This in reply to some post:
"[b]FILM CRITIC[/b] - deploys a theory appropriate to the evaluation of a film release and configures a methodological approach that acknowledges both the contextual integrity of any given theory as well as the national and/or global significance of a film product under scrutiny"
See, you can do this, but never let the wires show. And you can do it clearly and entertainingly, unlike, uh some "film critics" under this definition.
You should also keep updated, be open to new experiences--not just of new films, but of old films you aren't familiar with. Not just Hollywood, but foreign films, of different countries, documentaries, video movies, all kinds of genres, cultures, formats, whatever. The list is endless.
One unforgivable remark one "film critic" made was "Bollywood films--what do they have to teach us?" This when said "critic" was attending the Hong Kong Film Festival, and a retrospective of some excellent films was showing.
Oh, the sheer ignorance of that statement!
Not to mention the bevy of "critics" who at the MIFF once watched some clips from King Hu's body of work (he was one of the guests, believe it or not). The remark from most "critics" was "ano ba yan, pa-talon, talon, pa-kung-fu kung-fu. wala namang significance."
Again, the sheer ignorance. They shouldn't be staring at their own politically-oriented navel; they should be looking around them, seeing what's going on.
As for trying to put films in "context" or tracing the relationship to the larger social milieu or what have you, anyone familiar with my writings would know I do do that, with the overarching theme that Philippine cinema is as good as any in the world, and should be championed as such; I just don't do it obviously, or stridently, as some do, and I dislike jargon--that's used to make one sound more intelligent.
(con't in next post)