Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, February 17, 1995 TAG: 9502170022
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MIKE MAYO CORRESPONDENT
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Quentin Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" wins the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival, is nominated for seven Academy Awards this week and gets rave reviews, yet it offends many audiences with its graphic violence and disreputable characters.
Edward Zwick's "Legends of the Fall" is met with critical brickbats but has been a box-office hit for almost two months.
Have critics and reviewers completely lost touch with the filmgoing public? Do they see so many films that they become jaded to violence and depravity?
On the surface, it might seem so, but those differences aren't really so clear-cut. After all, these are matters of opinion and entertainment trends. De gustibus non est disputandum, or, "There ain't no accounting for taste."
But there are some general ground rules for writing and reading reviews, assumptions that everyone ought to be able to agree upon because we all like movies:
First, Hollywood movies tend to fall into recognizable genres - love story, horror, action, thriller, serious drama, etc. Within its category, a film should be judged by how well it does what it sets out to do. "Dumb and Dumber," for example, is not be criticized for not being suspenseful, nor "The Lion King" for its lack of realism.
The four-star-to-BOMB guide that accompanies each review tells the reader where the film stands in its group. A fast-paced shoot-'em-up that gets three stars isn't necessarily equal to a three-star film about a young woman's coming of age. They're made for different reasons and have different intentions.
Anyone who looks only at the star rating is not going to get the whole picture. From a reviewer's point of view, the stars are a necessary evil, a thumbnail guide, but that's all. The star rating alone isn't enough to keep anyone from being offended by a film's content.
Sometimes, a review mentions the reaction of the crowd, particularly if that is different from the reviewer's opinion of the film in question. At this paper, and most others, reviewers see some films at specially arranged preview screenings and some at theaters with everyone else. On busy weekends, advance screenings are a great blessing. But seeing a film with the ticket-buying public can give a better idea about its appeal or lack thereof. To my mind, that group experience is more important with two kinds of films: comedies and kids' movies.
What, then, should readers expect from film reviews?
An honest, informed opinion of the work.
Some idea of what it's about; who's in it; who made it.
Comparison to similar movies.
Analysis of content in terms of potentially objectionable material.
Not giving away important surprises or plot twists.
And what can reviewers assume about readers?
Anyone reading a film review has some interest in movies in general. He or she may go to a theater a couple of times a year or a couple of times a week.
A reader who is sufficiently interested in a particular film to read beyond the first few paragraphs of a review is probably thinking about seeing it.
With the popularity of home video, readers are generally more knowledgable about films than they were 10 years ago, but they haven't seen as many films on the big screen. They want to know whether an individual film is worth seeking out in theaters.
Given those assumptions about reviewers and readers, the question of critical burnout is still there. It simply comes with the territory, particularly in the busiest seasons when reviewers are seeing a lot of films in a short time period, and it's probably affected all of us more than we'd like to admit. If you've seen four excessively violent formulaic thrillers in two days - something no sane viewer would ever do - what's one more gunshot, one more gratuitous profanity, one more bloody special effect?
You either pay less attention than you should, or you become overly sensitive and condemn one film for the excesses of others.
But either response is less dangerous than the herd mentality that all reviewers (and preachers, lawyers, car mechanics and teachers) are prone to. The temptation is always there to follow the crowd and overpraise or dismiss a film just because everyone else is doing it. Even when it's correct, "conventional wisdom" is boring and should be challenged. By reviewers, by moviegoers, by readers.
No one has the last word. At their best, movies concentrate public attention on important issues - "Schindler's List" - or generate conversation and disagreement - "Pulp Fiction." Reviews are one part of that discussion. We reviewers try to make them lively, opinionated and fun, particularly when the movies aren't.
Read the reviews. If you agree, congratulate yourself for your wisdom and good taste. If they make you mad, write a letter to the editor and state your own opinion.
Do not suffer in silence.
Mike Mayo has been reviewing films for this paper since 1976.
by CNB