Who should review?

I’ve been in a cave most of the time, so it’s just now dawning on me:

No doubt the book will enjoy renwed interest, especially with Brad Pitt on the cover.

When it comes to movies and books like Moneyball and The Art of Fielding (which you just know is going to be turned into a feature film before too long), who should be considered the more credible reviewers? Should it be the person who is more knowledgeable about the game but not an “English major,” for lack of a better phrase? Or should it be a critic who knows all about literary and film criticism but little about the sport?

This piece by David Wade on The Hardball Times is the one that got me going on this search. To quote at length:

The fact that this effort is based on the use of statistics in baseball means most readers of sites like The Hardball Times will likely go to see it. Certainly, it means those who liked the book probably will check it out. That actually poses a few problems for the movie.

Since so many viewers will bring a tremendous amount of subject material knowledge into the theater with them—sort of like a professor specializing in colonial American history sitting down to watch The Patriot—they’re going to have some issues with the film.

The Patriot could have been a meticulous, in-depth study of the Revolutionary War. Instead, it banked on the popularity of a previous (and very popular) Mel Gibson vehicle called Braveheart and more or less made a similar movie with a different setting. That way, it actually had a chance to make money at the box office.

Appealing to the masses doesn’t necessarily mean a particular movie fails, however. If the filmmakers had to appeal only to viewers with extensive prior knowledge of the subject, they may have made a different movie. But they need to entertain what they hope will be a large number of viewers who just want to watch a good story, and that means we inevitably will find oversimplifications.

I guess another analogy would be to have NASA people screen a space movie such as Apollo 13 (as opposed to a Stark Trek product) to see what holds up to actual science and what doesn’t. I’m sure there’s more non-baseball material in the Moneyball movie than the book so the whole thing isn’t just stats and arguments with front office personnel entrenched in the old way of doing things.

Personally, and at the risk of committing blogicide, I don’t have much use for critics. I think a lot of the time I use them to reinforce my opinion for a movie my wife wants to see but in I have no interest. Conversely, if there’s something I do want to watch, I’ll do it regardless of the review. Crazy, huh?