1. Ordinary Cinema
Criticism as a
Phenomenon of Social
Media Communications
Sergey Davydov, Vice-Dean of Media Communications
Faculty (HSE),
Maria Davydova, Master of Cultural Studies (RSUH)
27/09/2012, HSE, Saint-Petersburg

2. 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.

3. UGC and Ordinary Cinema
Criticism
There 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).

4. Russian OCC Platforms:
Afisha.ru

5. Russian OCC Platforms:
Kinopoisk.ru

6. Russian OC Platforms:
LookAtMe.ru

7. Comparison of 3 Platforms
Afisha.ru Kinopoisk.ru LookAtMe.ru
Movies Yes Yes No
database
Other topics Yes No Yes
(not only
cinema)
Comments on Yes No No
reviews
Monthly Reach Russia – 6,2%; Russia – Russia – 1,6%;
(TNS Russia, Moscow – 20,0%; Moscow – 2,4%
Web Index, 12,9% Moscow –
August 2012) 20,5%

8. Features of Ordinary
Criticism
Interdiscursiveness (“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.

9. Discourse of Direct
Consumption
“В общем, после повседневных "In general, after the daily
дел я включила «О чѐм ещѐ activities I turned on
говорят мужчины» в <movie> ”About What Do
предвкушении приятного вечера,
приготовившись вновь посмеяться Men Speak" in
над забавными нелепостями anticipation of a pleasant
человеческих отношений. А
оказалось, что режиссѐр подложил evening, ready to laugh
своему доверчивому зрителю once again at the funny
свинью, причѐм чрезмерно
приправленную помидорами”. and absurd human
relationships. But it
User «прояснилось». Review on turned out that the
«About What Do Men Speak More» //
http://www.kinopoisk.ru/level/79/user/1 director planted his
274928/comment/1444776/. gullible audience a pig,
overly seasoned with
tomatoes”.

10. “Industrial” Consumptional
Discourse
“Бюджет картины составил “The motion picture
125 млн. долларов, что на 35
млн. долларов больше, чем budget was 125 mln.
первая часть. И дело тут не USD, that is 35 mln. USD
только в распухшем гонораре more than budget of the
Роберта Дауни мл. и Джуда first part. And the problem
Лоу, но и в обилии
спецэффектов в картине, да is not only in a swollen
рекламная кампания была fee of Robert Downey Jr.
более широкой, хотя обычно and Jude Low, but in
маркетинговые расходы не
включают в бюджет фильма”. abundance of special
effects. Advertising
User «Кирилл Киреев». Review on campaign was also more
«Sherlock Holmes: A Game of wide, however marketing
Shadows» //
http://www.afisha.ru/movie/20159 expenses are usually not
6/review/405222/. included into the film
budget”.

11. Figure of the Author
«У меня довольно низкий «My threshold of
порог внимания: через 15-20
мин мне становится скучно и attention is fairly low. I
в кинозале я накрываюсь get bored after 15-20
шубой, чтобы ответить на minutes in cinema. So I
смс. Здесь я даже не
вспоминала про телефон. am covering myself
Сценарий держит в with my coat to answer
напряжении. И несмотря на SMS. Here I didn’t ever
количество сюжетных линий,
ни капли не перегружен». recall about the phone.
The script keeps in
User «Наташа Ярцева». Review suspense. And despite
on «Firtree-2» //
http://www.afisha.ru/movie/2041 of a number of story
58/review/401044/ lines, it is not
overwhelmed».

12. Recommendations
«Фильм строго «The movie is
рекомендован к strongly
просмотру, для всех recommended for
возрастов!!!» all ages!!!»
«Мой вердикт - идти «My verdict – you
обязательно». need to go <and
watch it>».

13. Methodology of
Quantitative Analysis
Movie: “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)

14. Methodology of
Quantitative Analysis
Coding 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

15. 6 Clasters of the Reviews
Poorly reflected emotions
35
40 Emotional recommendations
148
Emotional discussion on the
55 story and actors
Personal emotional
experience and situation of
viewing
73 Detailed analysis of the
movie
104
Discussion on the story and
actors without emotions

16. Characteristics of Clusters
Discussion on the
discussion on the
Detailed analysis
without emotions
recommendation
story and actors
story and actors
Poorly reflected
experience and
of the movie
situation of
Emotional
Emotional
emotional
emotions
Personal
s
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 0,5 1,6 0,3 0,3 1,7 0,4
view)
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

17. Topics of OC Reviews in
Conditional Space “Share of
60
mentions – Analyticity Index”
55 2. Situation of 1. Emotions
viewing connected with
Index of the topic analyticity
viewing
50
9. Recommendation
to view (or not to
45 view)
11. Marketing
aspects 3. Artistic methods
40
12. Personal 4. Place in
35 experience national or
world 10.
5. Work of actors
30
cinema Dramatic
concept
6. Historical reliability
25 of the movie
8. Work of
director
20 7. Technical aspects
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Share of reviews with mentioned

18. Codes for Professional
Reviews
Mikhail Trofimenkov
Mikhail Bondarenko
Roman Volobuev
Gazeta)Volokhov
Larisa Yusupove
(Factorkino.org)
Yuri Bogomolov
Иigor Kamirov
(Kommersant
Arkhangelsky
Valery Kichin
(Rossijskaya
(Sibdepo.ru)
Khlebnikova
Maxim Eidis
(Gazeta.ru)
(Afisha.ru)
Weekend)
(Odnako)
(Ogonek)
(Izvestia)
Veronika
(Utro.ru)
Average
Roman
Andrey
(RIAN)
1. Emotions connected with 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0,3
viewing
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 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0,7
cinema
5. Work of actors 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 1,5
6. Historical reliability of the 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0,6
movie
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,0
(or not to view)
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

19. 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.

20. Thank you for your
attention!
sdavydov@hse.ru