tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post6805064437416619697..comments2024-03-28T17:08:01.559-04:00Comments on Doux Reviews: News of Doux: April 6, 2014Billie Douxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17141769005175631213noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-18652381120842694502014-04-07T18:31:25.555-04:002014-04-07T18:31:25.555-04:00I never thought the production values on Buffy loo...I never thought the production values on Buffy looked particularly cheap.TheShadowKnowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11073693648569864707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-5982402915407340682014-04-06T16:26:19.425-04:002014-04-06T16:26:19.425-04:00I was similarly offended by by Seitz's dismiss...I was similarly offended by by Seitz's dismissal of literary criticism, Josie.<br /><br />As for his discussion of TV criticism, yes, he has a point, but I would honestly rather read reviews like we do here than dry analyses of cinematography. I feel like we address stuff when it's different or important (the True Detective tracking shot, Billie's commentary on color in Breaking Bad). There are some shows that just aren't overly concerned with filmic artistry and that's okay.<br /><br />I also think a large part of the problem is the rush that TV reviewers are always in to post stuff as soon as possible after the episode airs, particularly at big sites. Half the time TVLine already has their recap of whatever show up before it's even aired on the West Coast.<br /><br />Great discussion you guys!!sunbunnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08553429350476841139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-26868317499816462762014-04-06T14:10:08.061-04:002014-04-06T14:10:08.061-04:00Everyone has really good points here, including Se...Everyone has really good points here, including Seitz's original post, all of which I agree with, on some level. <br />Personally, I actually avoid what amounts to primarily technically-proficient reviews because I'm generally left feeling, ironically, superficial and unsatisfied after reading them. <br />I long for reviewers to tell me how something made them FEEL. Tell me how something changed your world view! Now that's a review I would love reading. You elevate the material (and criticism in general) by showing how how it elevated you and your expression.<br />Also, and I think this can be deduced from the comments here (including Josie's post), the power to develop one's own style and manner of reviewing OVER a focus on what boils down to the noting and perhaps deconstruction of film vocabulary is incalculable. It's why we are inevitably drawn to some reviewers and not others, based purely on personal preference.<br /><br />And I'm not going to get into pretentiousness, over-ambition and assumption, a trio of intellectual offenses that absolutely, IMO, belongs in this argument somewhere! Because, well, it's too pretentious! HA!<br /><br />Finally, I'll be the one to say...<br />David Duchovny! A new show! So cool! :)Heatherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13953652907115935895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-52751680286139195232014-04-06T11:58:56.068-04:002014-04-06T11:58:56.068-04:00I find myself disagreeing with the overall idea th...I find myself disagreeing with the overall idea that Seitz proposed in his article. Yes, deconstruction of popular media does encompass technical aspects of the productions. However, for me, what draws me to a TV show or movie is the <i>story</i> and not who is the cinematographer involved. What I look for in reviews is a discussion of themes, plot, and an analysis on the media (how it was present, how effective it was in prompting emotions on the viewer, etc.)<br /><br />IMHO, I believe that most TV shows work hard to make all the technical details as seamless as possible to the audience. Exceptions exist, of course. For example, the mise en scene in <i>Hannibal</i> and that awesome uncut shot at the end of episode 4 of <i>True Detective</i>.<br /><br />My point is that reviewers who prefer not to discuss media from a technical angle aren't failing the consumers. There are different styles of reviewing, not a one-size-fits-all. YMMV.Lucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05612987173174005233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-47920361235793704092014-04-06T10:08:28.493-04:002014-04-06T10:08:28.493-04:00I watched that Honest Trailer earlier in the week,...I watched that Honest Trailer earlier in the week, and as soon as I saw your title for this edition of the news, I had a feeling you might have included the video. So funny! Poor Jorah Mormont will forever more be "Lord Friend Zone" to my husband and I. :)<br /><br />Re: criticism, I lean more towards the consensus view in the comments that story and character are ultimately more important to me than technique and production values. Although when those things are done in a way that really enhances or weakens the storytelling, it is certainly worth commenting upon. <i>Hannibal</i>, <i>Breaking Bad</i>, and <i>Mad Men</i> are just some examples of shows with production design and technique that greatly enhance the overall storytelling.<br /><br />Ultimately, I think most people watch these long-form stories because they want to get lost in the story or the world, and highlighting technique can sometimes reduces one's ability to get transported. A lot of times, I avoid commentary tracks or "making of" pieces because it draws too much attention to the artifice of the story and subsequently reduces my ability to engage with it at the same level. I tend to prefer pieces and articles that highlight choices about story or character.<br /><br />But that's not always the case. I read a fascinating piece this week by Tim Goodman about <i>The Walking Dead</i> finale that highlighted the way the final sequence was structured and shot to mimic a particular real world process, which could serve as a subtle visual clue to the story direction. In that case, that type of commentary enhanced my appreciation for the final product. As with all things, I guess it just depends on the particular case at hand. :)Jess Lyndehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14165015932507376656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-6484700809696043362014-04-06T09:22:41.037-04:002014-04-06T09:22:41.037-04:00Seitz’s piece was very interesting and I think he ...Seitz’s piece was very interesting and I think he has a point. I take issue, however, with his underlying assumption that everyone who watches a television show or a movie will feel the same way about it (“And it's doing nothing to help a viewer understand how a work <i>evokes</i> particular feelings in them as they watch it.”). Any particular episode of television (or movie, or book, or song) will evoke different emotions in different people.<br /><br />Let’s take the <i>Buffy</i> episode “The Body” as an example. While I am sure that it affects almost everyone who watches it, my guess is that different parts of it affect us in different ways. The initial long shot of Buffy discovering her mother is harrowing, and a great example of camera movement, but it is not the part that reduces me to tears even on the umpteenth time through the episode. That moment is when Anya starts talking about Joyce never drinking juice again. The emotion springs from the words being said and the actor emoting those words, not the camera shot, not the lighting, not the music or lack thereof.<br /><br />Similarly, the scene between Buffy and Tara affects me enormously, especially when Tara says “it’s always sudden.” Again, it is not the close-ups of the actors faces that affect me, it is the words being said and the actor saying them. It affects me because I watched one of the people I loved most in the world die slowly and, although his death was finally a blessing for him, it was sudden for me. That one line gets me every time. It feels arrogant (even as a critic) to believe that it will have the same effect on everyone who hears it.<br /><br />Of course, there are times when the filmmaker is tugging at our heartstrings, ensuring that we understand that we are now meant to feel sad, to laugh, to be afraid, whatever else s/he is going for. I think, in those moments, we should comment on the filmmaking and we should discuss how our emotions are being manipulated.<br /><br />Overall, however, I think it fair to write about how I felt and why I felt it in a review that I write. I don’t think it’s fair to assume that everyone who reads the review will feel exactly the same way.ChrisBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10843864158239536750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-11674595052033914262014-04-06T08:16:28.843-04:002014-04-06T08:16:28.843-04:00That's an interesting take on criticism. When ...That's an interesting take on criticism. When I teach Film as an academic subject, I definitely encourage students to focus on cinematography, lighting, production design and values, etc. etc. etc., as essential parts of the product.<br /><br />I think, though, when I'm reviewing something as a critic, I'm doing something different. I'm helping people decide whether they want to watch something or not. And rubbish production values are not, for me, a reason for not watching something with great story and characters (I present before the court the entire run of Classic Doctor Who). As you say, I mention those things if they stand out in some way - the production design is the best part of Atlantis, and I say so frequently - but I feel like plot and character are what will make people enjoy or not enjoy something, so that's what I talk about. I guess I'm a bit of an old-fashioned purist - if the story and characters are good, it doesn't matter if the rest suffers a bit, use your imagination and suspend disbelief!Juliettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00203399623895589924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-18356370589706375462014-04-06T08:07:45.833-04:002014-04-06T08:07:45.833-04:00That poor, confused hamster!That poor, confused hamster!Billie Douxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17141769005175631213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-9978943543816551712014-04-06T08:06:46.654-04:002014-04-06T08:06:46.654-04:00The title, contents line and your author blurb mad...The title, contents line and your author blurb made me LOL. :)<br /><br /><i>A Call to Critics</i> -- interesting stuff, Josie. I'm not sure that challenge is for me, since I hit on my reviewing style a long time ago (because of an experience I had as an undergrad) and am totally set in my ways. Should I also mention that I like yours as it is? Although I'm certain I'll enjoy anything you decide to write.Billie Douxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17141769005175631213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-42713152900894075612014-04-06T07:17:52.196-04:002014-04-06T07:17:52.196-04:00I don't care for productions values, all that ...I don't care for productions values, all that matters is a good story. Buffy had that and The Sopranos too. Fancy scenery is fine, but not the most interesting thing. Like Stephen King, you need to spin a good yarn. And have good characters of course. <br /><br />So Socha joining Once was true..it was annonced on april 1st so I had my doubts. Good. Now bring the Jabberwocky over too. Scenery-chewing that fine needs to be in the mother series.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com