Critics sometimes appear to be addressing themselves to works other than those I remember writing.
- Joyce Carol Oates
Today, my film opened in Rochester, New York. A friend called me to read me the review in the local paper. All of the films had been given ratings between 1 and 10. "The Poseidon Adventure" received a 5. "Art School Confidential" received a 4. "Tsotsi" received an 8. And "I Am A Sex Addict" received a 6. My friend was impressed that "I Am A Sex Addict" had beat out both "The Poseidon Adventure" and "Art School Confidential." I, personally, was underwhelmed, and could think only of "Tsotsi" getting an 8.
A few hours later, it was revealed to me that the local film critic hadn't had time to watch my film, and had made his prognosis based on what he had read about the film on the rotten tomatoes website. And in fact, the grade does reflect the average grade on rotten tomatoes.
I suppose I should be grateful that the critic bothered to mention my film at all. He could have just ignored it (like a lot of other critics). But I can't help wondering what numerical value my film would have gotten if he had actually bothered to watch it. Would it have gotten an even higher score than "Tsotsi"? Or an even lower one than "Art School Confidential"? And did he even see "Art School Confidential" and "Tsotsi," or were those prognoses also based on hearsay?
This seems to be the wave of the future. Gossip in lieu of criticism. We're already half-way there. Why not just make it official? Who has time to watch films anyway?
posted by Caveh Zahedi at
11:56 PM
