Comments on: “It’s A Job That I Wouldn’t Want Or Seek Out”: Ben Wheatley Talks Film Critics

By: Steffie

Steffie — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:27:34 +0000

He has a very valid point! A failed actor or wannabe director might criticize other\’s work like sour grapes. There could be envy involved and doing is a lot harder than talking!

By: Brandon Sites: Critic of Modern Day Horror

Brandon Sites: Critic of Modern Day Horror — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:27:34 +0000

His entire argument is baseless and here\’s why. He says and I quote "As a creative person, I think you should be making stuff. That’s the challenge. Talking about other peoples stuff is weird. Why aren’t you making stuff?".

The reason his opinion is baseless is, because when a critic writes a review and explains their train of thought in critiquing a movie, they are creating something. They\’re creating something that reflects their own personal viewpoints. Filmmakers do the same thing. They create movies that reflects them in some way or speaks to them in some shape or form.

For a critic, it\’s in a written medium, for a filmmaker, it\’s in a visual medium.

Personally speaking, I\’ve worked on a few movie sets. I know the work that goes into it, but that doesn\’t influence my work as a critic. At the end of the day, it\’s my job to write mini essays that reflect my viewpoint of a movie. The effort that goes into a production is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the finished product.

By: Aaron Bumgarner

Aaron Bumgarner — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:27:34 +0000

I guess I\’ll have to stop trash-talking McDonald\’s, since I\’ve never made my own French fries.

By: AJ

AJ — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:27:34 +0000

Critics provide a useful service to the public at large. I don\’t want to waste my time and money to see a bad movie. Having someone view it first (a critic) and give me an opinion is very helpful.

By: themoviewaffler

themoviewaffler — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:27:34 +0000

"I don’t get that relationship with art where you can just talk about it but not create it." You don\’t need to be a great chef to enjoy a great meal and be able to describe how good it tasted.

By: Colm

Colm — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:27:34 +0000

This is rubbish. Unless Ben Wheatley is using millions of dollars to make something for himself and other filmmakers to enjoy, he\’s completely misguided. The primary role of the critic is to act as a member of the public (I assume the intended audience) to judge a films merits from their perspective. He forgets that while artistic integrity is important, a film still has to make money in order for more to be made and for this to happen, people other than the filmmaking community have to see and enjoy them. If the only person enjoying Ben Wheatleys films is himself then he\’s not going to have a career for much longer

By: doubledang

doubledang — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:27:34 +0000

Where would Ben Wheatley be if his early films hadn\’t been picked out and heralded by critics at film festivals and in tiny theatrical releases? Many critics did have some experience at college or elsewhere making films (or theater, or whatever), but if you point that out, then the same filmmakers accuse them of being "frustrated would-be filmmakers" who must be critics only to wreak their revenge on successful filmmakers. Let\’s face it, a lot of artists (in any medium) are very thin-skinned. They want publicity, they want praise, they just don\’t want any actual criticism. But if you\’re making art as public as feature films, you\’re asking for an audience–and that audience will have opinions, some of which are also public. A critic is just one person\’s opinion–but they\’ve bothered to express it at length. Does that really make it MORE problematic than someone who just says "It\’s great" or "It sucks"? If it really bothers you, do as many artists do: Don\’t read reviews of your work.

By: Drag Me To Taco Bell

Drag Me To Taco Bell — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:27:34 +0000

I agree that a critic should know as much about the technical side of filmmaking as possible, to accurately assess the different merits of a film. But theory and practice are two different domains.

What Wheatley doesn\’t acknowledge is MARKETING. Critics serve as mediators between distributor and viewers. So their work is not just academic pontificating, it\’s an appraisal of a commodity – which is a valuable service to a consumer.

By: NOPE

NOPE — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:27:34 +0000

Bullshit. Critics with no experience in an artistic medium can still do comparative critique. It may be hard to make a competent or good film, but other examples of such exist, therefore, "laymen" and critics can offer an opinion on whether you have managed it. Of course there is still a spectrum from \’idiot armchair critic\’ to \’educated critic\’.

By: Liam "Big Banter" Naerger

Liam "Big Banter" Naerger — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:27:34 +0000

Amen. Until you\’ve set up a shot from inside a fridge you know nothing about films and filmmaking #PerksOfTheJob

By: Daryl Hannah

Daryl Hannah — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:27:34 +0000

He has a point. Being a film critic would probably involve having to watch a Ben Wheatley movie.

By: re

re — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:27:34 +0000

Good for him! Maybe you can learn something from it Kevin!