of insight into WHY film criticism > is important. The quotes from different critics were helpful to > understanding critics' intent. Moreover, the information about how > criticism is changing in the digital age supports my argument that future > criticism should be more sophisticated and scholarly. In other words, the > authors should be well-versed in the field of criticism and other liberal > arts subjects necessary for a coherent analysis of a film.
 * 1) Dancis, Bruce. "Film Has Gotten Better at Portraying African-American
 * 1) Dirks, Tim. "The Graduate (1967)." Rev. of //The Graduate//. //Film Site//. AMC, n.d.
 * 1) Documaci, Arseli. "Filmic Experience adn Critical Writing on Film as
 * 1) Doherty, Thomas. "The Death of Film Criticism." //The Chronicle of Higher//
 * 1) Metz, Walter. "Introduction: Toward an Intertextual Film Criticism." //Engaging//
 * 1) Metz, Walter. "Consuming The Graduate: A Postfeminist Analysis of Mother, Laurel
 * 1) Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey. "The Rise and Fall of Film Criticism." //Film Quarterly//
 * 1) O'Brien, Rebecca Davis. "The Social Network's Female Props." Rev. of //The Social//
 * 1) Roberts, Jerry. "Introduction." Introduction. //The Complete History of American//
 * 1) Scott, A O. "Everybody's a Critic of the Critics' Rabid Critics." //New York Times//
 * 1) White, Armond. "Do Movie Critics Matter?" //First Things// 19 Mar. 2010: n. pag.