"Different Names for the Same Thing..."

Though the time and effort it takes to write a review of a major Hollywood motion picture is miniscule in comparison to the time and effort needed to adequately promote one, it can be just as important to its success. Many relentlessly promoted films have flopped based on bad reviews, and many cheaply promoted films have become hits on the strength of good ones. Though famous pundits look for many of the same elements when they review a film, their styles can be vastly different; and they often differ on their final decisions of a film's merit. But what makes a good review? A good review should be honest and free from personal bias. It should consider a film based on its own celluloid, not on the history of its director, or on its prequels or even its genre.

One of my favorite critics is and has always been Roger Ebert. He is giant in his field- quite possibly the most famous film critic in history. His reviews usually lack personal bias, even if he may throw in his feelings as an aside. Consider for example his review of Angels and Demons. The movie was directed by Ron Howard, and is based on a controversial novel by Dan Brown, who also wrote the Da Vinci code- which Howard adapted into a movie first. Rather than focus on the controversy surrounding the novel or on the poor critical reception of the film that preceded it, Ebert takes the film for what it is and manages to write a balanced review. Angels and Demons is by no means a perfect film, and Roger gives it its lumps- mentioning that it lacks subtlety and plays a bit fast and loose with its historical matter. What I have always admired about him though, is his ability to keep an open mind, and this review is no different. One thing I liked that he said in this article in particular was, "This kind of film requires us to be very forgiving, and if we are, it promises to entertain." That is the line a good reviewer must tread- knowing when a film can be enjoyed for what it is, and when it is just poorly made. His style is often humorous, and this review is a great example of what has always made him an enjoyable read. He makes fun of the film a bit, asking questions about obvious plot holes, such as Robert Langdon being not only able but EXPECTED to interpret all of the story's intricate complexities with mind-bending speed; and even pokes a bit of fun at the director for expecting the Vatican to let him shoot in the sistine chapel. Even if you disagree with his decisions, you can always glean helpful information from his insights.

In stark contrast with Roger, is one of my least favorite critics: David Denby of The New Yorker. Denby writes with a far more opinionated style, so some of his bias can be forgiven; but what I have always disliked about his reviews is his unwillingness to open his mind enough to let himself enjoy a wide range of good films. He writes as if everyone already agrees with his haughty views, and his tone is more than a bit condescending. Furthermore he has a habit of making his reviews about everything EXCEPT the film in question. To be perfectly balanced, I ask you to consider HIS review of the same movie, Angels and Demons. Instead of considering the movie as its own entity, he punishes it based on what he perceives the agenda of the source material to be and can't seem to review it without writing a simultaneous criticism of Howard's previous Dan Brown adaptation. He speaks for the actors, filmmakers, and writers of both films by drawing on unsupported speculation about everything from their handling of the subject matter, to their political views (shoehorning in several putdowns of Republicans, even though it is hardly a political debate). His disdain is especially evident in the way he sardonically jabs at everyone involved in the work, and some who were not. He calls Brown- "mad", Howard- a "daft dreamer", the work- "gothic exploitation", and can't even resist a slight stab at unrelated Brendan Fraser- calling him "beefy" when he references the Mummy movies. He finishes the review by saying, "If these movies made any damn sense, the public opinion might be no more than a yawn." His review isn't a review at all, but a self-serving rant based in personal prejudice.

Both of these critics desire to persuade their audience, as is the point of any film review. Denby tries to overbear the reader by presenting his own agenda as fact and daring the reader to disagree. Ebert presents the movie as the work of its creators and offers to help the reader in drawing his own conclusions about its merit and significance. I far prefer the latter, as I like to go to the movies for entertainment and to be spoken to. If you go to the movies to fulfill your own deeply held prejudices and desire to be told what these prejudices should be, Denby's your man.

Erik Russell

______________

"I do my best not to have any expectations when I go into a movie, because it's not fair." -Joel Siegel

My Tower of Inspiration

The pain in my right shoulder is becoming unbearable as I trudge up yet another flight of stairs. My mind focuses not on the journey, but on the goal- on the moment when I can finally unburden myself of the giant black purse that has plagued my existence since I stepped out of my apartment this morning, my design portfolio. A giant number 4 greets me as I pull the handle on the last door I must strain to open before I reach my destination- Hopkins Hall 480. To many art students who come here, this is nothing more than a classroom, yet another temporary space in which to learn a subject. To me however it is so much more. It is a chamber of solitude, a vault of stories, a place of possibility. From the pin speckled walls to the paint covered tables, everything about the room speaks of creations past and conceptions to come.

At first glance, the room might not seem very artistic and creative- after all it is rather bare. No paintings adorn the walls as they do so many other rooms in OSU's main visual arts structure; no witty sayings or evocative posters greet your eyes when you walk in the door. If they did however, I believe it would detract from the purpose of the room. The room is not a place of endings, it is a place of beginnings- a place of creation, not of display. What the room does have in spades, however, are windows and tables. Windows that even on the gloomiest days (and so far this quarter there have been many such days) still manage to waft in brilliant shafts of light like a miniature cathedral. Tables whose visceral paint encrusted surfaces have become their own canvas- scored with the edges of knives, etched with the ends of countless pens, unfinished and waiting for whosoever will to add a bit of themselves to a tapestry composed of years of students' brainchildren. The pin pricks in the walls are a constant reminder of all the drafts that have been hung here for criticism; works that have flown to who-knows-where, that received their beginnings in the space in which I now sit.

I throw the giant bag from my back onto one of the waiting, haplessly arranged tables in the delightfully asymmetrical suite I have just penetrated and place myself onto a challengingly uncomfortable stool. I am ready for class now, and the room serves its overt purpose well enough. Later, though, I will return to unlock its true calling; and there will be new etches on the tables.

Erik Russell

____________________

"The world is but a canvas to the imagination"- Henry David Thoreau

SPEAK UP!

I'm sure that if I were to walk out onto any street corner in America and start polling people about their experiences with religion, I would receive a wide variety of answers. Some, I'm fairly certain, would be instantly antagonistic, seeing religion as a crutch of the weak-minded or as a vice of a mentally constrained and self-righteous society. Others would actually feel a sort of unspoken kinship with me, as they would feel connected by our mutual recognition of a higher power. These two examples, while highlighting the diversity of our culture's beliefs, hardly begin to catalogue the vast assortment of opinions and positions pertaining to what is easily one of the most polarizing concepts in human history. Through all this variety, though, I would find solidarity in the fact that religion affects us all and is very important to the current state of our American civilization.

Why then does such a polarizing and unresolved topic of discussion get such odd treatment from the media? Much of the content in what we see, hear, and read today comes as the direct result of the individual passions and opinions of the persons in creative control of its production, and more than 80 percent of this country claims to belong to a form of organized religion (Wikipedia). If this is the case, why is the media so loath to present personal opinions on the subject of religion? They have no trouble being delightfully divided on a wide range of other topics. Movie critics, political pundits, musicians, artists, filmmakers, etc., will all argue violently about everything from the climate to the governing of our country to the gender roles presented by SpongeBob SquarePants. When it comes to religion, however, they are strangely guarded; at times offering criticism of the whole idea, at times promoting tolerance of all religions and ideologies; or worst of all marginalizing and mocking religion as the province of the intellectually stunted.

For some reason, we in this country fear to stand up for ourselves when it comes to the subject of religion. "Maybe if I leave everyone else's religion alone, they'll leave my religion alone and we can all go blissfully about our way believing what we believe and not getting in each other's way." I say forget that! If we truly believe as we say we do, then we owe it to ourselves and each other to start talking about these beliefs. Religion is closely related to morality, and morality is the fabric of our very existence and community. We began as a country of ideals, of black and white, and of action. We have evolved into a country of grey and apathy with a fierce love of the status quo. Have you ever argued with someone about a topic you felt strongly about, and at the end of that argument remained at peace with them? I have, and if you haven't, I believe that you are fully capable of doing so if you will make that a priority in your discussions. I am perfectly capable of fully disagreeing with someone, yet seeing their point of view and still considering them to be an intelligent and valuable human being (and yes, even LEARNING from them). When we present our religious beliefs, we offer windows into our true selves, and are able to connect with others on a deep and personal level- even in opposition.

We are a culture that is heavily influenced by the media, and they have dropped the ball on this issue. Tolerance is important, and respect is important, but an overzealous application of these ideals can lead us to become very superficial- more concerned with who won American Idol than where we are going when we die. I don't want Larry King to mediate an argument between a Baptist minister and Buddhist monk. I know what they believe, and I can easily see its effect on their lives. I want to know what Larry King believes, and how his beliefs affect his life! I may disagree with Tom Cruise, but I have far more respect for his willingness to talk about his beliefs than for Trey Parker and Matt Stone's blunt dismissal of them. I find the South Park episode on scientology to be humorous, but the fact that it is one of the most candid examples of discussion on the topic is sad.

My religion has had a profound impact on my life for good in a very specific and measurable way. I would be churlish if I didn't wish to share those impacts with you for the betterment of yours. I invite you to do the same for me, or to warn me of dangers in religious thought based on your own experience. Just get the conversation started and SPEAK UP!

Erik Russell
_______________________

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell