So I watched “‘V’ for Vendetta” last weekend. By myself. I realized I have a problem with ‘critics’ and ‘experts’. First off, if I were an english teacher, I would have my students read “Fight Club” by Chuck Palahniuk and compare it with “The Fountainhead” by Ayn Rand. And yes, that does apply to my rant.
So I’ve never found a movie review I’ve agreed with. Some reviews got kind of close, but I’ve never agreed with their final decision as displayed in ’stars’ or ‘thumbs.’ So why are they there? Why is it that people (Roger Ebert) make their entire living off of movie criticism? More importantly, how is it possible? Because that sounds like a sweet job.
I’m just wondering why someone’s opinion matters that much. I mean everyone knows the best advertisement is word-of-mouth. So do Americans read text from a random movie reviewer on a national or local level and just agree? There’s no trust-based relationship created there to make me want to appreciate the thoughts from the movie critic.
And that leads me to experts. Movie reviewers are essentially experts in their field. And their field is opinion. I mean, sure one can find logical areas to analyze, but it’s really all opinion in the end. The bigger problem is that the news channels shove some face on their screen and call said face shovee an expert. What is an expert? One that knows more about a given topic that anyone else? One who is willing to study a question until their proof overshadows all others beyond a reason of doubt? One who has a degree and professorship and would like to line their pockets a little thicker? Expert schmexpert says I.
American are force fed the news, complete with supporting evidence on a daily basis. We don’t have to think, and boy is it nice. No sarcasm, it really is. I have a problem with concentrating too much on a topic so it’s nice to have the boring topics taken care of by the national news services. The downfall to this is the experts generally don’t agree. Why? because most of what they discuss is in fact opinion.