“What have I learned about being a reviewer?” Nothing fast is coming to my mind, but then the oblivious answer pops into my thoughts; it is a hell of a lot harder than I thought it was going to be. Before the semester started, I had to register for Reviewing the Arts because it is a requirement for my major, but I told myself it would not be so bad because I enjoy giving my opinion about anything. However, after the first three assignments I realized that I really could never do this for a career. Sure, reviewers get a chance to go to awesome movies, plays, and concerts but at the end of the day they have so many restrictions that it is hard to voice your true opinion.
By using the plural word “restrictions,” I just think back to the middle of the semester where one of the guest speakers talked about how she was replaced for that week at the newspaper because of her opinion of the play “Wicked.” When the play company bought advertisement in that newspaper, they also bought the critic‘s review. I always knew that was the way the entertainment industry worked, but to actually see a person brought down by her non-popular opinion really bothered me. It’s actually down right pathetic that newspapers are afraid to lose a little money, but in actuality if they reinvent themselves to have true opinions, they will be respected more and will probably gain many more readers in the process.
To be honest, that is one of the main reasons why no one really cares about reviews anymore because it seems like every reviewer talks about how great a movie is, especially on the trailers. Seriously, I cannot think of the last time I saw a trailer for a movie that did not involve the following phrases: “Best movie of the summer!” “Best movie of the year!” “Best comedy!” “Best drama of the year!” “Best movie in a decade!” I cannot stand to watch trailers after they debut in theaters anymore because of all that bullshit. If reviewers and their opinions can be bought, the question of “What is the role of the reviewer?” is more tricky to answer.
Most critics/ reviewers are either seen as harsh or extremely nice and this opinion of them is everywhere. For example, Pixar’s movie “Ratatouille” has a food critic named Anton Ego and throughout the movie he is depicted as the bad, mean guy until the very end of the movie. Ego is emotionally moved by the rat’s food because it reminded him of his mother’s cooking, so he writes in the newspaper an unfair definition of a critic:
“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends… Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere.”
Is all that really true? Is the average piece of junk more meaningful than a critic’s role in judging something meaningless? I do not agree with that first part of Ego’s statement at all. If I have learned anything in the Reviewing the Arts class, it is that the reviewer’s job is to inform their audience. If all their opinions are controlled by their bosses and the media outlet and they continue to give positive reviews over every piece of entertainment, then they cannot reflect the other part of their job, which is to reflect society by what is offered in the entertainment industry.
