100 Greatest Wastes of Space

I never watch them, but even if I catch a 30-second snatch they annoy me, those listings programmes they're so fond of on channel 4. Cheap TV. Why is it that people aren't, on the whole, fooled by cheap films (largely unwatched, save festival goers and film club members) but will lap up as much cheap tv as you can throw at them?

These listing shows are all interchangeable anyway. What was it this week, oh yeah, Tearjerkers. What-ever. The really guilty parties here are the talking heads who take the money to make their bland commentary. Jesus, was there ever a more comprehensive waste of space than the average so-called film critic? Now, I appreciate that there have been film critics of import and stature - including all those Cahiers guys who went all nouvelle vague etc. And, of course, I've done the odd Film Studies course myself. Fact, "some of my best friends" are film studies teachers of that ilk.

But give me Emma Norman or Mark Eccleston (if that's how he spells his name?) and I have to ask, what is the point of those people? They're about capable of summarising a plot or describing a scene, but they don't bring any analysis or insight, they haven't got what you might call critical faculties. Honestly.

The bit I caught last night, they were talking about Shane. Talking about what a "great" film it is. Have they seen it? Because the Shane I've seen was total rubbish. Alan Ladd anyone? A midget in a suede suit? About as much charisma and screen presence as a glace cherry. Add the annoying little kid in the movie and you've got box office poison. Yeah, try and make that film today, would you pick Alan Ladd? I'd wager not.

No, what the so-called "critics" were parroting was something they'd read in the introduction or back flap of some out-of-date Film Studies textbook, I bet you. All those types, the Empire magazine types, they wrote for their student newspaper, took one film studies course, and then submitted their first review. Dim as a Toc-H lamp, the lot of them.