A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that only 3 percent of 18- 24-year-olds would have picked this still as their first choice to accompany this article, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of the article itself. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.
"All in all, it's been a rotten tomato of a summer for America's embattled film critics.... It's no secret that critics have lost influence in recent years. A recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that among 18- to 24-year-olds, only 3% said reviews were the most important factor in their movie-going decision making. Older audiences still look to critics for guidance, especially with the smaller, more ambitious studio specialty films. But during the summer months, with studios wooing audiences with $40 million worth of marketing propaganda, critics appear especially overwhelmed, if not irrelevant."
-- The Los Angeles Times, asserting that critics are less powerful now than they never were. (8/15/06)
God, I love that paragraph. Go ahead -- read it again. One of my favorite propaganda techniques -- used in politics, journalism, criticism, you name it -- is to present evidence (or, better yet, opinion polls cited as if they constituted evidence) refuting something that was never true -- or even widely thought to be true -- in the first place. It's a form of genius, really -- like the opinion polls asking Americans if they believed Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, presented as though it could be made true if a majority felt it was. (There's another term for this technique: Fox News.)
This propaganda trick is related to the Straw Man argument, where you attack a position somebody doesn't hold instead of the one they do, but you pretend they're saying something they don't believe instead of what they actually said. All it takes is a bad listener. In the case of this article in the LA Times last week, it's made especially compelling by the knowledge that Times management has wasted colossal amounts of money on a poll of youngpeopleoftoday, forcing good reporters like Patrick Goldstein to have to invent something to make it appear the poll's findings meant... anything.
Read that hilariously insignificant statistic from the Times/Bloomberg poll one more time (and take an extra moment to savor the deliciously insinuating phrase, "It's no secret..."): Only 3 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds cited film critics as the most important factor in deciding whether to see a movie. Conclusion: It's no secret film critics are losing influence!!! The mind boggles. What percentage of persons in this six-year age span cited film critics as, say, the third-most important influence? Fifth-most? And what did this same age group say five years ago, 10 years ago, or 27 years ago? The "3 percent" figure is so narrowly defined that it's not just meaningless, but exquisitely, absurdly. ludicrously so. Somewhere, Joseph Heller is laughing out loud. And think about this for just one second: How many 18- to 24-year-olds do you know who depend primarily upon adult authority figures (like critics), above all other influences, to make their media choices, whether it's movies, music, video games, TV, web sites, whatever? Three percent seems a bit inflated to me.
(BTW, what are the ages of the "older audiences" who "still look to film critics for guidance" -- and what percentage of them rank that guidance as the most important factor in making moviegoing decisions about those "smaller, more ambitious studio specialty films"? Man, oh man -- those pollsters ask specific questions! "What is your most important source of guidance for smaller, more ambitious studio specialty films?" But did this Times/Bloomberg poll yield only one quotable statistic? If not, why weren't others cited to put this one in perspective?)
This is the kind of story that is based on "overturning" assumptions that never were. News Flash: Bush administration officials may have underestimated when they said the invasion and occupation of Iraq would cost no more than $1 billion and was unlikely to last more than a few weeks -- or as Donald Rumsfeld said, "I doubt six months." The word, "Duh" was invented for these occasions. If you honestly did not realize how preposterously false the original premises were, then you might get fooled again into thinking the second non-story qualifies as "news." (Follow up story: According to the president, when it comes to Iraq, "failure is not an option" -- even though that is the option deliberately and consistently favored by his administration above all others 9 times out of 10.)
In about a year, expect another News Flash: Poll Reveals Young People in Teens and Twenties Notoriously Unreliable Poll Subjects.
The non-stories in the trades, the entertainment press and the blogosphere about "the waning influence of critics" have the unmistakable whiff of what those in the news business call (with undisguised contempt) "trend pieces." These are usually flabby and unproven, predetermined concepts for stories suggested by editors who don't get out much. They're lazy pieces of pre-fab marketing (not journalism, not criticism) based on a simple formula: Take a minimum of three events or observations -- whether those things are, in fact, related or not -- and package them (rhetorically, at least) to support the single thesis you had before you started gathering data for your story. Voila! You've got a trend piece. Every reporter knows the rule: "Three's a trend."
You'd never know it from reading these 2006 stories that the major studios have always released expensive products that they have declined to pre-screen for the press. Now, we're told, the studios are screening fewer movies for critics. Fewer than when? The 1970s? The 1990s? 2003 - 2005, inclusive? I can't even recall how many such un-screened films I was relieved to be able to avoid when I was the LA-based critic for the Orange County Register in the late '80s and early '90s. But I sure remember the ones I was forced to catch on deadline at a Friday matinee. I hated Madonna all the more (wouldn't have thought it possible) because I had to see the disastrous "Who's That Girl?" at the first public showing one morning so I could write about it that afternoon; and I almost quit my job in 1992 rather than have to buy a ticket to review the excruciating "Christopher Columbus: The Discovery," with Marlon Brando, Tom Selleck and George Corraface, on what should have been my day off.
People who have no understanding of the role of movie critics in "the industry" tend to believe that studios are afraid of bad reviews because they might hurt their big pictures. That's flattering to critics, but it has never, ever been the case. ("Da Vinci Code," anybody?) Reviews rarely keep people away from mega-marketed studio product. The studios do a great job of that all by themselves, without any help from critics.
Take the reviews out of the equation and "Howard the Duck," "Hudson Hawk," "Ishtar," "Cutthroat Island" -- you name it -- would have gotten exactly the same public reception they did. The idea that a review could have changed people's minds about how they felt about these pictures is absurd. Most potential ticketbuyers sensed something about those movies long before opening weekend, and long before anyone outside the studios had seen them -- just as they had a sixth sense about "The Sixth Sense" from the day it opened. Once these movies open, they sink or swim based on word of mouth. The reviews, positive or negative, are forgotten pretty quickly.
As a former "art house" exhibitor in Seattle, I can testify to the beneficial influence of good reviews for films that require what they call "specialty" marketing -- indie comedies and dramas, foreign films, documentaries, revivals and restorations of old films (whether obscure gems or renowned classics), and so on. These are known as "review-driven" movies, and good reviews can definitely help create momentum for them.
Local newspaper reviews used to be critical to the commercial fate of these films in individual markets, but they're less important now that reviews from all over the company are available on the Internet. Now, you can just as easily read Roger Ebert or David Edelstein or Manohla Dargis or Jonathan Rosenbaum as the critic for your local daily or weekly. And if you want a quick overview of the critical reaction, rottentomatoes.com and metacritic.com are just a click away.
But there are moviegoers and then there are moviegoers who read reviews. The latter (get out the Venn diagram here, please) is only a small subset of the former. I also know from reading the mail from readers sent to RogerEbert.com that a lot of people consider the reviews themselves a form of entertainment, even when they have no intention of seeing the movie being reviewed.
So, if you're reading this (and, of course, you are or you wouldn't know I'm talking about you), you fall into a couple of sub-categories: people who like to read film criticism; and people who like to read film criticism, and discuss movies, on the Internet. (Place even tinier Venn diagram here.) Movies (particularly horror movies) are big-traffic categories on the web -- but (as I think we saw with the opening of "Snakes on a Plane"), they draw a passionate and potentially profitable niche audience with plenty of disposable income, but they're not necessarily reflective of the "mainstream" movie audience (i.e., the infrequent, movie-of-the-month crowd required to subsidize production budgets upwards of $70 or $100 million).
If you're a fan of film criticism -- that is, you think film is something worth writing, and reading about, beyond celebrity gossip and box office speculation -- then you are in a minority of people who go to movies in the theaters or watch them on TV or DVD. You may read your favorite critics in newspapers, magazines or online, but chances are, you also read -- or write -- some interesting, in-depth criticism that's available only on the web or in film journals. In other words, it's the stuff most readers metropolitan daily newspapers and corporate magazines like Entertainment Weekly probably don't even know exists.
To Be Continued: "Burying the Lede: Why Most People Wouldn't Even Know Movie Criticism If It Bit Them On the Asp"
One thing these 'Critics are dead' pieces always cite is movies like 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest,' which got bad reviews but made a ton of money, as if it demonstrates some sort of epic out-of-touchness on movie critics' part. It's never presented as a possibility that the movie sucked *and* made a ton of money.
Personally, I like to read reviews of movies after I've seen them. I keep hoping for a new paradigm of movie reviewing that just assumes you've seen the movie and discusses it as a whole. This divorces critics from having to summarize the plot in their criticism, and allows them to discuss the significance of ending plot twists, entire character arcs, etc.
Besides, book critics have been completely detached from sale figures for decades, probably centuries, by now, and almost no one would argue that literary criticism is useless.
Jim,
Good post.
I think your analysis of the "Fox News Poll Mentality" is right on the money. However, I don't think Fox is the cause, but rather the consequence.
I would like to direct you to this Esquire piece by Charles Pierce: http://www.aboyandhiscomputer.com/Greetings_from_Idiot_America.html It is being made into a book.
To summarize, there is a growing segment of America (50.8% according to the 2004 election) practicing proud anti-intellectualism. These people have a general disdain for the well-educated, as well as the factual, thus the premise for Colbert's "truthiness". It feels right, so it must be.
On a tangential note, in my opinion, on top of any person's list of "reasons to see a movie" is personal preference. I thought "The Descent" was a modern horror masterpiece; however, some of my friends just aren't comfortable during horror films. They applied the same standards to "The Descent" as they did to "Hills Have Eyes". A positive critical review made no difference. I think this further shows how irrelevant the LA Times poll is.
"among 18- to 24-year-olds, only 3% said reviews were the most important factor in their movie-going decision making."
Priceless. Simply priceless.
I love how it also groups all critics together and simplifies the equation. How it implies that there's only one use for film reviews, and that there's no variation on the decision making process for people to see films. As if every film choice is the exact same process of mindlessly following our almighty critic masters, "Yes master ... must see Woody Allen's new movie. All hail Citizen Kane."
Generally speaking, I don't even look at reviews for films I'm genuinely interested in seeing until after I've seen them (Munich, for example, I avoided all articles, comments, and reviews and I just went to see it). After I've formulated my opinion, I like to read other people's opinions to compare and contrast views (in the case of Munich, I had a lot of catching up to do.) I especially like to read opposed views because I know my opinion. I know why I like a film. It's more interesting to me to read why someone else did not like the same film (and vice versa) because it's something different. Whether agree or disagree, there's always something insightful and interesting in Roger's reviews. And sometimes I'll find myself liking a film, but unable to put my finger on exactly why. Reading someone else's take can bring the subtleties to light. Sometimes, as was the case with Kubrick's the Shining, I'm inspired to take a second look because of Mr Ebert's review.
I also read reviews to discover films that suffer from poor marketing or slip under the radar. I had absolutely no interest in the Exorcism of Emily Rose until Roger’s review pointed out that the conflict is not what the advertisements showed, but rather proving spiritual beliefs in a court of law – that intrigued me far more than the Exorcist rip-off its advertising lead me to believe. And I was very satisfied with that film, walking out of the theater I felt as though I’d seen something unique. This year, I had no plans to see the Descent (my interest was so minimal that I hadn’t even glanced at the trailers), and then I read your comments (thanks for the warning, btw) and ultimately I left the theater saying, “Man, I haven’t seen a thriller pack that much punch in long, long, long time.�
Lastly, I read reviews for films that I suspect will suck because either A. I’m wrong in my assumption, and there’s the chance it might appeal to me. Or B. it does indeed suck, and, let’s face it, Roger blasting a bad movie is far more entertaining than watching said bad movie (Battlefield Earth, anyone?).
I want to know: where's the poll that represents my perspective and how I use reviews? Where’s the poll that takes into account different uses of reviews for different circumstances and different films? Where’s the poll that acknowledges “Joel Siegel walked out of Clerks 2 because it was too vulgar—awesome, I love vulgar movies. It’s on my list now!�? Since when do you have to agree with a review to get something useful out of it? Where’s the article that points out “a critic’s job is not to dictate which films are good, and which films are bad but rather express their reaction to the film?�
And at the risk of rambling: where’s the article that acknowledges, yes, there is a vast number of critics sitting on a high horse waiting to condescend and lecture the masses which films are art and which films are trash, but also fairly points out that the blogosphere, Ain’t It Cool news, and internet message boards are also vastly populated by outspoken morons who are incapable of civilized discourse, insightful commentaries, and intelligent perspectives?
There’s a handful of critics that I read. There’s a handful of blogs that I read. There’s a handful of films that I go see. There’s so much crap out there that if you randomly seek out a Blog/Critic/Political Commentary probability dictates you’ll encounter a poorly expressed and ill-concieved series of statements that lack any real use (like Clive James' rant.)
Where’s the article that addresses that every single facet of life – all of them – is flooded with the subpar, with trash, with mediocrity, and that it requires critical thinking and inquiries to find the few quality gems? Find me a single issue that has nothing but quality content and commentaries and I will be immensely impressed.
I think this is just another sign in the growing, disturbing trend of breaking an artform down to hard numbers. Execs have been doing this since the dawn of film, but the trend of fetishizing box office returns only hastens the process. Once upon a time you only saw "our movie did such-and-such opening weekend" in ads in Variety. Now I have to see it in my daily newspaper. To get all Little Miss Sunshine on you, we seem to be equating "success" with "quality."
The basic ignorance of those claiming the "irrelevance" of critics is shown by the movies they choose as evidence. The above commenter is right when they mention Pirates 2; the pollsters have apparently never heard of the term "critic-proof." Nor do they take into account that people spend those dollars not as a sign of their enjoyment of the movie, but TO see the movie -- the ticket price paid (and lovingly tabulated by way too many people) is a gamble, not an endorsement. I know of more than one person who very dearly wanted their money back after Pirates 2.
And, all right, I know it's de rigeur for "serious" critics to knock Entertainment Weekly every chance they get. I think it's a touch unfair. I consider myself a serious student of film criticism, and I'd put Lisa Schwarzbaum in my top 5, easily. (I'm less wild about Gleiberman.) The magazine may not do a lot of in-depth analysis; it's also not supposed to. But it isn't devoid of good criticism.
I keep a little blog myself about movies - hopefully discussing them with some level of intelligence. It's something I've been doing by email to a large group of friends for the last five years, and they talked me into putting it on-line. Now none of my friends read it, and anyone that comes across has done a search for things like "Snakes on a Plane sex scene", "Takashi Miike sex", "snakes sex bathroom". I mean, good god, how does one get a good conversation started with anyone when all anyone on-line is looking for is t&a. As you said, I don't even think people of any age are looking for thoughtful comments on film, they just want a quick fix of something else.
dear Lord . . . we are raising 2 teenagers and cannot get them to abide our wishes as parents 3% of the time!! what a completely ludicrous "fluff" piece . . . like the government report that indicates marijuana causes you to be listless and unmotivated. SHOCKING!!!
so let me get this straight . . . 18-25 yr olds (who are not the most avid newspaper readers to begin with) eschew the opinions of "intellectual" movie reviewers in favor of being innundated by crisp studio advertisements on MTV and during "American Idol" to dictate the movies they are more interested in seeing, regardless of quality . . .
someone nudge Sean Hannity and let him know the youth of America are going to hell in a handbasket!!
I happen to fall into that 3%, and that age range (closer to the 18 than the 25), and not to take the absurdity of that opening paragraph seriously, but I don't think that general ignoring of real film criticism is limited to my own heavily marketed to demographic. Most people my age that I've encountered only give the reasons "It looks good," or the variation "I heard it's good." for why they'll see a movie. I like your calling them marketing articles, and the writers patching them together generally aren't of much interest anyway. The slightly similar, although far less ridiculous, A.O. Scott peice you posted some months back was slightly disconcerning, because once the actual film critics start answering the irrelevant quesiton of whether or not film criticism is dying, I think we're in trouble.
I've seen Ebert speak a couple of times and two the times he's gotten asked questions similar to this, and his response is similar to yours, that's simply a media-created theory, just as the box-office decline hooplah was, and that it's both ridiculous and irrelevant.
I'm really glad you opened comments, because I enjoyed reading the blog before, but the discussions that are occuring are fascinating. Thank you.
JE: You're most welcome, Nick! I don't have any polling data I can draw upon to create the illusion of evidence, but my own 30 years of experience leads me to believe that: 1) more people read and are influenced by movie critics than will admit it to pollsters (or, perhaps, honestly even realize it themselves); 2) I've rarely known anyone who was influenced only or primarily by reviews -- though I myself have certainly read a particular review by a writer I like and thought: "OK, I've got to see THAT!"