,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
So Pauline Kael once argued that, from a pure consumer advocacy standpoint, the only useful things a reviewer could do were a) pan a big movie or b) promote an obscure movie.
There was no value in recommending a movie you were probably already going to see, or in panning a movie you'd never heard of. Telling you to see something you would otherwise miss, or avoid something you'd otherwise see, was what reviews were good for.
She said this in response to people convinced she was just a contrarian, who only liked rando arthouse movies and hated everything big. In reality she liked many big movies and hated many obscurities, but saw no use in writing about them.
Nowadays reviews are caught up in algorithms and hype cycles, where the most financially sound things you can write are pieces that validate popular opinions or gatekeeping BS where you rag on weird projects for being different.
i.e. the most popular types of criticism are the least materially useful to the purchaser. (And the purchaser just might dox you if you write something else.)
There's no good answer to this. Reviewers gotta eat same as everyone. But I appreciate Chris' thoughtfulness on this subject, and his dedication to finding and sharing the gems, even if he hasn't yet found a financially viable way to do so just yet.
(this thread was originally in response to a @Campster video that isn't actually public yet, whoopsie doodle; you'll just have to trust me that it's good)
OK the video I was talking about in this thread is now public:
