Comments on: Film reviewing the Christopher Hart way

By: Antichrist morality « The Philosopher's Eye

Antichrist morality « The Philosopher's Eye — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:49:03 +0000

[...] A response to Hart’s article can be found here [...]

By: Making the difference in reporting « Paperhouse

Making the difference in reporting « Paperhouse — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:58:47 +0000

[...] or complaint, they’re still a measurable index of success in drawing readers and traffic. Cristopher Fray’s attack on Antichrist was a critical disaster, but it also drew eyes to the page and reinforced a certain worldview for [...]

By: Anne

Anne — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:50:41 +0000

I think it’s very important to differentiate between film reviews, for a consumer audience, and film analysis/criticism with a more academic purpose. To put it another way: the job of any consumer film reviews section is to tell readers if they will like X or Y film, if it’s worth their money and if it’s more or less worth their money than film Z. It’s like that conundrum of whether or not people reviewing Harry Potter films should be those who’ve read the books – either way, there would be no point them simply writing about how wizards are made up anyway and shouldn’t be allowed glasses on the NHS.

If you’re going to make a statement about whether or not a film is art, I think you need to see it. If you’re going to make a statement about whether or not you need to see a film to know X, I think you see it, and compare your view on X before or after. I think I’ve missed all the subtle irony you talk about above, because I thought it was a load of pretentious, potentially litigious bollocks.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:19:56 +0000

Thank-you for throwing that information in - it's reassuring that Hart was so massively, terribly wrong. He's actually popped up in the comments to another post pointing how sloppy the review was, at Mailwatch, where he's unapologetic about the inaccuracy and blames the DFI for his poor fact checking. Just miserable.

By: Christian Monggaard

Christian Monggaard — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:19:27 +0000

And I can give you the bonus info, that the Danish Film Institute is fully financed by the Danish government which means the Danish taxpayer’s money.

What an ignorant, prejudiced man, this Christopher Hart. I didn’t know that the Daily Mail was this ‘black’ in it’s politics.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:21:13 +0000

I don’t think you’ll find that aggressively is misspelled anywhere in this post.

(Um, not now, anyway…)

By: MICHAEL WESLEY

MICHAEL WESLEY — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:37:43 +0000

Absolutely!!
I for one wish to see the film and maybe I will haTe it,maybe I will love it,but it will be my choice!
To damn a film without even seeing it is ignorance of the highest order – Christopher Hart,you should be utterly ashamed of yourself!
WHEN you have seen it,then KINDLY OFFER AN OPINION!!

By: Joel

Joel — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:33:33 +0000

If I ever wrote LOL, Sarah, I would write it about this. Two things though:

-Come ON. A tap-dancing execution scene? Dancer In The Dark is *amazing.*

-’Agessively’?

9/10