Politicizing reviews

Christian Hamaker, over at the Arts and Faith message board, suggests I’m veering towards Stevens-territory in my blog post on The Dark Knight from late last week. In other words, I’m letting my own politics cloud my critical faculties.

I would argue that there’s a significant difference between professional criticism in an actual publication (like, say, The Washington Times or Slate) and what I would say on a blog. My review of the film for the Times, for example, danced around the political topics, focusing instead on the philosophical implications of terror for both the characters and society rather than whether or not the filmmaker was trying to say that a certain political persuasion is better than another. On my blog, however, I’m trying to spark discussion–and any discussion of this film has to start with its take on the post 9/11 universe we inhabit.

I guess the real question, then, is where do the lines between personal opinion and professional criticism become indistinct? Being a critic isn’t like being a reporter; critics are paid for analysis and opinion, whereas reporters must maintain objectivity at all times. But how much of one’s politics can appropriately be injected into professional work? And what sort of division do I make between professional, published criticism, and the blog? I’m not sure. It’s kind of a quandary. Perhaps I owe Ms. Stevens an apology.