Este senhor disse muito do que eu penso sobre crítica cinematográfica, e disse-o em inglês, que como todos sabem, é mais fino que o português, por isso vou transcrever a parte para mim mais relevante:
The best part of writing about movies (and there are dozens of good aspects to the gig) is the opportunity to get just one reader per review to change their mind about film or persuade them to see something differently. The purpose is not to simply say, "This is good," or, "This totally blows." Anyone can say that, and most competent readers can come to those conclusions on their own. No, it's imperative to dig in to the hows and whys of a film's successes and failures, to pull it apart and look at it in the light of our culture and society and faith and political system and everything that influences our worldview. Older critics can't just assume people will take their word for it that some films are good and others are bad. Criticism is (importantly) dependent on communites of informed judgment, but the average reader isn't a part of that community and often doesn't care to be. You have to reach that reader, to make someone who couldn't care less about the difference between Bay and Truffaut appreciate something new or different in a film.
If we fail that reader, then we fail the vocation itself. My brothers, this should not be. The goal of the whole thing is to serve the greater good, to, like the man said, "raise the level of public debate in this country, and let that be our legacy.""
No próximo post, vou falar de traficantes de arroz. Até já.