Credible critique

[Sojourner]

Is it possible to provide a credible critique of a movie, piece of art, piece of music, television show, or book that you've never watched, read, or seen?

For example, I've never read the DaVinci Code ... can I still legitimately provide a critique of it and make definitive statements against it? Or does my ignorance of the work itself preclude me making a critique of it?

[homeschoolmom]

Well, I guess it's possible to critique anything. However, you're more credible if you've seen the work in question.

If you said, "I've never seen the DaVinci Code. I don't even know what it's about," then your opinion is completely without merit.

[Sojourner]

OK. So could we perhaps say there are levels of credibility when it comes to expressing a viewpoint about a given book/movie/artwork/etc.?

Low credibility: Never read/watched it, don't know what it's about
Medium credibilitly: Heard about it from someone who has read it, haven't read it myself.
High credibility: Have read it, and consequently have formed opinion.

[homeschoolmom]

I definately think the more you know about something the more credibilty you have-- I still might disagree with you, but I'm more likely to take your opinion seriously.

If Roger Ebert started writing his columns based on what he heard other critics saying about a movie, well....

[Sojourner]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Mar 14 2006, 09:52 AM']I definately think the more you know about something the more credibilty you have-- I still might disagree with you, but I'm more likely to take your opinion seriously.

If Roger Ebert started writing his columns based on what he heard other critics saying about a movie, well....
[right][snapback]911147[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I would totally agree.

Growing up, I can remember people in my church getting up-in-arms about various books/movies/etc. without having ever read/seen them. They'd base their opinions totally on the words of someone else, such as Focus on the Family. I have no problem with relying on others' opinions as you make decisions about what you partake of yourself, but to then espouse those opinions as your own without first having partaken seems a little disingenous.

[philothea]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Mar 14 2006, 07:46 AM']OK. So could we perhaps say there are levels of credibility when it comes to expressing a viewpoint about a given book/movie/artwork/etc.?

Low credibility: Never read/watched it, don't know what it's about
Medium credibilitly: Heard about it from someone who has read it, haven't read it myself.
High credibility: Have read it, and consequently have formed opinion.
[right][snapback]911140[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Those standards are too low.

Zero credibility: never read/watched it, and are offering a critical opinion of it. And you're showing that you'll speak about things of which you're ignorant, so total credibility way down too.

Low credibility: Read/watched product in question. Okay, you know it, but who are you? What standards are you using to judge?

Medium credibility: You're familiar both with the specific material, and other materials in the category or genre.

High credibility: Fully familiar with the material, [i]and[/i] you are acquainted with other material in the same category/genre, [i]and[/i] you're a member of the target audience (meaning, this is the kind of thing you'd like, if it was well done).

[Sojourner]

[quote name='philothea' date='Mar 14 2006, 10:11 AM']Those standards are too low.

Zero credibility: never read/watched it, and are offering a critical opinion of it. And you're showing that you'll speak about things of which you're ignorant, so total credibility way down too.

Low credibility: Read/watched product in question.  Okay, you know it, but who are you? What standards are you using to judge?

Medium credibility: You're familiar both with the specific material, and other materials in the category or genre.

High credibility: Fully familiar with the material, [i]and[/i] you are acquainted with other material in the same category/genre, [i]and[/i] you're a member of the target audience (meaning, this is the kind of thing you'd like, if it was well done).
[right][snapback]911178[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I can accept that.

[homeschoolmom]

Okay... here's a thought... What about one's familiarity with theology? For example: I would take the opinion of a good and holy priest over that of someone else.

Just as a hypothetical example:
Let's say a new movie comes out on the subject of the occult or something similar. Let's say there are two critics-- a holy priest who has not seen the movie, but has read about it and Joe Blow movie goer who has. If the priest says I should avoid said movie, but Joe tells me he saw it and it's not a big deal, I'm more likely to listen to the priest. I tend to err on the side of caution.

[Era Might]

I think it depends.

Take "The Duh-Vinci Code" for example. You don't have to read the book to gets its propoganda. The only thing you'll get from reading the book is the literary elements that frame the propoganda. The propoganda is the same whether you read it in the book or you read it in a well researched critique.

If the objectionable material is more nuanced, for example, if a movie has a debated moral or whatever, and it's based on the story or the movie itself, then you should probably see the thing to offer a credible opinion.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 14 2006, 09:21 AM'] But you can't really say that unless you've followed it, and seen firsthand what it's all about, what the stories revolve around. etc.
[right][snapback]911192[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
A lot of television is like that. If you watch one episode of something, you don't see the character development that can be quite good. It sometimes takes many episodes to see where a storyline is going.

[philothea]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Mar 14 2006, 08:18 AM']Okay... here's a thought... What about one's familiarity with theology? For example: I would take the opinion of a good and holy priest over that of someone else.

Just as a hypothetical example:
Let's say a new movie comes out on the subject of the occult or something similar. Let's say there are two critics-- a holy priest who has not seen the movie, but has read about it and Joe Blow movie goer who has. If the priest says I should avoid said movie, but Joe tells me he saw it and it's not a big deal, I'm more likely to listen to the priest. I tend to err on the side of caution.
[right][snapback]911187[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, sure. I probably would too.

I would expect a holy priest to have got his opinion from a knowledgable source, and to be wise enough to couch his advice in, "I haven't seen this, but according to so-and-so, who is reliable because of this-and-that, I advise that you not see it."

That isn't technically criticism, though -- that's advice. If someone is saying the quality is good or bad, without having seen or read the stuff they're offering opinion on, I don't see any point in listening.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Mar 14 2006, 10:39 AM']A lot of television is like that. If you watch one episode of something, you don't see the character development that can be quite good. It sometimes takes many episodes to see where a storyline is going.
[right][snapback]911230[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Definitely.

It's like reading the book of Amos and saying you know all about the Bible.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Mar 14 2006, 10:17 AM']Definitely.

It's like reading the book of Amos and saying you know all about the Bible.
[right][snapback]911263[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Which is a least better than having read none of the Bible and saying that you've never read the Bible, but you know for a fact that it's carp.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Mar 14 2006, 11:19 AM']Which is a least better than having read none of the Bible and saying that you've never read the Bible, but you know for a fact that it's carp.
[right][snapback]911264[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
True. It is a step up. A baby step, if you will, but a step nonetheless.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I do it all the time! I don't know how many movies I have declared the "worst of all time" when I've never even seen it. Sometimes you don't have to see it to know it's bad:
[img]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00008YRU0.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg[/img]

Edited March 14, 2006 by thedude

[Sojourner]

[quote name='thedude' date='Mar 14 2006, 04:06 PM']I do it all the time!  I don't know how many movies I have declared the "worst of all time" when I've never even seen it.  Sometimes you don't have to see it to know it's bad:
[img]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00008YRU0.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg[/img]
[right][snapback]911614[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Oh come on! What's not to love? A cute kangaroo with shades and a Brooklyn jacket? You're heartless.



Although he does remind me of Joe Camel ...

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Did you see the commercial when that movie came out!? How could ANYONE find merit in that excuse for a movie? I've never seen Kangaroo Jack but maintain it is one of the worst films of all time.

[Socrates]

I'd disagree that one would have to actually view (or listen to, read, etc.) a work of literature or drama to know whether it would be morally wrong, if one gets his information about it from trusted and honest sources.

However, if one were offering a public critique (as in writing an article, etc.) he must see it himself to have credibility as a critic. When people attack something they obviously know nothing about, they come off as ridiculous by those in the know.
(For instance, I've heard of a priest giving a sermon condemning the horrible works of a certain "Mr. Potter" - who thought that Harry Potter was the [i]author[/i] of the books. Also I read part of an opinion piece in a conservative Catholic paper, which brought up the movie [i]Gladiator[/i] as an example of the depravity of modern Hollywood. The author, who had never seen the movie, was under the impression that the emperor Commodus was the [i]hero[/i] of the flick, and went on about how depraved Commodus was, and how typical of hollywood to make a movie glorifying this kind of man!)

As for [i]The DaVinci Code[/i], I don't think it is necessary to watch the movie or read the book; the important thing is to be able to refute the various historical lies presented in the book about Christ and the Church. One can do that by finding a reliable source of information, and does not therefore need to spend money on the book or movie.