Why Even “Amateur” Films Deserve Honest Reviews Should film critics differentiate or consider whether a given film is “professional” or “amateur” either in reviewing a film, or in deciding whether a film should even be reviewed at all?
There’s been an interesting discussion about reviewing “amateur” versus “professional theater” on The Stranger’s SLOG between critic Paul Constant and his editor, Brendan Kiley, that seems apropos for a broader discussion as we head off to the Sundance Film Festival this week. The background: Constant wrote in a recent SLOG post titled “Regrets Regrets” that the only play he regretted having to review all year was an amateur production of the play Bullshot Crummond. Constant notes in his post: Bullshot Crummond was performed at the Youngstown Cultural Arts Center… The play was performed, basically, in a gymnasium and the crowd sat on bleacher seats… It was amateurish. But the thing is, it was amateur theater… As soon as I walked into the theater, I realized what had happened: I was a critic who was about to review a play that probably shouldn’t be reviewed. It’s all very familial, and it’s also very amateurish. It is, quite simply, not a professional production and it should have
Related Questions
- Why Even "Amateur" Films Deserve Honest Reviews Should film critics differentiate or consider whether a given film is "professional" or "amateur" either in reviewing a film, or in deciding whether a film should even be reviewed at all?
- The reviews on this site aren by professional food writers. Don food critics write more accurate reviews than regular people?
- When Should Critics Stop Writing Official Film Reviews?
