ProvidenceMine is back, Dear Readers!
As you might have guessed, I'm not finished with the last chapter of my story yet, but stay tuned!
I have just finished watching a Netflix original series called The Witcher, and I really enjoyed it.
No, it is not a masterpiece, and as far as fantasy goes it is not The Thief of Bagdad. It is, however, a binge worthy show that is fun, escapist fair. It is not Game of Thrones, and thank goodness, as that show for me was nothing more than something to watch in reruns whenever I happened to be suffering from insomnia on any given night.
I want to make it clear that I am not going to write a review of The Witcher, as that is not what I normally do. What I will do is comment on a certain critic who reviewed this show quite unfavorably in a magazine that I rarely, if ever, read-and that's Entertainment Weekly, and the critic is Darren Fanich. I will point out that I don't know if I spelled his last name correctly, and I really don't care if I did or not-mainly because I don't really have much respect for critics of film or television.
Now, this Darren Fanich didn't like the series, along with a female colleague of his whose name escapes me, from lack of even a faint interest in her identity. I don't really have a problem with anyone who didn't like the series, as everyone has a right to their opinion. However, I have a big problem with anyone who claims to review a whole movie or series when they have not done so. It turns out, according to one of the story forerunners of The Witcher ( I don't know your name, forgive me ) this Darren Fanich, who gleefully tore this show apart along with his nameless, faceless, co-writer, had only watched Episodes One, Two, and Five.
There are eight full episodes of The Witcher...
...count them-EIGHT!!!
He didn't even watch them in order, for Christ Sake!
Considering that this Fanich person has a job that many people would kill for, sitting on his butt all day critiquing the creativity of others while not appreciating the hard work that goes into their projects, I can't understand why it was so difficult to simply sit down and watch one season of a streaming series. Face it, this man is getting paid to do something that many people don't even consider to be a real job-because watching movies and tv for a living is basically hanging out for pay compared to what health care workers, delivery workers, school teachers, and other workers with real jobs have to do.
Why then, would Entertainment Weekly even count this as a real review? Maybe the female critic should have reviewed this show by herself, if she is a more honorable person and saw the whole show.
Let me recount something here. Way back in the day I was sitting in a movie theater watching a small arthouse film starring Ed Harris and Blair Brown, and who did I spot but the film critic Jeffrey Lyons. Watching him was actually more entertaining than the film itself, as he squirmed in his seat, got up, and walked out of the mezzanine. Next, he stood right outside the mezzanine hall where he even greeted some viewers who were leaving the film with a smile that said "Boring, am I right?" A few minutes later, he was gone. He didn't even bother to stay for the whole movie. I can remember looking for his review of this film in the places where he worked as a critic, and guess what? There were no reviews of this film by him anywhere-not WPIX News, not at the radio station where he worked and not At the Movies with Neal Gabler. Why were there no reviews of this film by Jeffrey Lyons, you may ask? Because Mr. Lyons, being an honorable man, didn't write a bogus review where there was no review to be had.
Another example of an honorable film critic is David Denby, formerly of New York Magazine. I can remember the list of movies in his index where you could see films he reviewed, films he hadn't reviewed yet and films that he never got around to reviewing, probably because he had no intention of reviewing them as they were probably not films to his taste.
I've seen many reviews of The Witcher, most of them being positive. What I did notice was that if only a few episodes were viewed it was clearly noted, so you knew that you were not getting a full review of a series. In one of the poorer reviews, a critic on his blog talked about what the series needed in order to improve as it entered its Second Season. Why was he able to give an intelligent assessment? Because he watched the whole season. While I didn't agree with his conclusions, I was at least able to appreciate his clearly thought out points.
I am not saying that you have to like The Witcher, or anything that you sit down to watch, but as a paid critic who is supposed to be a 'trusted' voice in what to recommend to viewers, Mr. Fanich's review falls way too short. Even with the hand holding that he got from his female colleague, it is not the same as if he had watched the whole series himself. I would go as far as to say that Mr. Fanich's review, or his part of it, should have been edited out of the final review. His contributions were at best thin and at worst unnecessary.
I think Darren Fanich would do well to make more of an effort to do what he's being paid for. His livelihood is already in grave danger, as sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are taking reviews and watering them down to nothing more than scorecards, and with the huge numbers of citizen critics on blogs, YouTube and social media, the professionalism and exclusivity of film and tv critiquing is most assuredly disappearing from any kind of relevance.
Bye for now,
ProvidenceMine :D
