Why Do Film Critics Summarize The Plot?

[DonRocks]

I've never understood why film critics feel the need to summarize the plot in their reviews. 

Someone who has never seen the film before doesn't *want* to see a plot summary, because it spoils the movie.

Someone who has seen the film doesn't *need* to see a plot summary, because they already know it.

So why do it?

I can see some legitimate utility in having plot summaries archived somewhere; just not in reviews of the film. If anyone out there disagrees with me, would you mind telling me why? Since the beginning of film history, I think critics have gotten it wrong - in fact, when you read multiple criticisms of the same movie, it becomes downright boring to read the plot synopsis, over, and over, and over again. 

Yes, I'm saying that the vast majority of movie critics are doing it the wrong way, and as a result, their reviews are boring as hell and of very little utility.

If you want to make a comment about a specific part of the film, it's fine to recall that portion of the plot in one sentence, or part of a sentence, but only to establish the point in the movie which you're about to discuss. If someone wanted to write a full-length book which reviews the whole film, i.e., a two-hundred-page review, it would be perfectly justifiable to co-mingle criticism with a plot summary, chronologically, since the entirety of the film is being discussed; otherwise, plot summaries are a waste of everyone's time.

God I love being brash and uppity, especially when I know I'm right.

[Ericandblueboy]

It's a review for the critic but a preview for the reader.  I'd like to know a little about the plot so I know if I'm interested in the film.

[dracisk]

I'm capable of reading a review and not remembering any plot details by the time I see the movie. I'm also capable of watching a movie and forgetting plot details the next day. Basically my mind is a sieve. So when reviews recount important plot points it's helpful to me after I've seen the movie and not hurtful to me before I've seen the movie. (I'd remember if the review revealed a major spoiler, but they usually either don't do that or include spoiler alerts.) I also agree with Eric that it's useful to know a little about the plot so I know if I'm interested in the movie. I also don't usually read more than two or three reviews, so the plot synopses don't get overly repetitive.

[DonRocks]

On 6/10/2016 at 4:11 PM, Ericandblueboy said:

It's a review for the critic but a preview for the reader.  I'd like to know a little about the plot so I know if I'm interested in the film.

On 6/10/2016 at 4:22 PM, dracisk said:

I'm capable of reading a review and not remembering any plot details by the time I see the movie. I'm also capable of watching a movie and forgetting plot details the next day. Basically my mind is a sieve. So when reviews recount important plot points it's helpful to me after I've seen the movie and not hurtful to me before I've seen the movie. (I'd remember if the review revealed a major spoiler, but they usually either don't do that or include spoiler alerts.) I also agree with Eric that it's useful to know a little about the plot so I know if I'm interested in the movie. I also don't usually read more than two or three reviews, so the plot synopses don't get overly repetitive.

Here's a review of "Charade" from Variety Magazine.

Do you really benefit from these five paragraphs? There's no right or wrong answer to this - I'm genuinely interested in hearing your opinions - in my eyes, this is one step away from reading SparkNotes about a novel. Having seen the film, these paragraphs tell me absolutely nothing; before seeing the film, I would not want to know this information.

*** SPOILERS FOLLOW *** (in my opinion)

"While vacationing at a French Alps ski resort, Audrey Hepburn meets Cary Grant casually. Returning to Paris, she finds herself a widow, her husband having been murdered. Aware that her own life may be in danger, she appeals for help to the US Embassy. There she learns that former World War II associates of her husband (about whom she knows very little, one of the plot’s weaker points) and his accomplices in the theft of $250,000 in gold, believe that she knows the money’s whereabouts.

Walter Matthau, her informant, advises her, for her own safety, to find the money (property of the US government) and turn it over to him. He also tells her to contact him, day or night, should she be further threatened.

Grant, who has followed her to Paris, offers to help but turns out to be a member of the gang, albeit as much of a mystery to them as to her. Each time Miss Hepburn confronts him with irregularities in his story, he diverts, but never completely allays, her suspicions with another “charade,” or change of identity. This, plus growing romantic appeal he has for her, both attracts and confuses her.

The associates, one by one, come to grisly ends and the search narrows down to her and Grant. One plot twist is the early exposure of an important clue to the money but one that will probably elude most viewers.

The ending, as in every self-respecting suspenser, is a dramatic surprise, with the real villain’s denouement (it is not the butler), and continues to a trick comedy fadeout. Grant, suave master of romantic banter, makes a choice mate for the always delightful Miss Hepburn. The two stars carry the film effortlessly, with the only acting competition coming from the versatile Matthau. James Coburn, Ned Glass and George Kennedy make an effective trio of villainous cutthroats. Kennedy’s fight with Grant on a slippery rooftop is a real gasper."

---

One thing I find fascinating is that each subject (movies, restaurants, wine, art, music) has certain limits beyond which I find "reviews" completely inappropriate. With wine, for example, a reviewer simply cannot convey too much information, since they cannot possibly ruin the experience for the drinker; with restaurants, I personally think photos take away from the overall dining experience, removing much of the surprise and (dare I say) "romance" from the meal - yes, photos will give you a much better idea of what you may or may not like, but they completely remove the "wow" factor, at least in my eyes. Those are just two examples of a myriad of fields subject to criticism, and each field (depending on which senses it appeals to) should have its own set of standards and guidelines - Music is another thing that's almost impossible to ruin, but I really don't want to see photographs of an art exhibit in advance, although it depends if I'm trying to maximize my total body of knowledge, or maximize my enjoyment of the event itself. Personally, I read reviews *after* the fact, nearly always, hoping to glean some additional insights from what I gleaned on my own. There are exceptions: Shakespeare, for example, is an author whose plays I like to know as much about as possible, since (to me) the story line is almost unimportant, and the artistry lies in the words themselves, and the performance itself - I can't get enough information about Shakespeare, and I could read or watch a single play by him twenty times and still not know everything I want to know; an Agatha Christie murder mystery, on the other hand, is something I want to know absolutely nothing about, as the story line means everything - after the fact, if a reviewer wants to point out an interesting snippet that happened on page 36, and how it pertains to something that happens on page 114; or mention that the object on page 42 foreshadows the action on page 86 - that's the type of information I find interesting and meaningful, and may not have gathered on my own from a single reading of the tale.

[dracisk]

4 hours ago, DonRocks said:

Do you really benefit from these five paragraphs?

That's more detail than I'd need or want. I appreciate some synopsis of the plot to refresh my memory or to help me decide whether I want to see the movie. I'm not sure what level of detail is exactly right, but the level of detail in the excerpt you quoted seems like overkill.

[Choirgirl21]

I am 100% in agreement with you! I don't go out to see movies much at all these days and frankly with the development of Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc I typically rely on user reviews (or number of stars and a quick preview) to decide if I want to stream the movie, but when I did go out and wanted to read reviews to determine if the movie warranted the money I would often start with Ebert's reviews. It drove me insane how much text he devoted to plot summary. I would always just scroll through to the last paragraph or two to read the actual review part. 

[DonRocks]

On 6/11/2016 at 10:07 PM, Choirgirl21 said:

I am 100% in agreement with you! I don't go out to see movies much at all these days and frankly with the development of Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc I typically rely on user reviews (or number of stars and a quick preview) to decide if I want to stream the movie, but when I did go out and wanted to read reviews to determine if the movie warranted the money I would often start with Ebert's reviews. It drove me insane how much text he devoted to plot summary. I would always just scroll through to the last paragraph or two to read the actual review part. 

I don't watch trailers for this exact reason - when I watch trailers these days, I feel like I don't even need to see the film.

[Al Dente]

Why do restaurant reviewers tell us what's on the menu?