[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.(pp.187, 189) Mass media law professors Dwight Teeter and Don Le Duc (1992) added that common law and state statutes extend to "even scathing criticism of the public work of persons and institutions who offer their work for public judgment: public officials and figures; those whose performance public taste in such realms as music, art, literaPage 237ture, theater, and sports; and institutions whose activities affect the public interest." (p.227).However, Pember (1993) said the fair comment defense against libel in a review must be based on certain requirements: (a) the comment must be an opinion, (b) it should reflect on the public aspects, not the private, of the person's life, and (c) the comment should have a legitimate public interest.Still, Pember cautions, the difference between fact and opinion is not that clear.The courts, he says, still wrestle with the distinction.This makes life difficult for aggressive critics and reviewers.Perhaps the best legal advice is that you should be able to back up what you say in the public interest with evidence, and that you should be concerned with context of the statement and the words themselves.This way, Pember says, the public has the ability to develop its own opinion about the performer or the work.Film Reviews/CriticismThe names of the bestknown film reviewers and critics over the past 30 years are household words among moviegoers—Pauline Kael, David Denby, Rex Reed, Gene Siskel, Roger Ebert, Judith Christ, Andrew Sarris.You can, no doubt, add names of outstanding local and regional film critics.The art of writing film reviews and criticism is perhaps the most visible of any type.Film reviews are usually written when a motion picture makes its commercial debut.When they do write an evaluation, reviewers and critics employ a number of strategies to evaluate a new film.The most common concerns are: 1.Quality of story line (plot), social relevance of the story line, or the original source material.2.Performance of leading actors and actresses.3.Performance of the director.4.Consistency and quality of work of the technical support staff (such as special effects, cinematography, or film editing).5.Use of conventions such as symbols or color.6.Audience reaction and the film itself as a social event.Dwight Macdonald (1969), who criticized film for more than 40 years and influenced many of today's critics and reviewers, says reviewers and critics need to judge film on different standards.He says two rules of thumb include "Did it change the way you look at things?" and "Did you find more (or less) in it the second, third, nthPage 238time? (Also how did it stand up over the years, after one or more 'periods' of cinematic history?)'' (p.xi).To those main points in his book, Dwight Macdonald on Movies, he adds five other standards by which he judged movies:1.Are the characters consistent, and in fact are there characters at all?2.Is it true to life?3.Is the photography cliché, or is it adapted to the particular film and therefore original?4.Do the parts go together; do they add up to something; is there a rhythm established so that there is form, shape, climax, building up tension and exploding it?5.Is there a mind behind it; is there a feeling that a single intelligence has imposed his own view on the material? (p.ix).It is also common for film reviewers to provide adequate background on key individuals involved in the film.Film scholars who focus on the director as the author of the film subscribe to the auteur theory (Kael, 1979; Sarris, 1979).Hunt (1972) said, however, a majority of film audience members are just not that interested in the author as a focus of a review.Most, he says, look at importance or relevance of the film.Film reviewers and critics watch a lot of films.An average week for a fulltime reviewer or critic for a major publication includes enough time to view 5 to 10 fulllength films.Some are shown in theaters, requiring even more time to travel back and forth, but others, such as classics or new versions of existing films, are available on videotape.Devoted film scholars who review or criticize films see some films much more than just a single time.In fact, dozens of viewings of a single film are not unusual for the very best ones, or for personal favorites of veteran reviewers and critics over a long period of time.There is also the time spent each year at film festivals, industry meetings and conventions, and other special events.Just routine viewings, at 2 hours per film, are quite a time investment for a single workweek.Much of this time is spent in preview screenings.These special private screenings are an important means of getting to see a film before the public does.But they are not always final cuts, either.Smart reviewers or critics will not leave a film early, no matter how badly it may begin.Page 239Viewing advance screenings is essential to the success of the film reviewer and critic, however.To gain access to previews, reviewers and critics work with studio publicists and promotion specialists, as well as their own local theater managers and distributors.These individuals contact reviewers who are associated with publications, but beginning freelancers must find these individuals until they become known to the industry.Often, these showings will be after hours when theaters are available (some after 12 a.m.).Showings are usually early in the same week a film is scheduled to open (such as a Monday or Tuesday for a typical Friday opening).At other times, reviewers and critics travel to Los Angeles or New York to see special screenings set up by the studio.Getting started in film reviewing may involve taking a backup role to a more established writer
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]