I love to read. I love to watch movies. I love listening to new music and new artists. I have absolutely no problem commenting on what I read, see, and hear. I will watch Ebert and Roeper. I've even joked with friends about the idea of becoming a movie reviewer.
But just recently I wondered, "What's the point of professional 'reviews'?" Why should I take stock in what any other person thinks of anything, let alone "works of art". Isn't everything subjective?
In my opinion, a review tells me a lot more about the reviewer than it does about what that person is reviewing.
A person will review a movie based on how that movie impacts them, and that has a lot more to do what that person is about, or what that person is dealing with at that time. Will I like a movie just because someone else likes that movie - a so-called "expert"? Take a look at your own family or your workplace or your class at school or your local grocery store: do you think everyone in those groups would like or dislike all of the same movies?
Further, I think the same person would review the same movie differently based on where and when they watch it. The review would be different if the reviewer watched the movie 2 hours apart, 2 days apart, 2 months apart, or 2 years apart. So even if the I agreed with the expert reviewer one time, what is to say I would have at another time?
For example, I recently saw The Pursuit of Happyness about a man struggling to become successful and his young son. The movie touched me deeply and I generally liked it because I could relate to it. That being said, I would probably not have liked it near as much 5 years ago before I was married, or had a serious career, or had a son who I am crazy about.
If I am going to take anything away from a published review, then I would first need to read a brief biography on the reviewer so I know where they are coming from. Otherwise it won't really help.
So, if everything I say is even remotely accurate, then what is the point of professional reviewers publishing reviews about anything: books, movies, music, restaurants, or anything? What's the point?
But just recently I wondered, "What's the point of professional 'reviews'?" Why should I take stock in what any other person thinks of anything, let alone "works of art". Isn't everything subjective?
In my opinion, a review tells me a lot more about the reviewer than it does about what that person is reviewing.
A person will review a movie based on how that movie impacts them, and that has a lot more to do what that person is about, or what that person is dealing with at that time. Will I like a movie just because someone else likes that movie - a so-called "expert"? Take a look at your own family or your workplace or your class at school or your local grocery store: do you think everyone in those groups would like or dislike all of the same movies?
Further, I think the same person would review the same movie differently based on where and when they watch it. The review would be different if the reviewer watched the movie 2 hours apart, 2 days apart, 2 months apart, or 2 years apart. So even if the I agreed with the expert reviewer one time, what is to say I would have at another time?
For example, I recently saw The Pursuit of Happyness about a man struggling to become successful and his young son. The movie touched me deeply and I generally liked it because I could relate to it. That being said, I would probably not have liked it near as much 5 years ago before I was married, or had a serious career, or had a son who I am crazy about.
If I am going to take anything away from a published review, then I would first need to read a brief biography on the reviewer so I know where they are coming from. Otherwise it won't really help.
So, if everything I say is even remotely accurate, then what is the point of professional reviewers publishing reviews about anything: books, movies, music, restaurants, or anything? What's the point?
No comments:
Post a Comment