Which shouldn't be confused with "being critical" because, Lord knows, I'm always ready, willing and able to step up and offer the loose change left from my having spent 98 of a hundred pennies.
But, "critic", by its current cultural definition, implies both expertise and wisdom, cogent perspective and valid analysis.
A reasonable measure by which to judge whether we should, or should not, like or dislike something.
Pish.
And would you like tosh with that?
Lest you already be loading up the word hypocrite in your retort revolver, allow me to disarm you.
The admittedly hair thin, but, I would offer, key distinction between my readiness to be critical and my disdain for "critics" isn't about presentation, though, as much as it is purpose.
When I'm critical of something, I'm expressing my personal opinion for no more reason than to express it.
"Critics", meanwhile, are, by the current cultural tradition, implying that you should, or should not, buy, watch, listen to, participate in and/or endorse the particular product, program, music, event, et al that they are "critic-ing".
You see, I can't even bring myself to use the word criticize in that context, let alone refrain from employing quotation marks when writing the word "critic".
Because, in nothing more or less than my personal opinion, a "critic" is to criticism as a "pundit" is to political perspective.
An individual who, through bluster, bravado, fate, fortune and/or a world class talent for shoveling copious amounts of horse hockey has managed to convince large numbers of people that they should be paid for their opinions.
Think consultants and subtract graduate school and/or a rolodex of business contacts that could choke the hockey manufacturing horse.
As opposed to those of us who just have an opinion and let it loose, free of charge, every now and then.
In the latter category, at this writing, we find yours truly.
Meanwhile, in the former, the name Brian Lowry suddenly springs to mind.
Lowry is credited as being the "TV columnist" for the online edition of Variety Magazine.
Damn.
There's those pesky quotation marks again.
I suspect it might be because, lacking a mama who didn't raise no fool, I'm probably correctly suspicious that use of the term "TV columnist" is designed to, if only subliminally, put a shiny coat of credibility on the nametag Lowry wears, lest there be any cynics in the crowd, like, for example, myself who would already be turning a deaf ear in the direction of anybody wearing a nametag with the dreaded C word on it.
Either way, in the course of looking up some information about a documentary series that I have been particularly enamored of in recent weeks, I came across the following "review" of said series, written by Mr. Lowry, the, say it with me, "T V c o l u m n i s t".
Tethered to the rather sobering notion that the youngest baby boomers are turning 50 this year, CNN’s “The Sixties” provides a nostalgic if not particularly insightful look at that tumultuous decade, one that inevitably features considerable overlap as it crisscrosses from topic to topic.
Produced by Tom Hanks and properly littered with both experts and participants in its history, the 10-part production is a classy trip, but as constructed (with occasional exceptions), not quite the magical history tour it might have been.
So much went on during this formative period that it’s difficult to choose where to begin. Moreover, an hour devoted to Vietnam can’t help but bleed into others subtitled “The British Invasion” and “Sex, Drugs, and Rock ’N’ Roll.”
Perhaps appropriately, “The Sixties” opens with “Television Comes of Age,” charting the advancement of the medium’s influence, starting with the Kennedy-Nixon debates, and proceeding through JFK’s assassination (“the moment television journalism comes of age,” says Dan Rather), as well as groundbreaking programs like “Star Trek,” “The Smothers Bros. Comedy Hour” and “Laugh-In.”
Among the handful of segments previewed, the best is clearly a two-hour installment (the other extended chapter addresses the Civil Rights movement) that chronicles the Kennedy assassination and its aftermath, including the skepticism that followed the Warren Commission Report and attempts in its wake to prove a conspiracy.
For all that, what’s largely missing from “The Sixties,” despite its meticulous detail in capturing these memorable events, is how much they resonate to this day, and the oversized influence that decade continues to wield over modern-day culture. Indeed, “Mad Men” has drawn much of its relevance from the desire to keep re-litigating the ’60s politically, and addressing at least some of that within the documentary would only have made it richer and more contextual.
Instead, “The Sixties” primarily plays like an opportunity for those who actually experienced the changeover from black-and-white TV to living color to re-experience that glow, without necessarily bridging the gap for a younger generation weaned on having access to all that entertainment and more in its pocket.
At its best “The Sixties” is admirable, but to riff on an old promotional slogan, it isn’t all that it could be: Yes, it’s an exercise that might capture the magic of landing on the moon, but doesn’t take the extra step that would send viewers over it.
Okay, first, credit where due.
I'm a fan of clever writing style.
And, all of his slant on the series notwithstanding, Mr. Lowry did wrap it all up nicely with that fun connecting/contrasting of the decade concluding drama of the 1969 landing on the moon with the failure, in his eyes, of the series itself to "send viewers over it".
Clap, clap, Brian.
Ralph Kramden couldn't have sent Alice lunar bound with any more wit than that.
Meanwhile, back at the "review".
I've watched the first five installments of the series.....
Television Comes Of Age...the advent of the television era...
The World On The Brink....the story of the Cuban missile crisis...
The Assassination Of President Kennedy.
The War In Vietnam.
A Long March To Freedom...the civil rights movement...
From the get go, I looked forward to these shows and this series in general, primarily because, going in, I knew that they were produced by Tom Hanks, Gary Goetzman and Mark Herzog.
Herzog, the producer of the award winning "Gettysburg".
Goetzman, the producer of the remarkable "John Adams" for HBO.
Hanks, of course, the Oscar winning actor, but the accomplished producer of, among other projects, the superior HBO mini-series portraying the American space program from its primitive beginnings, culminating in the aforementioned landing of men on the moon in 1969, "From The Earth To The Moon".
All of this classy stuff from some producers who obviously have more than just a little game.
At this writing, the first five episodes of "The Sixties" have more than met my expectations.
In fact, in the case of both the JFK and civil rights installments, I was impressed enough to start composing thoughts to share my enthusiasm about them, and the series in general, on my Facebook page which then evolved into an idea for a whole essay for this blog site which had me researching a fact or two which led me to.....
the "review" written by Mr. Lowry.
Which will bring us back to do-re-me-so, here we are.
At this point, a point need be made.
I'm not faulting Brian Lowry personally or, for that matter, his opinion.
He's entitled to it.
The only problem that I have with his sharing here is the essentially the same problem I always have when it comes to "critics".
Let's call it the "formees"
And that Lowry leaves them out.
With the assistance of a little copying and cutting and pasting, allow me.
Tethered to the rather sobering notion that the youngest baby boomers are turning 50 this year, CNN’s “The Sixties” provides a nostalgic if, FOR ME, not particularly insightful look at that tumultuous decade, one that inevitably features considerable overlap as it crisscrosses from topic to topic.
Produced by Tom Hanks and properly littered with both experts and participants in its history, the 10-part production is a classy trip, but as constructed (with occasional exceptions), not, FOR ME, quite the magical history tour it might have been.
So much went on during this formative period that it’s difficult, FOR ME, to choose where to begin. Moreover, an hour devoted to Vietnam can’t help but bleed into others subtitled “The British Invasion” and “Sex, Drugs, and Rock ’N’ Roll.”
Perhaps appropriately, “The Sixties” opens with “Television Comes of Age,” charting the advancement of the medium’s influence, starting with the Kennedy-Nixon debates, and proceeding through JFK’s assassination (“the moment television journalism comes of age,” says Dan Rather), as well as groundbreaking programs like “Star Trek,” “The Smothers Bros. Comedy Hour” and “Laugh-In.”
Throughout, there are fascinating clips, quotes and tidbits, like a young Ralph Nader saying TV is “the medium that’s either going to save America or send it down in demise,” or a young Mick Jagger being asked — two years into his stardom — how long he thinks he and the Rolling Stones can continue to perform. During the segment devoted to Vietnam, there’s also chilling audio of President Johnson confiding to aides regarding the war, “I don’t think it’s worth fighting, and I don’t think we can get out.”
Among the handful of segments previewed, the best, FOR ME, is clearly a two-hour installment (the other extended chapter addresses the Civil Rights movement) that chronicles the Kennedy assassination and its aftermath, including the skepticism that followed the Warren Commission Report and attempts in its wake to prove a conspiracy.
For all that, what’s largely missing, FOR ME, from “The Sixties,” despite its meticulous detail in capturing these memorable events, is how much they resonate to this day, and the oversized influence that decade continues to wield over modern-day culture. Indeed, “Mad Men” has drawn much of its relevance from the desire to keep re-litigating the ’60s politically, and addressing at least some of that within the documentary would only have made it richer and more contextual FOR ME.
Instead, “The Sixties” primarily plays, FOR ME, like an opportunity for those who actually experienced the changeover from black-and-white TV to living color to re-experience that glow, without necessarily bridging the gap for a younger generation weaned on having access to all that entertainment and more in its pocket.
At its best “The Sixties” is, FOR ME, admirable, but to riff on an old promotional slogan, it isn’t all that it could be FOR ME: Yes, it’s an exercise that might capture the magic of landing on the moon, but doesn’t take the extra step, FOR ME, that would send viewers over it.
Again, nothing personal there, Brian.
I have this same little itch of an issue every time I sit down with the wife to enjoy an episode of the cooking competition show, "Chopped".
If you haven't seen it, in a nutshell, four chefs compete in three elimination rounds judged by three, wait for it, "experts" (read: chefs who, as opposed to the talented but basically unknown competitors, have a certain name, ergo celebrity value) who rate their food on creativity, presentation and, oh, yes, flavor.
My wife is a lovely person.
With an infinite amount of patience.
As you might imagine.
Not the least of which is demonstrated as, with each "critique" by the three judge chefs of the respective competing chefs, I do a little game of "interjection" into their comments.
For example....
Judge Chef offers: "I love what you did with the moose meat, Competing Chef Fred, it had nary a hint of antlers which, as we all know, just like shell left in the crab bisque, can be a real buzzkill during pre-main course chit chat, but the maple flavored WD-40 sauce lacked a certain zing....."
It's usually about that time I armchair add a resounding "FOR ME!" to the analysis.
At which point my wife smiles softly, quietly continuing to multi task the viewing of the competition with conquering the next level of Candy Crush, all the while indulging me my aggressive asterisking of the cook fest.
I wonder if Brian Lowry's wife ever yells out "FOR ME!" when reading her husband's reviews.
Probably not.
Most likely because Brian's totally subjective assessment of whatever it is he happens to be assessing at any given time probably, at least, pays for the data plan on that smartphone that Mrs. L uses to conquer the next level of Candy Crush.
Whereas my two cents creates a cash flow of less than two cents.
At the same time, I'm not expecting you to like or dislike, even watch or not watch, what I think to be a remarkable documentary simply on the basis of you reading here that I think The Sixties, produced by Tom Hanks, Gary Goetzman and Mark Herzog is a remarkable documentary.
Because, after all, we all, all of us, are entitled to our own opinion.
Quote, unquote.
No comments:
Post a Comment