Apologies for the lack of updates on the site in recent weeks. We'll hopefully be back up to speed soon. We're also plotting a possible podcast in the near future. Updates on that soon.
Until the next actual post I thought I'd share the following link to Ebert's latest blog post. He's commenting on the fact that such a large majority of critics (around 84% according to the all-wise, all-hallowed Tomatometer) like Chris Nolan's Inception with a few dissenters (including our good friend Armond White). Ebert notes how many people today feel upset or even angry when critics dismiss films they like, a rather remarkable phenomenon, and is attempting to justify the fact that people are entitled to different viewpoints. As a whole it is a nicely written piece that touches on some of our favorite subject matters here at LWL, i.e. the discussion of art criticism and to what extent such things are limited to mere opinion. Ebert, along with most of his readers tends to think that film criticism is a largely "subjective" affair. Readers of this site will know that I believe the subjective vs. objective dichotomy to be false to begin with. Film "criticism" (appreciation, analysis) is largely a matter of delving into the nuances of art, trying to bring to light the truth and beauty lurking within or to point out to what extent the work of art may obscure said truth and beauty. It therefore doesn't make much sense to me to say that film criticism is simply subjective opinion or objective analysis (how could it be, doesn't there have to be a person viewing the film - what would an "objective" viewer be?).
In any case, we look forward to contemplating this further. Reid saw Inception recently and will hopefully write a review soon. Perhaps we'll even get some angry, aghast readers in the comments section.