Armchair Eberts

    My rule for this blog is quite simple: if I am discussing it here, I like it. I will not tell you what to avoid. I will hopefully encourage you to seek something out you may have overlooked. Though I have been a critic of the thumbs variety, as a creator I simply don't want to embrace that anymore. The reason is simple. There is too much negative criticism on the internet, everyone can now be an Armchair Ebert.
 
    I do believe that the role of the critic is to contextualize something and also advance an idea with the work being the vehicle. I enjoy criticism, it's made me a better writer, and creating has allowed me the ultimate insight into the process. I still have a lot to learn on both fronts.
  
    Some of the filmmakers I admire most started out as critics: Francois Truffaut, Peter Bogdonavich, Paul Schrader. Their work was deeply influenced by learning about the history of their art through criticism. Their writing gave them access to their contemporaries (give a listen to the Hitchcock and Truffaut tapes) who became mentors, it taught them the language to not only articulate an idea, but an emotion.

    Most critics act as filters from the deluge of entertainment options. Their role has changed and so the tenor of the conversation. The dialogue has become more bombastic. Tearing something apart in a couple of keystrokes is our new bloodsport. We enjoy crucifying, and don't want to see a resurrection.

    The small change I can make is to avoid putting forth the venomous review. It doesn't do anything to improve the work, or offer insight into the process. I can tell you from experience, the joy of creating something is far greater than the satisfaction of calling someone out.