I used to think Television criticism has to be objective and based the main elements of TV criticism such as the story lines, camera angle, the rating, some extra meaning behind the show and etc.. I also thought the critic pointed only to the whole show, the whole production team or actors. Alan Sepinwall's new criticism way changed my mind. The week-to-week commentary focused on details of show more than other. It required more fully understand of the show such ad the rabid fans have. I though the criticism became subjective now. The TV critics are not only being a viewer but also only being a fan to write comprehensive and attractive comments. The TV shows update every week and the quality of every season changes quickly due to variety complex reasons. Hense, the TV changes to week-to-week can catch the processing of shows more tightly.
I clicked the link about Maureen Ryan. In the first article The TV Guide, Ryan was introduced as a successful critic so I viewed lots of his commentaries through the link. The newest commentary that he posted was about the come back season of True Blood. I can realize Ryan has followed every seasons of this show and he didn't like the third season obviously. He compared the new changes of new season to third season and recaps some attractive story line for the readers. He was writing the commentary as an audiences but not critics. He is a great example of using the new way to write commentaries like Alan Sepinwall. I like reading his article.
I think it's important for critics to remember that most audiences aren't thinking about camera angles when watching a show they enjoy. Spending too much time picking apart the technical aspects of a show misses an opportunity to consider how the audience emotionally connects to media, regardless of technical (im)perfection.
ReplyDeleteRight. And being a fan-critic usually means you're paying attention to details and intertextual patterns.
ReplyDelete