- This is in answer to:
- Would you rather be a food critic, a book critic, or a film critic? See all answers
- August 31, 2011 by ladynorth
- Which Thing Could I Critique
If I were a food critic, I would be able to attend all kinds of swanky restaurants, and eat their finest vittles. I would enjoy that. I love food.
If I were a book critic, I would get free access to loads of brilliant books. My library would probably triple in a very very short space of time. I would enjoy that also. I love books.
But in critiquing food, if I didn't like the food, I'd be saying to some poor chef who'd spent hours slaving away trying to cook a decent meal. In critiquing a book, I would, if I didn't like it, be tearing apart the hours of work made by some aspiring author. I wouldn't like doing that (unless it was a Stephanie Meyer book - how can she have studied English Lit and then come out with Twilight?!?!).
But a film, I could critique. I mean, the golden rule in film-making is not to believe your own reviews. So if I said, for example, "Hugh Laurie was horrible in that movie" (as if, Hugh Laurie is AMAZING!) Hugh Laurie would say "pfft - Marley Butler, what does she know?"
If he even reads reviews.
Also, I've read awful reviews about movies that I've thought were brilliant. I really liked 'Ned Kelly' (the one with Heath Ledger, not the one with Mick Jagger), and I read reviews where the critics all but tore it to bits.
So basically, being a film critic just requires you to form an opinion. Eloquently. I could do that.