Role of the Critic

My perception of the role of the critic has changed considerably since beginning this course. We have explored a wide range of different types of criticisms and approaches to critiquing that have challenged the preconceived ideas I had surrounding the topic. In some of our earlier classes we talked about the influence of criticism and how one of the responsibilities that critic’s must be aware of is the impact of negative reviews. In any case, reviewing a movie and sharing a negative opinion of it will affect its success to some degree. Though the impact is dependent on how influential the writer is, it will most likely cause some deterrence for potential future viewers. Directors and film-makers may suffer from negative reviews as was discussed in one of the first videos we watched as a class. I came to realise that criticism still retains a pretty influential place in our society and the role of the critic hasn’t necessarily diminished over time along with the decline of hard-copy publications that people tend to associate with traditional forms of criticism.

Instead, there is more of a contemporary movement of criticism that has come about with the rise of the internet. A new and more diverse range of criticism is available for all kinds of audiences through online publications that are specifically devoted to film and television reviews, but also through blogs. The advantages that come with this is that it provides a larger range of approaches to criticism, writing styles and voices that an aspiring critic or writer have access to that can help develop their own voice. Over the course, we were encouraged to read a range of different criticisms, as well as our own classmates work. Analysing the difference between several differing reviews of Edward Scissorhands (Burton, 1990) first introduced me to a few of the different elements that make up effective critical writing but ultimately showed that each writer retained their own unique sense of voice. Criticism doesn’t necessarily follow a formula and you can afford to be creative in how and what you write about. The ‘crit sesssions’ that we had later in the semester were even more valuable, as they exposed me to more critical writing. Not only that, but hearing the feedback and general criticisms the group gave for each piece provided something that I could take away and apply to my own writing. This was one of the most useful techniques in the course that helped me gain a better sense of my own voice. Hearing and reading different styles of writing allowed me to experiment with using a voice I wouldn’t usually use – in this case it was a much more casual and personalised one that I haven’t previously written in, as most of the writing I’ve done in the past has been strictly academic. I think the formal and academic tone still comes through pretty strongly in my writing which wasn’t really my ideal outcome, but it proved a lot harder to shake than I expected. I supposed when you’ve been writing in one voice all throughout high school and beyond, it’s a difficult habit to break. Although I do believe that my voice is some of my critiques is notably different to how I’d usually write which gives me some reassurance that there’s a bit of informality in my writing deep down there somewhere.

Writing informally can achieve a more personal relationship with your audience, which is another role of the critic that we learnt – be conscious of who you’re writing for. This came up a fair few times, as it can be a factor that influences that way you approach your criticism. While usually I would just spurt out whatever came to mind, it was then important to remind myself who my audience would be, and go back and refine my writing to appeal to that readership. Writing in different formats also influenced the way we approached our critique. Practising writing in both short-form and long-form meant having to be more thoughtful with our content, and know when to cut down or elongate certain parts of our writing. Writing in long-form allows for greater depth of critical analysis, while short-form writing limits the amount of room you have for exploring wider social or historical contexts but means there is more focus on providing a succinct yet effective statement of your position on the text.

However, it’s also important not to let your taste determine your position. While criticism does rely on your personal opinion, it should also be written from a measured and well-considered point of view. Overall, the most important take-away that I gained was that critical writing should be well-written, using evocative words and hooks, active sentences and to some extent, be written as if you’re telling a story. I think this is why writing criticism (and this class in general) was an enjoyable writing experience for me, as you can afford to be creative and let your personality come through. There’s no limit or restrictions to how you write critically, or even any kind of formula to follow. It’s completely unique to each writer, to anybody and everybody who wants to be a critic.