I was on the CBC website, and on the sidebar was Eli Glasner's review of JJ Abrams second Star Trek film. I've had my disagreements with what Mr. Glasner has written before, but different opinions are what make talking about movies so much fun. I think he and I could get along well. However, if he is going to be the film critic for the CBC (a job I would do for free, FYI) then he needs to change his style just a little bit.
 |
| CBC's only film critic, Eli Glasner |
This was written at the top:
*WARNING: Big and small spoilers ahead*
First line and first mistake. Spoiler reviews are for fan sites, places where the people reading it are more likely to be the ones who have already seen it. The CBC is not that place, and you've just turned away part of your audience. If filmmakers can make trailers without spoiling the plot, a critic can write a review with the same restraint.
For example:
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. Bigger set pieces and higher stakes make this the sequel used to measure all other sequels. With the rebels on the defensive from the icy opening, Episode V relentlessly asserts the terrifying power of Darth Vader and the Emperor. 5/5
And I managed to write that without revealing that Darth Vader is Luke's (WORTHLESS PLACE FOR A SPOILER ALERT) father.
I'm comfortable in my knowledge that I didn't spoil anything in that previous sentence, by the way, since it is right up there with the meaning of "Rosebud" for movie surprises that most everyone knows. If it weren't I would have made sure to warn much earlier than the word before, which brings me to my biggest problem with Mr. Glasner's review:
"Trek fans will know him better by his other (SEMI-OBVIOUS SPOILER) name."
Maybe I am idealistic. Maybe I am foolish. But I managed to keep myself in darkness about the possibilities surrounding the new film's villain. There are so many things wrong with Mr. Glasner's word choice here that I felt I had to comment.
1. Putting (SEMI-OBVIOUS SPOILER) in bold capitals draws attention to it. I understand that is usually the point with spoiler alerts, but it is a problem when you consider...
2. Context is everything. I learned the meaning of the word "obfuscate" because it was used in a sentence regarding the concealment of facts. Context taught me a new word, which is what context always does. It is a major part of how we gain vocabulary. Delete the spoiler parenthesis and you get, "Trek fans will know him better by his other name." Oh dear, what could that be? A villain with a famous name in Star Trek history. James T. Kirk is not Batman; he doesn't have a roll call of dozens of famous villains. This is not how you hide facts.
3. Links are words too. Mr. Glasner made the word "name" into a hyperlink to the relevant clip of William Shatner. I didn't need to click on it to get the name, I only needed to roll over and have the web address pop up reveal it for me.
All of my gripes are itty bitty things that most people won't care about. And I will readily admit that the spoiler of the villain's identity was not something I found very shocking since it has been in the rumour mill since 2009. But if Mr. Glasner is going to be the only film critic for the national broadcaster of Canada, then I want him to do a better job.
Film reviews should elicit the same excitement that a movie advertisement can have, urging people to see something good when they may have otherwise skipped it. Or it should dilute the artificial excitement of a well-marketed bad movie so that bad filmmakers stop getting the wrong idea from big opening weekends. This is what Roger Ebert was so wonderful at. He poked holes in the inflated egos of bad movies, and he threw his mighty love of film behind the underdogs that deserve it. And he did this without writing spoiler warnings in bold capitals.
No comments:
Post a Comment