My plea for a film critic without stars or notes – Rue89

Tribune

Subject sensitive than stars satires, the connecting arms screwed to each corner of the page after the release of a film, mandatory accessories journalist, blogger and ultimately critical. Only a few marginal here and there to try to give their opinion and sometimes share their expertise without label their thoughts of these small stars or even worse, a rating out of ten.

Too few remember probably as François Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard, Eric Rohmer and Jacques Rivette entered the cinema through the door of film criticism. While the business is now worth as much in people’s minds than farrier, all invent specialists is if they are capable of judgment, it would be good to forget time and notes cherish letters, provided they are beautiful.

A creative force

It would be good, too, wonder why there movies like schoolboys on sanction? Review a film it would serve to make its best designers? Are helping us to really improve noting their films as there is a dictation? We also ask who are these funny teachers who believe the value of the work of filmmakers never provide advice to do better next time.

Because of course, note must be authorized by way of seniority, merit, knowledge. It is necessary to put a figure on something immutable, have a legitimate power over this thing. Criticism is a craft that robs people of their own opinion and that, even if today suffers from a bad reputation, is a creative force. Once exclusively advertising, film criticism has one day surpass this state and turn into inventive activity and it is unfortunate to see that she is now reversing.

Screen Page “What we have done to God Capture? “Philippe de Chauveron with its star rating” Press “and” Spectators “(Allocin dé

have laughed too critical, too laughing their alleged acrimony and spit on their presumed egocentrism Paris, would have been done to evaporate?

The price of thought

The film critic today is everywhere and nowhere at once. The films are listed and labeled as could be meat in a market. To advise others before they taste their turn, journalists, hawkers, advertising, impostors, all append a number to their self-proclaimed critics. All choose a number of stickers to stick beside the titles certainly ensuring that they do not clash too much with those of the neighbor.

Screen Page “Capture What we do to God? “Philippe de Chauveron with its star rating and” Users “(IMDB)

films have not yet to be processed under simple consumer goods, perishable foodstuffs . The ones who make us dream, cry, shiver, thinking; they often participate in opening our minds and enrich our imagination. Is it really necessary to establish a hierarchy between the films, directors, actors? Does not born of itself in the heart of the people and the opinion of many?

Rather than confine films in boxes, ask them cold prognosis, is it better not wear them the attention they deserve and just discuss, analyze, grieving may be questioning even their qualities and faults? Today, everything and everyone must have a note. In numbers and percentages we evaluate the quality of teachers, sports, food, countries. While everything is CAC40 and triple A, how to evaluate the price of thought?

drunkenness without juice

Expressed it is unclear how much less by whom, scoring flatters the natural laziness of men, it allows to label and package minds sulking personal feelings. The paper also discusses the narrowness, the irrevocable nature of the balance sheet and boring. It represents the finality without gasoline, drunkenness without the juice.

A critique of cinema serves and should serve to expose an opinion to express a position, but also and especially to start thinking. He leads an analysis of perspective and openness that requires time and intelligence work. One way to place the puzzle, to prolong the time of a reading area of ??the film. It should not be just a means of advertising and communication potential, a way to make the masses into theaters.

Criticism should not aim to convince, it should refuse to proselytize . By subjective essence, it does not claim to factual information but widening horizon. It is particularly sad to see that even the most competent critics affix their seal of their own denial. Too bad that we should then summarize his opinion a few signs, a number of small stars, for it to be considered, listed and finally transformed into average we will exhibit at leisure in the form of tables and graphs.

This is why I think we should, perhaps, to silence a few notes down and for once the stars in their firmament; for the freedom to love, create, or just for freedom.