>The physiognomy of a film connoisseur is indicative not only

File: critic.jpg (22KB, 300x279px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x279px

>The physiognomy of a film connoisseur is indicative not only of the connoisseur's character but the art of film as a whole. Show me one man who has purported to being a fan of film that had was conscious of their health and took care of their physique. No one has ever been able to answer this question and that should tell you something. When you look at someone like Roger Ebert you immediately recoil into a fit of pity and disgust. What a sad fate he endured but that's just nature and biology taking its course. It applies even to the new wave of YouTube critics who purport to be connoisseurs of cinema. They will all share Ebert's fate. It's in their blood. Do you know any CEO of a fortune 500 company who is into film? What about successful politicians? Of course they'll watch a movie every now and then, everyone does. But I'm talking specifically about connoisseurs. This is biodeterminism. Film as an art appeals to the weak, the ostracized, those coping with the ineptitude of their molecular structure. They have nothing else going for them. There's a reason why a connoisseur of film is not appealing to the opposite sex. It's just nature ensuring the strong that only they will survive.

Is he right?