Ordinary Cinema Criticism as a Phenomenon of Social Media CommunicationsSergey Davydov, Vice-Dean of Media Communications

Faculty (HSE),

Maria Davydova, Master of Cultural Studies (RSUH)

27/09/2012, HSE, Saint-Petersburg

Definitions

In a broad sense, ordinary criticism (OC) is a sociocultural

phenomenon, suggesting that representatives of audience

mainly without any appropriate professional background or

statute take the stand of critics of a work of popular culture.

In a narrow sense (and in this report), ordinary criticism is a

communication on special Web-sites or their parts

designed for publishing, reading and commenting on works

of art. Such resources are an example of social media, and

published texts (ordinary reviews) are an example of user-

generated content (UGC).

Ordinary critic is an author of ordinary reviews.

UGC and Ordinary Cinema

CriticismThere are quite many types of USG resources, that can provide ordinary critical content, for example:

social networks (Facebook.com, Vkontakte.ru, Odnoklassniki.ru, etc.);

systems of blogs and microblogs (LiveJournal.com, LiveInternet.ru, Blogs.mail.ru, Twitter.com, etc.);

online shops with reviews and comments (Amazon.com, Ozon.ru, Bolero.ru, etc.)

However main amount of ordinary reviews is published on special online resources that are oriented on producing of OC content (Afisha.ru, Kinopoisk.ru, LookAtMe.ru).

Russian OCC Platforms:

Afisha.ru

Russian OCC Platforms:

Kinopoisk.ru

Russian OC Platforms:

LookAtMe.ru

Comparison of 3 Platforms

Afisha.ru Kinopoisk.ru LookAtMe.ru

Movies

database

Yes Yes No

Other topics

(not only

cinema)

Yes No Yes

Comments on

reviews

Yes No No

Monthly Reach

(TNS Russia,

Web Index,

August 2012)

Russia – 6,2%;

Moscow –

12,9%

Russia –

20,0%;

Moscow –

20,5%

Russia – 1,6%;

Moscow – 2,4%

Features of Ordinary

CriticismInterdiscursiveness (“discursive dilettantes” – Mikhail Lurie)

discourse of direct consumption

“industrial” consumptional discourse

Figure of the author, self-descriptions. Reader is proposed

to identify himself with the author of OC review

Recommendations to view or not to view the observed

movie

Lexical peculiarities (smileys, peggiorativo lexica)

Readers clearly distinguish between two types of texts.

Some constructs that are unacceptable for professional

criticism, are quite acceptable for everyday criticism, and

vice versa.

Discourse of Direct

Consumption“В общем, после повседневных дел я включила «О чѐм ещѐ говорят мужчины» в предвкушении приятного вечера, приготовившись вновь посмеяться над забавными нелепостями человеческих отношений. А оказалось, что режиссѐр подложил своему доверчивому зрителю свинью, причѐм чрезмерно приправленную помидорами”.

User «прояснилось». Review on «About What Do Men Speak More» // http://www.kinopoisk.ru/level/79/user/1274928/comment/1444776/.

"In general, after the daily activities I turned on <movie> ”About What Do Men Speak" in anticipation of a pleasant evening, ready to laugh once again at the funny and absurd human relationships. But it turned out that the director planted his gullible audience a pig, overly seasoned with tomatoes”.

“Industrial” Consumptional

Discourse“Бюджет картины составил 125 млн. долларов, что на 35 млн. долларов больше, чем первая часть. И дело тут не только в распухшем гонораре Роберта Дауни мл. и ДжудаЛоу, но и в обилии спецэффектов в картине, да рекламная кампания была более широкой, хотя обычно маркетинговые расходы не включают в бюджет фильма”.

User «Кирилл Киреев». Review on «Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows» // http://www.afisha.ru/movie/201596/review/405222/.

“The motion picture budget was 125 mln. USD, that is 35 mln. USD more than budget of the first part. And the problem is not only in a swollen fee of Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Low, but in abundance of special effects. Advertising campaign was also more wide, however marketing expenses are usually not included into the film budget”.

Figure of the Author

«У меня довольно низкий порог внимания: через 15-20 мин мне становится скучно и в кинозале я накрываюсь шубой, чтобы ответить на смс. Здесь я даже не вспоминала про телефон. Сценарий держит в напряжении. И несмотря на количество сюжетных линий, ни капли не перегружен».

User «Наташа Ярцева». Review on «Firtree-2» // http://www.afisha.ru/movie/204158/review/401044/

«My threshold of attention is fairly low. I get bored after 15-20 minutes in cinema. So I am covering myself with my coat to answer SMS. Here I didn’t ever recall about the phone. The script keeps in suspense. And despite of a number of story lines, it is not overwhelmed».

Recommendations

«Фильм строго

рекомендован к

просмотру, для всех

возрастов!!!»

«Мой вердикт - идти

обязательно».

«The movie is

strongly

recommended for

all ages!!!»

«My verdict – you

need to go <and

watch it>».

Methodology of

Quantitative AnalysisMovie: “Vysotskiy. Thank You For Being Alive” (Russia, 2011)

Movie Budget: 12,0 mln. USD

Box Office: 27,54 mln. USD

Sources: Afisha.ru and Kinopoisk.ru

No. of Reviews: 455 (273+182)

Time Period: December 1-7, 2011 (first week of distribution)

Methodology of

Quantitative AnalysisCoding on the Following 12 Parameters

Emotions connected with viewing

Situation of viewing

Artistic methods

Place in national or world cinema

Work of actors

Historical reliability of the movie

Technical aspects

Work of director

Recommendation to view (or not to view)

Dramatic concept

Marketing aspects

Personal experience

Codes: “0” – no information, “1” mentioned, but not analyzed, “2” - analyzed

Additional Parameters

Evaluation of the movie

Pressing of “Thank you” button

Positive/negative, etc.

Method of Cluster Analysis: K-Means

6 Clasters of the Reviews

148

104

73

55

40

35Poorly reflected emotions

Emotional recommendations

Emotional discussion on the story and actors

Personal emotional experience and situation of viewing Detailed analysis of the movie

Discussion on the story and actors without emotions

Characteristics of Clusters

Dis

cu

ssio

n o

n th

e

sto

ry a

nd

acto

rs

with

ou

t e

mo

tio

ns

Deta

iled

an

aly

sis

of th

e m

ovie

Pe

rson

al

em

otio

nal

exp

erie

nce a

nd

situ

atio

n o

f

Em

otio

nal

dis

cussio

n o

n th

e

sto

ry a

nd

acto

rs

Em

otio

nal

reco

mm

endation

s

Po

orly r

eflecte

d

em

otio

ns

No. of reviews 35 40 55 73 104 148

At Afisha.ru 10 22 25 27 59 130

At Kinopoisk.ru 25 18 30 46 45 18

Share of cluster in sample (%) 7,7 8,8 12,1 16,0 22,9 32,5

1. Emotions connected with viewing 0,2 1,7 1,4 1,9 1,4 1,1

2. Situation of viewing 0,2 1,5 1,8 0,1 0,5 0,3

3. Artistic methods 0,4 1,6 0,5 0,5 0,1 0,1

4. Place in national or world cinema 0,6 1,3 0,4 0,3 0,4 0,1

5. Work of actors 1,4 1,5 1,1 1,1 0,8 0,3

6. Historical reliability of the movie 0,4 1,1 0,7 0,3 0,5 0,1

7. Technical aspects 1,0 1,0 0,6 0,3 0,4 0,1

8. Work of director 0,7 0,9 0,3 0,1 0,3 0,1

9. Recommendation to view (or not to

view)0,5 1,6 0,3 0,3 1,7 0,4

10. Dramatic concept 1,2 1,4 0,9 1,4 0,6 0,3

11. Marketing aspects 0,7 1,4 0,4 0,3 0,1 0,1

12. Personal experience 0,4 0,8 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,1

Topics of OC Reviews in

Conditional Space “Share of

mentions – Analyticity Index”

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1. Emotions

connected with

viewing

5. Work of actors10.

Dramatic

concept

9. Recommendation

to view (or not to

view)

2. Situation of

viewing

7. Technical aspects

8. Work of

director

6. Historical reliability

of the movie

4. Place in

national or

world

cinema

12. Personal

experience

3. Artistic methods11. Marketing

aspects

Share of reviews with mentioned

Ind

ex

of

the t

op

ic a

naly

ticit

y

Codes for Professional

Reviews

Yu

ri B

ogo

mo

lov

(RIA

N)

An

dre

y

Ark

ha

nge

lsky

(Ogo

ne

k)

La

risa

Yu

su

po

ve

(Izve

stia

)

Mik

ha

il T

rofim

en

kov

(Ko

mm

ers

ant

Weeke

nd)

Va

lery

Kic

hin

(Rossijs

kaya

Ga

ze

ta)

Ro

ma

n V

olo

kh

ov

(Facto

rkin

o.o

rg)

Rom

an

Vo

lob

uev

(Afisha

.ru

)

Иig

or

Ka

miro

v

(Utr

o.r

u)

Ve

ron

ika

Kh

leb

nik

ova

(Od

na

ko

)M

ikha

il B

on

da

ren

ko

(Sib

de

po.r

u)

Ma

xim

Eid

is

(Ga

ze

ta.r

u)

Ave

rage

1. Emotions connected with

viewing

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0,3

2. Situation of viewing 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0,5

3. Artistic methods 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 1,5

4. Place in national or world

cinema

0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0,7

5. Work of actors 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 1,5

6. Historical reliability of the

movie

0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0,6

7. Technical aspects 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 1,4

8. Work of director 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 2 0,8

9. Recommendation to view

(or not to view)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0

10. Dramatic concept 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1,8

11. Marketing aspects 1 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 1,0

12. Personal experience 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0

Some Conclusions

The novelty of the ordinary criticism phenomenon lies not in the

appearance of non-professional critical texts, but in the

appearance of respective communities and particular social

statute, quite attractive to a certain part of the audience.

Texts of OC can be viewed as a separate, but eclectic media

genre. In the Russian segment of Internet there are three special

resources that produce OCC texts:

Afisha.ru, Kinopoisk.ru, LookAtMe.ru.

OC reviews can be divided into 6 mentioned above groups. The

most informative and successful reviews belong to the group of

detailed analysis of the movie.

Professional reviews are more variable in their topical content.

Proposed classification of OCC texts is not applicable to them.

Thank you for your attention!sdavydov@hse.ru