criterionforum.org

Matt wrote:

james wrote:But a Prix de la mise en scène award probably does.

Sure, Christian-Jacque won the same award (over Luis Buñuel, Vittorio de Sica, William Wyler, Vincente Minnelli, and Elia Kazan) for Fanfan la tulipe and just look at the high regard for him.

But surely you'd agree that the 1959 Ben-Hur, Titanic and Return of the King are unquestionably the greatest films ever made?

Nothing wrote:Didn't Grimfarrow die in a ladyboy orgy last month?

You are so desperate for attention that you have to resort to insulting my friend who just passed away.

This is the lowest thing I've ever seen on this forum, and I've been around since this incarnation of the forum started - and before.

I don't mind if you insult me, but to go so low as to throw dirt on someone who had just recently passed away just shows that you truly are human scum.

Too bad filth like you are still alive and good people who make real contribution to cinema have died.

MichaelB wrote:

Matt wrote:

james wrote:But a Prix de la mise en scène award probably does.

Sure, Christian-Jacque won the same award (over Luis Buñuel, Vittorio de Sica, William Wyler, Vincente Minnelli, and Elia Kazan) for Fanfan la tulipe and just look at the high regard for him.

But surely you'd agree that the 1959 Ben-Hur, Titanic and Return of the King are unquestionably the greatest films ever made?

I actually like the '59 Ben-Hur. Though I would never call it great.

[quote=""membrillo""]Good intentions do not make good directors.[/quote]
It's not about 'good intentions' per se, so much as the ability to divine between what is important and what isn't, to understand the role of an artist within society. Of course, that doesn't make Mendoza a good director in and of itself (nor does the award). However, it does at least get him past first base, as I say, unlike any Asian director in the Fortissimo stable that you might care to mention. I therefore await this work with great interest. Hopefully the award will enhance it's distribution possibilities.

p.s. I see Grimfarrow isn't dead after all. That's great!

I'm glad you perfectly understand the role of the artist within society.

An interesting commentary on the subject discussed earlier in the thread. He makes the point softly (of course, this is Screen!), but the interesting thing is that he makes the point at all:

Mike Goodridge wrote:There is a camaraderie in the critical corp: they giggle and jeer and applaud and boo as films come and go throughout the week. There is also much chitchat and comparing of opinion after the screenings and a follow-the-herd mentality appears to sway many who are nervous of taking a stand or would prefer to represent the general viewpoint. While most critics are firm believers in their own opinion, some just don’t want to look foolish by standing behind the wrong film.

Nothing wrote:An interesting commentary on the subject discussed earlier in the thread. He makes the point softly (of course, this is Screen!), but the interesting thing is that he makes the point at all:

Mike Goodridge wrote:There is a camaraderie in the critical corp: they giggle and jeer and applaud and boo as films come and go throughout the week. There is also much chitchat and comparing of opinion after the screenings and a follow-the-herd mentality appears to sway many who are nervous of taking a stand or would prefer to represent the general viewpoint. While most critics are firm believers in their own opinion, some just don’t want to look foolish by standing behind the wrong film.

But that is a reasonable observation of an understandable and human desire to communicate and otherwise share, no matter how benighted it might appear to a perceptive observer. Unlike this:

Nothing wrote: It makes total sense, if you think about it - forming a totality of opinion is the only way for said critics to exercise their power, to try and pretend that they are anything other than vultures preying on the carcass of a once-vibrant artform.

I am sorry to belabor the point, but "forming a totality of opinion" is not something often seen in any human endeavor, especially one as competitive as paid film reviewing. With your remarks, you seem to imply "conspiracy" to what he fairly describes as "camaraderie." Please correct me if I have unfairly represented your point of view.

Mike Goodridge was at Sarajevo last year (on similar Fipresci duties, if I remember rightly), and we formed part of the small British contingent - given the lack of native English speakers, it was an entirely natural thing to do. But we absolutely didn't band together to fix a line on a particular film, and there was plenty of lively disagreement.

Mind you, we generally didn't approach the films being screened there with any preconceptions - most of them were by people I'd never heard of before (the Sarajevo competition tends to be populated by debutants or near-debutants from south-east Europe), so there was a correspondingly greater tendency to focus on the merits of the film itself rather than any attendant reputation or controversy. You certainly wouldn't have been able to do what many people have done in this thread - i.e. build up a firm opinion on a particular film even in advance of its world premiere, let alone actually seeing it for yourself.

The crucial phrase here is "a follow-the-herd mentality appears to sway many", which you are somehow interpreting as "the desire to communicate and otherwise share" - I think something got lost in the translation there...

As I said, this is Screen, an industry publication, he's hardly going to go all out on the attack. He also doesn't go into what it is that sparks or fuels this herd mentality (eg. in the case of UK establishment films & UK critics / editors, the pressure from extremely powerful funding bodies & broadcasters to get behind their product - surely you're not naive enough to believe this pressure doesn't exist?). Beyond this, as I say, I have two witnesses to a drunk, gleeful and very prominent British film critic confessing to such demonstrations of collective power, along the lines of: "this is a film we're going to destroy / deify, let's see who can write the worst / best review". You don't have to believe me, but I trust these witnesses implicitly and therefore know it to be true.

Note, this generally only applies to British films, in which said critics and their friends at Soho House and Grouchos feel they have a vested interest. With foreign films (especially obscure Eastern European films), it's perhaps not quite so pernicious, although the herd mentality obviously still exists... One foreign example I can think of - Dancer in the Dark. Following fairly positive reviews in Cannes, the British press mounted a concerted hatchet job upon release as a kind of punishment for winning the Palme d'Or (Lars does seem to have a particular talent for getting to people...)

Nothing wrote:He also doesn't go into what it is that sparks or fuels this herd mentality (eg. in the case of UK establishment films & UK critics / editors, the pressure from extremely powerful funding bodies & broadcasters to get behind their product - surely you're not naive enough to believe this pressure doesn't exist?).

It certainly exists, but it gets resisted more often than you might imagine. This may be because I read the bulk of the national press across the board and have done so for a good twenty years (it used to be my job, and it's a habit that dies hard), but I'm just not getting the same impression about this so-called "herd mentality". It's not unknown for, say, Peter Bradshaw, Anthony Quinn, Philip French and Nigel Andrews to agree about a title, but you have to admit it's pretty rare that they're singing from exactly the same hymn sheet.

Beyond this, as I say, I have two witnesses to a drunk, gleeful and very prominent British film critic confessing to such demonstrations of collective power, along the lines of: "this is a film we're going to destroy / deify, let's see who can write the worst / best review". You don't have to believe me, but I trust these witnesses implicitly and therefore know it to be true.

Yes, but you post anonymously, your witnesses are anonymous and the critic is unidentified. You may "know it to be true", but why should any of the rest of us believe it?

Not that I'm doubting it happened, as I've certainly seen critics drunk on power myself - but with the arguable exception of Peter Bradshaw (and even his one-star slagging of Mamma Mia! had no effect whatsoever), they know perfectly well that they make very very little difference in the wider scheme of things. So I suspect it was more a case of wishful thinking than anything else.

Note, this generally only applies to British films, in which said critics and their friends at Soho House and Grouchos feel they have a vested interest.

But can you actually supply hard, independently checkable evidence for this? In my experience it's very very rare indeed for the British press to reach an identical positive opinion about a new British film across the board - you're far more likely to get unanimity with something like Rancid Aluminium.

And I'm speaking from considerable experience here, having spent many thankless years trying to persuade British critics to big up British films. Merely getting them to overcome their knee-jerk prejudices about the film's funding body and give the film a fair hearing was a task and a half in itself.

(In fact, when writing the booklet for the forthcoming BFI DVD release, I recently had the weirdly nostalgic experience of re-reading all the British reviews of Chris Newby's Anchoress, whose PR I worked on in 1993 - and they tallied completely with my memory, as there was virtually no unanimity. Most reviews were strongly mixed, but usually for different reasons - though the one that stuck in my mind was Anne Billson saying something like "at least it doesn't look British, which is a definite plus".)

With foreign films (especially obscure Eastern European films), it's perhaps not quite so pernicious, although the herd mentality obviously still exists...

It's not obvious to me, and I work squarely within this particular field. The most recent obscure Eastern European film to get a limited UK release, Delta, got extremely variable reviews ranging from "masterpiece" to "pretentious toss" - there was no evidence of collusion or herd mentality whatsoever. Same with that Tajik film I reviewed a few months back, To Get To Heaven First You Have To Die - hardly any of the reviews were in sync. Even The Man From London got similar treatment.

In these cases, I make a point of reading all the British reviews because mine is almost invariably written and filed before the main national press show so I'm quite curious to see how much it tallies with the so-called "herd". And while I've very occasionally seen evidence that my review was called upon as a fact-checking reference, it's just as likely to be in the context of a somewhat different opinion as anything else.

One foreign example I can think of - Dancer in the Dark. Following fairly positive reviews in Cannes, the British press mounted a concerted hatchet job upon release as a kind of punishment for winning the Palme d'Or (Lars does seem to have a particular talent for getting to people...)

Actually, Dancer in the Dark reflected its Cannes reception by getting strongly polarised reviews in Britain - I went to see it in the first place because the British reviews were so polarised: if I remember rightly, the distributor even made a point of highlighting this in the advertising. It's also well worth noting that that film got much more coverage than the average Palme d'Or-winning arthouse film, thanks to Björk's participation.

MichaelB wrote:you have to admit it's pretty rare that they're singing from exactly the same hymn sheet.. Merely getting them to overcome their knee-jerk prejudices about the film's funding body and give the film a fair hearing was a task and a half in itself.

Peter Bradshaw and Philip French have a degree of independence in comparison to the rest of the crowd. Yet, as I say, find me one example of a Cannes/Venice/Berlin/Sundance selected film, produced by UKFC, BBC and/or Film Four within the last decade, that received anything less than a 3 Star review in a British broadsheet.

MichaelB wrote:Yes, but you post anonymously, your witnesses are anonymous and the critic is unidentified.

Yes. Unfortunate, perhaps, but there it is.

MichaelB wrote:they know perfectly well that they make very very little difference in the wider scheme of things.

Unfortunately not so. Exhibitors will make decisions based on anticipated press response. Of course some films are critic proof and others are not.

MichaelB wrote:[the herd mentality] isn't obvious to me, and I work squarely within this particular field.

Kinatay, Serbis, Brown Bunny, Colossal Youth, The Man From London - all panned into the ground in Cannes in just the manner that Mike Goodridge describes. Waltz with Bashir and Babel are examples in the other direction, very questionable films that were praised to the heavens (and we're not just talking the British press now, but the Cannes press as a whole). Perhaps you can't see the wood for the trees. In any case, I wasn't the one to use the expression 'herd mentality', that comes directly from the article.

MichaelB wrote:if I remember rightly, the distributor even made a point of highlighting this in the advertising.

They may have been quoting the Cannes reviews. I don't know the specifics of this, to be honest, it was actually the distributor complaining to me about what happened back in the day, apparently it had a knock on effect with regards to how wide the release went outside London.

Nothing wrote:Peter Bradshaw and Philip French have a degree of independence in comparison to the rest of the crowd.

Actually, I'd say the Independent's Anthony Quinn is at least as unpredictable and often more so.

And Nigel Andrews in the FT has long been a law unto himself - I remember he and Alexander Walker needed very careful handling because if they liked a title their enthusiasm could make a huge difference (especially Walker, with his high-profile platform), but it was absolutely impossible to predict which way they'd swing. (Unless it was about Northern Ireland and took a pro-Irish line, in which case Walker was all too predictable, but I never had to run anything like that past him).

Yet, as I say, find me one example of a Cannes/Venice/Berlin/Sundance selected film, produced by UKFC, BBC and/or Film Four within the last decade, that received anything less than a 3 Star review in a British broadsheet.

Certainly - Of Time and the City (Cannes premiere, BBC/UKFC support) got slaughtered by the Telegraph. Plenty more on request.

I think the basic problem I have with your argument - or rather arguments, as this applies to your posts across the board - is that you have a tendency to submerge a kernel of truth under a torrent of absurdly sweeping, often invective-laced statements that usually shrivel when set against easily checkable facts.

For instance, while it's not at all untrue to assert that some critics form a loose cabal (which seems to be what Goodridge is claiming), it is patently absurd to claim that they all do, and pretending that they all club together in Soho House and form a pact to boost British films just because they're British runs so counter to the facts (facts drummed into me by years of depressing experience) that the assertion is utterly laughable.

I suspect what's creating this distorted impression that British films get more favourable treatment is the fact that British films have a better statistical chance of getting British distribution than (non-American) films from elsewhere, simply because such distribution is often a binding condition of production funds being made available. In other words, they have a built-in advantage that films by Pedro Costa and Béla Tarr lack, since those have to compete for attention in the open marketplace.

But this is hardly a situation unique to Britain - for instance, France is much more protectionist when it comes to its own national output - and I remain utterly unconvinced by your claim that British critics are part of this process: there's far too much evidence out there to suggest that British films get UK releases despite their reaction, not because of it!

I'm curious, Nothing - who actually comprises this coven of British critics? As Michael suggests, Bradshaw, Sandhu, Andrews, Quinn, French & Romney would be completely bi-polar if taken as a collective voice (the first three in particular regularly see-saw wildly)...

Nothing wrote:Kinatay, Serbis, Brown Bunny, Colossal Youth, The Man From London - all panned into the ground in Cannes in just the manner that Mike Goodridge describes.

Colossal Youth panned? But Costa is the hunter-gatherer festival critics' darling! I know people like Mike D'Angelo weren't on board with the film, but responses like his were more than compensated by, say, the Cinema Scope crew (then, a bit later, take your pick - Rosenbaum, Dargis, Lee, Lim, Quandt, Gallagher, etc). The Man from London certainly had its supporters, and - let's face it - The Brown Bunny is an exceptionally divisive piece of work...

Out of curiosity, I just had a peek at the British films playing in Berlin 2009, and I found a perfect counter-example right there.

Chéri comfortably meets Nothing's criteria, having received its world premiere in competition at Berlin and being backed by the UK Film Council. Even better, it's directed by Stephen Frears, who I seem to recall is one of Nothing's bêtes noires

So by his reckoning all the British broadsheet critics would have given it at least three stars, right?

Well, here's Philip French, with a pretty solid three-star effort (he doesn't give an actual rating, but I imagine few would disagree), saying that "it has a ravishing look. But it remains curiously blank."

And Nicholas Barber's piece is very similar: "as jaunty as Chéri is, it's too bitty and insubstantial to be the tragic romance it tries to become in its second half."

Edward Porter has a near-identical take (literally given three stars): "Despite these virtues, though, it’s not a film of any great pungency."

And Tim Robey, also three stars: "not quite toothy enough as social satire, a little too dry to unlock real pain, full of trinket-sized pleasures that never add up to more."

And Nigel Andrews, which actually reads like a less than three-star review, but that's what it's been given: "the movie is as insubstantial as a soufflé, and less intellectually challenging."

So Nothing seems to be vindicated so far.

But here's Wendy Ide in the Times, accompanied by a mere two stars: "Chéri is rather a limp creation, bloodless, bland and insipid."

While Peter Bradshaw and Anthony Quinn gave it unambiguous one-star slatings: "Michelle Pfeiffer deserved the finest vehicle for her comeback. This is the film-equivalent of a knackered Trabant with four bald tyres and a farting exhaust." I can't find a link to Quinn's piece online, but I distinctly remember the one star, which is corroborated by this blog post.

So there you go - one example (among many) of a UKFC-backed major festival-selected British film that demonstrably received less than three-star reviews from British broadsheet critics. So can we knock that particular canard on the head?

MichaelB wrote:Of Time and the City (Cannes premiere, BBC/UKFC support) got slaughtered by the Telegraph.

Well that's interesting. You do realise, of course, that Of Time & the City was only indirectly funded by the UKFC as part of a regional microbudget production scheme (ie. the employees of the UKFC had no control over the funding decision). Secondly, that Davies is the most prominent and most vocal critic of the UK Film Council (one of the very few to actually speak out) and that all of his fictional feature film proposals have been either rejected or developed into the ground over the past decade, during which time he was sleeping on his mother's floor. That, despite last year's protests with regards to this situation (led by Shane Danielsen, an Australian, natch) that his latest project has stalled once again. Indeed, THIS is the heart of the problem. Sandhu's review might as well be an internal UKFC memo. It reads like one.

Puffball - again, a great British filmmaker, THE greatest living British filmmaker alongside Peter Greenaway. Both eventually released films with UKFC backing after many many years of fraught development. Roeg in particularly, I mean he started developing this fucking thing with them seven years ago, taking endless notes from idiots, children who don't even know who directed Citizen Kane. But Roeg is... a private person, and he's an insider in the classic sense, it would be against his code of honour to speak out about this publically. Nevertheless. There was a sense that UKFC has to do 'something' with Roeg and Greenaway, they were too prominent to ignore. In both instances, then, they dragged the filmmakers through this hair-tearing process, screwed up both films in the process and then, imho, dumped them so they wouldn't ever have to work with either filmmaker ever again. In the case of Puffball, they didn't even try to open it properly - it premiered at the Transylvania Film Festival, ffs! And even so, despite the interference, despite the reviews, these are two of the more interesting British films of recent years.

Cheri - well... now we're talking about such a turd that not even Harvey Weinstein could have put a shine on it. The exception that proves the rule. And yet, three stars from the majority (and they all went a bomb on The Queen & Dirty Pretty Things, which are only marginally preferable).

A bad review of middle-brow producer-led crap like Hunger, Red Road, London to Brighton, This is England, Young Adam, Bullet Boy or A Way of Life, that's what I'm waiting for. The stuff that the establishment lives and breathes, the stuff that truly expresses their ideology. You say "there's far too much evidence out there to suggest that British films get UK releases despite their reaction, not because of it" and, yet, Hunger was recently proclaimed the best film of the YEAR by the accumulated British press corp (+ a handful of friendly foreign journos) in Sight & Sound. Yet there's little love for it on this forum, you will discover. And how can any serious critic find the flock of birds taking flight anything but laughable (even Variety called McQueen out on this one).

Please note, I'm not saying that these critics always agree, what I am saying is that they (and their editors) are under immense pressure when it comes to certain films. The industry is also very good at building momentum, a word-of-mouth buzz and a sense that, if one doesn't support a certain film then one is letting the side down, being somehow unpatriotic. Some do seem to try and resist this to a certain degree, as noted, others seem to relish it, including the subject of my afforementioned investigation, who shall remain nameless.

It'll also be interesting to see how all of this will change in 18 months when the Tories get in. A potential sea-change. Not for the better, I hold no illusions, but heads will roll at the UKFC, no doubt. Perhaps the BFI and BBC too.

Re: Collosal Youth, well I was just interpreting the article. As with Serbis, Collosal Youth was 'rescued' in North America later on, but it's reception in Cannes was pretty catastrophic (for example, it came bottom of the Screen International Jury Grid for that year, as did Brown Bunny a few years earlier - both, ironically, the best films in Competition in those years).

Nothing wrote: (eg. in the case of UK establishment films & UK critics / editors, the pressure from extremely powerful funding bodies & broadcasters to get behind their product - surely you're not naive enough to believe this pressure doesn't exist?).

Uh, no. I recently retired from over 20 years as a professional in a global corporation, spending a large amount of time meeting customers and competitors either in Asia or the US. If I were ever naive (doubtful, that), I wouldn't have lasted past the first assignment. The extremely powerful bodies in a large corporation even have the power to, well, take away your kids' lunch money. But even in that environment, there is no such thing as totality of opinion, even when that opinion is held by the boss with real power. You may have noticed that individuals often have agendas distinct from those of their group.

I'll drop from participation now, as MichaelB is providing on point facts, and I am only submitting generalized opinions.

MB is providing limited on-point facts to try and serve his agenda. I can concede, perhaps, that a "totality of opinion" is taking it a little too far. A broad base of agreement then, let's say.

Nothing wrote:In the case of Puffball, they didn't even try to open it properly - it premiered at the Transylvania Film Festival, ffs! And even so, despite the interference, despite the reviews, these are two of the more interesting British films of recent years.

Off topic, but does anyone know what the situation is with Puffball on DVD? I remember it being listed for release a few months ago, then it was cancelled. I have not heard anything about it being released since.

Don't worry, you can buy the DVD of Hunger instead.

Already have!

Well that was foolish of you.

Nothing wrote:You say "there's far too much evidence out there to suggest that British films get UK releases despite their reaction, not because of it" and, yet, Hunger was recently proclaimed the best film of the YEAR by the accumulated British press corp (+ a handful of friendly foreign journos) in Sight & Sound. Yet there's little love for it on this forum, you will discover. And how can any serious critic find the flock of birds taking flight anything but laughable (even Variety called McQueen out on this one).

While Hunger is fairly rotten, given the taste of the people who post here, I don't think this forum is a very good indicator of consensus opinion on a film. It seems to me that, even outside of the UK, people were in general impressed by it.

Remove the British contingent from that poll and the film only comes in around 5th or 6th place (still highly overrated, but nevertheless). Also consider that there is a very limited sample of foreign journalists involved, so their views are not necessarily representative. On Indiewire's US-slanted poll, Hunger came in 17th (overrated again, but very far from pole position).

Nothing wrote:Well that was foolish of you.

I suppose I'm just a sucker for films where faeces are used in an artistic manner! (cf: Salo)

Nothing wrote:

MichaelB wrote:Of Time and the City (Cannes premiere, BBC/UKFC support) got slaughtered by the Telegraph.

Well that's interesting. You do realise, of course, that Of Time & the City was only indirectly funded by the UKFC as part of a regional microbudget production scheme...

And I hope in turn that you realise that I'm giving off-the-top-of-my head examples (I just happened to recall the Of Time and the City one vividly) and that in no way have I attempted any in-depth research to meet your challenge. Largely because all the evidence gathered even from a superficial skimming suggests that I probably don't need to.

But I love the way you're claiming that all three of my counter-examples are somehow exceptions that prove the rule - even though these were the only three titles I investigated! Just out of curiosity, how many similar examples will it take before you concede that you've made (yet another) wildly sweeping assertion that just can't be substantiated when set against the facts?

Puffball - again, a great British filmmaker, THE greatest living British filmmaker alongside Peter Greenaway. Both eventually released films with UKFC backing after many many years of fraught development.

Well, I only thought of Puffball because I was looking up something else at the time - but regardless of specific production circumstances it's still a UKFC-backed film that got mostly terrible reviews from those critics you claim refuse to go below three stars with such material. (I think mine was one of the few generally positive UK ones - at least ones published reasonably prominently).

Cheri - well... now we're talking about such a turd that not even Harvey Weinstein could have put a shine on it. The exception that proves the rule.

Haven't seen it, don't plan to. It just happened to be the first title I spotted when I checked out the UK line-up at Berlin 2009 (Cannes 2009 being fairly pointless given that none of them would have opened theatrically in Britain). So how amazingly coincidental that I just happened to have alighted on (yet another) exception that proves the rule!

A bad review of middle-brow producer-led crap like Hunger, Red Road, London to Brighton, This is England, Young Adam, Bullet Boy or A Way of Life, that's what I'm waiting for.

I liked the three of those that I've seen - especially London to Brighton, which seemed to me to achieve everything it set out to achieve, and on the kind of minuscule budget that makes me more than happy to excuse rough edges. Again, though, I was lucky enough to catch a very early screening before the hype took over, so I had zero expectations (knowing literally nothing about it or its makers before the opening titles rolled).

The stuff that the establishment lives and breathes, the stuff that truly expresses their ideology.

Now that's a very revealing statement, especially when added to many other similar things that you've written around these parts, because it seems to me that you're basically doing exactly what the UK Film Council does - you seem to vet films according to whether or not they tick particular ideological boxes that meet your approval. You dislike a filmmaker's politics, therefore his films are worthless. You disapprove of certain methods used during production, therefore the film cannot possibly be any good. You don't like the funding body, therefore the film is suspect. In this very thread, you seem to have reached numerous definitive-looking conclusions about films that I suspect you haven't had a chance to see yet, seemingly based purely on your own prejudices against filmmaker or subject matter or indeed critics who express approval or disapproval. So while you often reach different conclusions from the UKFC, how does your own personal method of vetting films essentially differ from theirs, given that the actual content of the celluloid (or digital file) seems decidedly secondary in both cases?

You say "there's far too much evidence out there to suggest that British films get UK releases despite their reaction, not because of it" and, yet, Hunger was recently proclaimed the best film of the YEAR by the accumulated British press corp (+ a handful of friendly foreign journos) in Sight & Sound. Yet there's little love for it on this forum, you will discover. And how can any serious critic find the flock of birds taking flight anything but laughable (even Variety called McQueen out on this one).

Haven't seen it, can't comment. I know this isn't a principle you generally cleave to, especially in this thread, but it is one I try to maintain! (That said, I do plan to watch Hunger, Red Road and In Bruges at some point when my review pile gets less immediately daunting - I've had them on DVD for ages).

Please note, I'm not saying that these critics always agree, what I am saying is that they (and their editors) are under immense pressure when it comes to certain films. The industry is also very good at building momentum, a word-of-mouth buzz and a sense that, if one doesn't support a certain film then one is letting the side down, being somehow unpatriotic. Some do seem to try and resist this to a certain degree, as noted, others seem to relish it, including the subject of my afforementioned investigation, who shall remain nameless.

Yes, but you know as well as I do that a great many critics take a gleeful delight in undermining expectations, often by giving films harsher reviews than they perhaps deserve. And it's hard to swallow these conspiracy theories when they don't match my own direct experience - for instance, as with Looking For Eric, I watched The Queen at what I think was its first ever screening to people outside the production team, and wrote and filed my review in complete isolation, since the deadline was a few days before the world premiere. Now a conspiracy theorist might conclude that the fact that I didn't significantly dissent from the general view means that I must be part of this croneyistic cabal - but I can assure you I'm not. (I suspect I may have been very receptive to The Queen from the start because of the strong parallels between it and Frears' early TV collaborations with Alan Bennett, which I'd recently watched in toto and still think rank amongst his best work).

And, for the record, I have never been under any kind of pressure with regard to taking a particular line on a film, and neither has any of my print reviews been rewritten to such an extent that its meaning has significantly changed - and in well over 200 individual pieces I've only ever had one Sight & Sound commission fail to appear (it was an opportunistic interview that they ultimately couldn't find a rationale for printing). Granted, I'm probably given certain films because there's a possibility I'll like them more than certain other writers (they have a pretty good idea of my tastes by now), but that's the sole extent of any editorial interference that I've experienced.