AZspot AZspot

blue bits. red rocks.
Sunday 23 September 2012

As a film critic, I follow a lot of other critics on Twitter. Last week, as The Master geared up for its initial limited release, I noticed a number of critics and other observers noting that anyone who hoped to get the most out of the movie really ought to see it twice. In their eyes, the picture is that rich, that artistically challenging, that impossible to immediately “get.” But the subtext of those tweets—unintentional, I’m certain—was passive-aggressively dictatorial. The unspoken suggestion was, “If you didn’t get it the first time, keep going back until you do.” But what if viewers see The Master once and not only don’t warm to it—or find it engaging in any of the ways we engage with films we don’t exactly like—but also don’t think there’s much to get? Serious moviegoers who care about reviews—and, admittedly, there may be fewer of those than there were 40 years ago—may be baffled by all the accolades, or possibly cowed by them. Everyone who goes to the movies (critics included) has those “What did they see that I didn’t see?” moments. Should some movies be taken more seriously than others?

9 notes

  1. wozziebear reblogged this from azspot
  2. ancora-imparo reblogged this from azspot
  3. raptoravatar reblogged this from azspot
  4. alsson reblogged this from azspot
  5. azspot posted this

A GNT creation ©2007–2013