Master Index of Archived Threads


Critics

MFS62 Sep 14 2006 10:52 AM

I'm interested in reading what our members who have experience in the entertainment industry have to say about this, but others please feel free to provide your opinions, too. Basic Question: Do film and theater critics change their mind about someone? To clarify when I mean by that, I have a few examples I'd like to expand upon. Andrew Lloyd Weber. He has a track record of writing critically acclaimed shows. But if he were to come up with a real stinker, how would the critics react? Would they be kind and say something kind, like "The proven formula at work again"? Would they give him the benefit of the doubt and say something like "Not up to his usual standard"? Or would they say something like "He hit a clinker"? Are critics in general reticent to say the "emperor" (someone with an established track record of good reviews) is now standing there butt nekked? If another critic says it, are the others fast followers? Or do they think a negative revue says that they might have been wrong about the artist in the past? In the other extreme, we have Ed Wood. If, after a long series of bad movies, he had created a true cinematic masterpiece, how do you think the critics would have reacted? Would they have given it the rave review it deserved? Would they have toned down their praise by saying something like "It was better than his previous efforts"? Would they have trivialized it in their review? I know we can't generalize, but IMO established critics tend to generally agree in the way they evaluate offerings. Finally, would theater and movie critics react the same way in the examples I gave? Which group would be more likely to tell it like it is? Some insight please. Later

Edgy DC Sep 14 2006 10:59 AM

I think critics have been generally back and forth on Andrew Lloyd Weber most of his career.

MFS62 Sep 14 2006 11:03 AM

Edgy DC wrote: I think critics have been generally back and forth on Andrew Lloyd Weber most of his career. I didn't realize that. Do we get the shows in New York that the London critics have already "screened out"? Then, substitute Rogers and Hammerstein for Webber in my first post. Later

Edgy DC Sep 14 2006 11:10 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 15 2006 07:49 AM

MFS62 wrote: I didn't realize that. Do we get the shows in New York that the London critics have already "screened out"? Or Chicago, or Boston, or in one case, DC. But they still hit him hard in New York often enough. London --- critics and audiences --- is generally kinder to silly musicals than New York is.

RealityChuck Sep 14 2006 11:55 AM

Sure, critics change their mind about directors/actors/playwrights. If someone with a long string of successes puts out crap, the critics will point it out. If Ed Wood ever did a first-class movie, then they will praise the film. Critics (well, the good ones) look at each film/play individually. For instance, critics hated Adam Sandler in all his roles until "Punch Drunk Love." Then they panned him in a series of films until "Spanglish." He got good notices in both "Punch Drunk Love" and "Spanglish." Critics loved Steven Spielberg for "Jaws," "The Sugarland Express," and "Close Encounters." Then he did "1941" and got ravaged. "Raiders" and "ET" got praised. Then they felt he need to grow as a filmmaker and was criticized for not doing serious themes, and later for trying to do serious themes and mucking them up. Then came "Schindler's List." At most, if Ed Wood had created a cinematic masterpiece, the critics would have mentioned how surprising this was given his track record, while praising the film.

sharpie Sep 15 2006 07:48 AM

I didn't get the praise for Adam Sandler in "Punch Drunk Love." His was a totally ordinary performance. There was a scene between him and Philip Seymour Hoffman in a supporting role and I remember thinking how much better this movie would be if those guys switched roles.

RealityChuck Sep 15 2006 10:03 AM

I haven't seen it, but Sandler was fine in "Spanglish." But whether you liked his performance or not, the point was that critics didn't pan it simply because Sandler was know for doing crap.