Is it really all that surprising that a film that glorifies the profession of journalism is being well-received by film critics across the board?
Is it really all that surprising that a film that glorifies the profession of journalism is being well-received by film critics across the board?
Comments
16 responses to “Question of the day”
If that movie is State of Play? Yes.
And by the way, Time magazine dont say very well. The title say it all: “State of Play: Better on the Small Screen”. So…
If the movie is bad, yes. But there’s still us bloggers if it gets too one-sided…
Bernardo: I don’t think the Time magazine bad review would conflict Kris’ point. State of Play deals with newspaper journalism.
It has a 63 on Metacritic…not that great. Unless only newspaper critics gave it good scores. Too lazy to check.
Maybe…but then again you could make that argument against All the President’s Men and The Insider, now couldn’t you?
I’ve made that argument about a number of films, Robert, including, in fact, the over-praised “Sideways,” which gave critics the chance to champion one of their own, albeit a wine and literary “critic.”
So any film that portrays someone involved in writing or media (I’m not going to say glamorously, since now that you mention Sideways, Miles led a very sad life) that is critically acclaimed is ONLY because because of a bias from film critics towards that profession?
Again, wouldn’t that mean that the praise for The Insider (your #1 of 1999) and All the President’s Men (considered an American classic and shown in political science classes) are unwarranted? And how would you explain critical darlings that portray journalists and critics in a negative light (i.e. Network and Ratatouille, respectively)?
I’m sorry, I just see too many films that contradict your argument, even if you were right about a few select positive reviews.
Maybe it’s scoring with critics and journalists because, I dunno, it’s a good movie. Yes, it was a surprise to me too but I don’t think anyone’s cutting it any slack. It’s not perfect but it’s immensely entertaining and satisfying, which is more than I can say about Duplicity.
God, that theory makes so much sense with regard to “Sideways.” I never understood the critical lovefest for that amiable but rather flimsy film, but I suppose it was a relatable piece for a lot of middle-aged male critics. Fair enough, I suppose.
I don’t think reviewers just watched Paul Giamatti’s performance and said, “Look, a critic!” You have to give them a little more credit than that.
InSneider: I’m not questioning the actual quality of the film, believe it or not.
Robert: You’ve unwisely jumped to the assumption that I was considering praise for the film “unwarranted.” I’m just raising a question, simple as that.
But I will say this, regarding your point about journalists being portrayed negatively, the answer is simple: it’s easy to pretend you’re on the good guys’ team tossing stones at the bad guys.
“You have to give them a little more credit than that.”
I don’t give 80% of the film critic fraternity much credit at all, frankly.
I just saw “State of Play” this afternoon. I thought it was a very good movie. And Ben Affleck continues to surprise me at how good of an actor, he can be when he has the right material to work with. I give the film a B+
I always thought that about “Sideways”. Middle aged schlub critic gets the hot girl. It’s their fantasy.
Oh please, Kris, that was certainly what you were implying. Don’t weasel your way out of explaining your position just because someone calls you on it.
*sigh*
I agree with you Tapley. This movie is being
overpraised and overrated because of its
glorification of journalists, acting like most reporters are righteous truth seekers. It was
a B-grade thriller. Have the fans of this movie
watched or read a lot of political thrillers? I don’t
understand why people are so impressed with this movie. It was entirely forgettable. The press also loves Crowe. I thought the acting was over the top all around except for McAdams who was
too subtle. I did not get drawn into the storyline
or characters and the movie postures too much as being more intelligent than it really is.
I’m saying that the glorification of
journalism was just one factor that greatly played in this movie’s favor and created a good
bias for it. I don’t think Kris Tapley was saying
all movies relating to journalism get praised,
just that they tend to get more support.
All the President’s Men was a very good movie.
This movie was nothing special. The media does
like to gush over its own institution. The media
is now pretending that is main goal is to inform
people, when half of the time, they are contaminating the masses with their sleaze.