Without making a big deal of it, New York Times critic A.O. Scott slyly slips several sharp observations about the role of movie critics into this paragraph from his review of "The Fantastic Mr. Fox":
Is it is a movie for children? This inevitable question depends on the assumption that children have uniform tastes and expectations. How can that be? And besides, the point of everything [director Wes] Anderson has ever done is that truth and beauty reside in the odd, the mismatched, the idiosyncratic. He makes that point in ways that are sometimes touching, sometimes annoying, but usually worth arguing about. Not everyone will like "Fantastic Mr. Fox"; and if everyone did it, would not be nearly as interesting as it is. There are some children -- some people -- who will embrace it with a special, strange intensity, as if it had been made for them alone.
Those words could well have been written about Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers' "Where the Wild Things Are" a few weeks ago. And, in between "Wild Things" and "Mr. Fox," Scott published an interesting piece about what constitutes a "movie for children." He writes of sitting at the back of a theater showing "Wild Things":
The film had just opened to reviews that ranged from grouchy to ecstatic, and to quite a bit of hand wringing about its dark, sad, scary or otherwise non-child-appropriate content. There was a lot of speculation too about the size, composition and receptivity of the audience. Would children embrace it? Would adults be scared off? Who was this movie -- so melancholy in its whimsy, so rueful in its sentiment -- really meant for?
The answer, I believe, is probably more the concern of the studio marketing and accounting departments than of the critic. Of course it's wise for a reviewer writing for a general readership to address the consumer-report question of whether, in his/her judgement, the movie is addressing the same audience as, say, a beloved children's book. (Kids don't read reviews, but parents sometimes do.) But in terms of criticism, as Scott suggests, that observation ought to form the germ of a possible discussion about one aspect of the movie, not the Final Word.
Which brings up another question: How far can a critic responsibly go in claiming to speak for a by-no-means-homogeneous hypothetical audience (kids of a certain age? horror fans? animation aficionados? Jerry Lewis appreciators?) to which he¹ does or does not belong? Is it really desirable for a critic to offer an opinion -- based on a hunch or an educated guess -- about what persons in some other vaguely defined group will make of a particular picture? What's the point? I'd rather the critic speak for himself, tell me what he saw, not pretend to speak for me or anyone else. (Isn't that the definition of "presumptuous"?)² It's one thing for a critic to say "I rate this highly" or "I recommend this." But it's crossing the line to say "You should see (or not see) this." (To quote Principal Poop's heckler in "High School Madness": ""That's metaphysically absurd, man, how can I know what you hear?")
To me, a critic who makes explicit judgements he is not qualified to make is sidestepping his real responsibility. Don't come out and tell me you think I should "see it," "rent it," "wait for cable," "picket the theater" or "run away." I can make those decisions for myself. Just tell me about your experience, what you observed and what you make of it. (And, speaking as somebody who writes about movies, don't ask me to tell you if a movie is right for your kids. You live with them. I don't.)
It may seem pretty obvious to say, as AOS does, that "not everyone will like" a certain movie -- but he does so in the context of his "Mr. Fox" review to make a point similar to one Mark Harris wrote about a couple weeks ago ("Want to Start a Fight?"):
Anyone who has ever liked a film that most people hated has learned the hard way that it's much easier to tear a movie apart than to patiently explain why you loved it to people who didn't; you can end up feeling mocked and belittled just because a film touched you. And anyone who has ever hated a movie that everyone else liked knows the unpleasant sensation of being glowered at as if only some deficiency in your brain, heart, or soul could have prevented you from grabbing a seat on the Happy Train. We're about to begin the long march through Oscar season, a period that I fear will, this year, provide too few argument-starting films. When they come along, we should count ourselves lucky -- and I'm tempted to say we should play nice, except that such a bland little homily could not be less in the spirit of "Where the Wild Things Are." So instead I'll say, go wild! Have the fight, and encourage everybody else to have the fight too, or Hollywood will continue on its dull path of making nothing worth fighting over.
So, um, has anybody read the reviews for "Precious Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire"? I've only dabbled, trying to avoid reading very much in advance, but the thing won Sundance last January and now that it's being rolled out across the country (to boffo b.o. last weekend), I haven't been able to notice that certain kinds of critical hysteria are building. More on that later...
* * * *
¹ or she
18 Comments
A: "There are some children -- some people -- who will embrace it with a special, strange intensity, as if it had been made for them alone."
Yes, that can very much be said of "Where the Wild Things Are" as well, because that's just about exactly how I felt about that movie. :P
B: I first saw the "Fantastic Mr. Fox" trailer when I went to see "Paranormal Activity" (strange combo there), and I've been super-excited to see it since. I remember reading somewhere or other that "Fantastic Mr. Fox" wouldn't so much be an animated movie directed by Wes Anderson but a Wes Anderson Movie that happened to be animated, and that trailer definitely seemed to confirm this to be true. Can't wait for that one.
C: Completely agree about the role of critics when it comes to whatever a movie's "audience" is supposed to be. Not to get all self-promotiony or anything, but I've had some (pretty limited) experience writing video game reviews, and I've found that at least this particular issue is very much the same: When it comes to something that's obviously intended for a certain "target demographic" (like, say, kids), the best you can do is provide your own opinion on it, explain any reasons why the target demographic's opinion may differ (and I think there is a small difference here with games since some that are made for kids are deliberately simplified, which you have to at least acknowledge and take into account a little bit -- for better or worse), and leave it at that. To write a review from "the audience's perspective" is not only disingenuous, but impossible. Any writer (and this seems to exist a lot more with game reviews than movie reviews) who thinks they can actually write an "objective" review is kidding themselves. I'm often not even sure what people mean when they use the term "objective review," or if they even know what they mean. There is no such thing, outside of a Screen It-style accounting of what kind of content you'll be exposed to and nothing else.
The "audience" is a lot of people. You can strive pointlessly for "objectivity" or to assume a certain "perspective" as much as you want, but no matter what the review says, someone's probably going to disagree/get pissed off/think you're crazy.
Is it really desirable for a critic to offer an opinion -- based on a hunch or an educated guess -- about what persons in some other vaguely defined group will make of a particular picture? What's the point? I'd rather the critic speak for himself, tell me what he saw, not pretend to speak for me or anyone else.
Great topic and great question, Jim. I want to agree with you completely but I can't because, quite honestly, sometimes my own reaction is to see a film with another set of eyes. There have been a number of times over the years that watching a movie that isn't affecting me I've thought of my little brother, a whopping 18 years younger, and known, "He'd love this!" As a result, I'd see the movie somewhat through his eyes.
Now, if I were reviewing the movie, would I write it only through the eyes of my little brother, as presumed by me? Of course not. I wouldn't even know how to do that. I guess what I'm suggesting is that perhaps the same quality in passionate moviegoers (a club to which I hope all critics belong) that drives them (us) to the theater to empathize and experience the world through the characters on screen might also allow us to get out of our own heads long enough to see a film with another set of eyes.
Though I agree with you that those struggling to classify The Fantastic Mr. Fox or Where the Wild Things Are are wasting time on an empty subject, I also think that the attempt to evaluate one's own reaction to a film by imagining how others might see it isn't without value. In fact, it's probably a good thing. It all comes down to what you do with that interpretive thinking. I wouldn't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
"We're about to begin the long march through Oscar season, a period that I fear will, this year, provide too few argument-starting films."
I'm kind of going off on a tangent, but this quote seemed to me to imply that this writer thought 2009 has shaped up to be a somewhat lackluster year for movies.
I haven't seen enough of this year's releases to form an opinion. But even if that is true, I feel that the slew of best-of-the-decade lists will help to remind people that even if 2009 (and 2008 for sure) were somewhat less than stellar years for movies, we are coming off a very rich decade.
It seems like every other year, people are declaring the death of the cinema based on what they perceive to be a weak year's worth of material. That's why it's always advantageous, I believe to stand back and take a longer view.
And looking over the past ten years, I think it's hard to see the state of film (at least the films themselves -- the future of distribution is something of a question mark) as quite strong.
Not to be politically correct, but wouldn't a critic's fitness to judge if a particular audience would love a movie depend on the critic's familiarity with that audience?
By their nature, critics will be lightning rods for opinion - they publish theirs, and get others in return. If a critic reviews a movie based on a video game, and
- has reviewed others of that genre before, and
- receives feedback, and
- is attentive to that feedback,
then he/she will be in a position to make a judgment on whether the video game fanboy/girl audience might like that movie or not. No?
I admit this might be harder with "kids' movies", as kids tend to be less readers of critics and still less responders to critics. Then perhaps the critic has to rely on kids he/she knows personally, and their reaction to the film. But still, as long as one follows the general principle of listening to feedback and respecting it, why should a skilled critic not be able to make an assessment?
I agree completely with Kris (on part C that is). I think a critic needs to be far more concerned about HIS/HER target audience than the target audience of the film (or game or book or whatever).
If you'll allow me to advance a theory, perhaps we can define the target audience of a film critic as people who love movies. Maybe the kind of person that, even if they're not normally inclined to a certain type of movie (say horror, romcom, political thriller, kids movie, etc), they would still appreciate greatness when they saw it (Jaws, When Harry Met Sally, All the Presidents Men, Pinocchio, etc).
People that only go to movies to see gunfire or Brad kissing Angela probably don't have much use for film criticism. Trailers will do just fine.
This is getting into murky waters, but I think that certain critics (the ones I tend to value) should write about how they respond to a film personally, without making guesses about whether or not someone else will enjoy or dislike that film.
However, and here's where the murkiness comes in, I do think that some high-profile critics (such as Roger Ebert or A.O. Scott) might be providing the only information that some people get for a film before seeing it, and as such they may have an extra duty to, if not predict likes or dislikes, at least modify expectations. This to me is the difference between a reviewer (which is I think what Ebert, bless him, has become) and a critic. For example, if I'm a forty-five year-old parent who doesn't really follow film culture and may not have even heard of Wes Anderson or Spike Jonze, a reviewer should let me know that "Fantastic Mr. Fox" or "Where the Wild Things Are" is going to be more idiosyncratic, personal and (in the case of "Wild Things") potentially dark than a film like, say, "Ice Age 3". That doesn't mean the reviewer should then make a prediction as to whether or not it will still be enjoyable.
David Edelstein and Roger Ebert had a great discussion on this in the Slate Movie Club of, I believe, 1999 (in fact I'm quite sure it was that year, because the film that brought the discussion up was "The Green Mile"). Edelstein chastised the film (correctly, I believe) for dabbling in stereotypes and character shorthand. Ebert agreed with Edelstein in principal, but mentioned that "for the majority of the audiences seeing "The Green Mile", it will teach them to be more tolerant...etc, etc.". Ebert was essentially putting himself in the shoes of a perceived audience, and Edelstein openly conceded that Ebert is in a precarious position of being so famous that he has to at some level be not only writing about the film he saw, but guiding different tastes as well. Ebert mentioned that Pauline Kael had a similar style of "writing for average moviegoers for herself", to which Edelstein had the great retort: "she actually wrote for ideal moviegoers like herself". That's what I treasure in a critic, when they speak personally and thoughtfully about what they have seen without feeling the need to talk down to "lesser" tastes, but I do have some sympathy for the Eberts and the Scotts who have achieved such a level of fame that they have to keep one eye on the rest of the world.
This is something that really annoys me about a lot of contemporary film criticism, even from folks whom I respect and enjoy reading otherwise. Unfortunately, because of the ongoing commentary about box office success and failure that seems inextricably connected to the artistic value of the films being evaluated, there are more and more instances of reviews where people feel the need to question who the film is for, or how well it will do. In my reviews, I can't pretend that I've never recommended readers see something I thought was interesting or entertaining or moving, but I make a concerted effort to avoid looking at how well something will do during its opening weekend, as if that makes any difference whatsoever how good or bad it is. The point of film criticism is to express an individual reaction to a film and articulate it in a way that communicates what that person felt worked and didn't work, and it's mental masturbation to presume that anyone knows other people (much less mass audiences) enough to presume that a movie will or won't work for them, appeal to them, or become "successful" for one reason or another. Using Wild Things for example, saying "this movie is not for children" is an observation of the (seeming) intentions of the filmmakers, or at the very least acknowledgment that the end result is more sophisticated, mature or maybe just darker than people might expect, but saying "kids won't want to watch this" is just presumptuous and reductive, and as its box office success has shown, I think, pretty wrong. In which case it not only seems more effective but professionally safer to examine a film, offer an honest and articulate reaction about what one responded to, and forget about whether it becomes a hit or not.
When I write movie reviews, I always start with my personal opinion on the film, then try to put myself in the mindset of people going to see the film, and recommend things based on what most people will probably like. Certainly this is not a foolproof system, but it usually works for me. If I'm reviewing some piece of crap horror movie, I'll talk about how much I hated it, but then say that most 13 year olds who haven't seen too many horror flicks will probably enjoy it. That way, you cover all your bases.
But it is immensely hard to write for the masses, especially if it's a contrarian opinion. I wrote a 2.5 star review of Transformers back in 2007, in which I gently bashed it but also admitted that there were things I enjoyed. I received almost 50 letters (which, in a town of 30,000 and a paper with a similar circulation, is pretty huge) saying how totally wrong I was, how I had missed the point, blah blah blah. The point is, you're not going to please all your readers all the time, so try to make it so you please most of them, or even just some of them. Hey, this is coming from a guy who loved "The Lake House."
I don't think film critics should be hung up on the audience they think a film is catered to, or their readership. The best you can do is simply be honest.
I write for the paper for a small city, a VERY liberal town, and I shred almost every liberal documentary that comes down the pike, even though they enjoy long successful runs in my town. (I am very liberal myself, but I despise the reductive nature of some of these gimmicky, post-Michael Moore docs) The job of a critic is to invite discussion of a movie, not tell people they should see or not see a movie.
That said, I do think it is good for families to know roughly what they are getting into before they spend $50 on tickets. Without advising for or against bringing the family, you can put the info out there and assume they know their kids better than you do. Kids can handle sophistication better than we think and I know that I would personally rather take my kid to a "dark" movie than a bad one.
JE: "The job of a critic is to invite discussion of a movie, not tell people they should see or not see a movie." Spot-on. It's a fine line -- a matter of form, of manners, I think. Readers may be looking for ideas, even for some kind of informed guidance, but it's not up to the critic to tell them what to do. Describe your experience with the movie and they can intuit how they want to respond. I've recommended that readers go see a movie immediately before hype or spoilers ruin it, but I've never told anybody to avoid seeing anything. That's not my place -- and it's the height of arrogance. Respect your readers' intelligence and even the dumb ones (kidding!) can figure out what they want to do about it...
"How far can a critic responsibly go in claiming to speak for a by-no-means-homogeneous hypothetical audience (kids of a certain age? horror fans? animation aficionados? Jerry Lewis appreciators?) to which he¹ does or does not belong?"
This is great, and I think we can take it back even further. What about non-professionals? Should anyone presume to speak for the tastes of others? Maybe in situations where you know someone very well. Sometimes I see a movie and think, 'My friend so-and-so would probably love this sort of thing.' Generally speaking, however, we don't know people well enough to assume knowledge of their tastes. And, a critic certainly can't account for the tastes of a general readership.
I personally love it when a critic (or non-professional) openly admits to prejudices. Ask me about a science fiction film, and I'll tell you that I'm the wrong person to ask. If you persist, I'll give you my honest opinion. Roger Ebert has admitted a preference for comic book films (a preference that I don't share with him). By admitting that, I can take him with the proper grain of salt when he writes his review of "Batman Comes Again" in 2011 (or whenever it will come out).
Fantastic Mr. Fox looks like the perfect movie for my whole family. It will be my daughter's first trip to the movies (she's going on 3) and my wife and I are rabid fans of Wes Anderson. In fact (this is sad, but we're parents), the last movie we went out to see was Darjeeling. The baby likes the furry, fuzzy animated animals, and we crave the acerbic wit. It's what you'd call a "win-win".
I'm a big fan of Wes Anderson's films. Fantastic Mr Fox is my favourite Roald Dahl book. But their styles aren't compatible - and that's what ultimately sours this movie for me.
Visually, it's brilliant. The animation is wonderful. It looks just like any other WA film. Lots of detail. Lots of camera pans and "square" shots. Title cards. Fantastic.
My biggest problem with a lot of mainstream criticism is this exact tendency you describe, that they try to be objective viewers' guides as opposed to a subjective recounting of the experience of watching the film, and the impression the film made on them. Critics who attempt to be "what to watch" guides tend to be little more than advertisements, furthering the agenda of the status quo. The best critics are the one's who claim to represent themselves, as opposed to some imaginary, hypothetical audience.
There are two trailers circulating for Fantastic Mr. Fox. I saw one in a multiplex -- that trailer focused on the broader moments of humor that could be gleaned from the film. I'm not sure the narrator even mentioned Wes Anderson. A few days later, I saw a trailer at an "arthouse" -- before the new Coen Bros. flick -- and that trailer focused on quirky humor and made much of it being the new film by Wes Anderson.
Two audiences, two marketing approaches.
I suspect the movie may be something of an arthouse success but not a popular one. The style of animation (sort of claymation) looks relatively primitive -- hand-made. Will suburban kids accustomed to the latest 3-D Pixar/Dreamworks approach with bright, gleaming plastic action-figure type characters be drawn to this? I doubt it.
Sometimes, maybe most of the time, when a critic talks about the appeal a movie will have to children, he is really expressing the appeal the movie had to his inner child, or approximating the appeal it would have had to the child he used to be. Or perhaps he's just comparing it with other films of its type so that those who will like the movie are encouraged to go and enjoy it, because like Roger Ebert he loves movies too much to want to keep anyone from enjoying them, even if he didn't. And sometimes, a critic can say with relative accuracy that a movie is neither fish nor foul.
Sometimes a critic can even have the benefit of having seen a film as a child and as an adult and seeing the way his opinion shifted. And yes, my love of film compels me to give examples here. When I was a boy, I liked Labyrinth but was put off by the Masked Ball scene. Now I find most of the movie to be too childish but I like the Masked Ball. When I was younger, I was steadfastly loyal to an 80s animated version or A Christmas Carol. Revisiting it as an adult, I can see how the acting is over-stylized, even bad, and the animation has some flaws, but I still hold it in a kind of special regard. When I was younger, I didn't like the darker thematic elements of The Halloween Tree. Now that I'm older, I don't like it's childish animation. That's one that's neither fish nor foul.
I could go on and address films like Galaxy Express 999 and The Adventures of Mark Twain, but I'll just name-check them instead.
"So, um, has anybody read the reviews for 'Precious Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire'?"
Ha. I cringe every time I see the title written out like that. Another alternative is "Precious: Presented by Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry." When I first heard about the movie it was simply "Precious." Why they decided to add the author's information is beyond me. It's not like I'm especially attracted to novels written by one-named writers, but maybe that's just a prejudice I'll have to get over. I mean, who says William Faulkner or Mark Twain anymore?
I digress.
I'm sure it's a fine movie, but I can't trust the reviews for it. Why can't I trust the reviews? Hopefully your upcoming post will help me figure it out.
The major thing that turns me off from reading most movie reviews has to be the way that many critics write them. Quite a few have got to the point that if they don't like a movie, then they're going to flat out rip it to shreds. And not just that, but also the cast and crew. I've read several reviews that were less criticisms of the movie than several paragraphs of insults and hate.
I definitely agree however with the being ridiculed for liking or loving a movie that many people hated. For example, my pick for the Best Film of 2006 was 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.' Good lord, I was made fun of and ridiculed for this. How dare I pick that film over 'The Queen' or 'Children of Men' or 'The Departed' and etc.; the list goes on. i can't tell you how many times, I had been forced to explain my reasoning behind that. For some, this was flat out proof that I only watch stupid, popcorn fluff(untrue, by the way).
I do intend on seeing 'Fantastic Mr. Fox' when it opens. Not because of reviews I've read, but because I flat out loved the book growing up. I pretty much only read reviews after I've seen the movie, because far too many times I have let the review influence my opinion prematurely.
BTW: My reason for pick Dead Man's Chest. For me, this movie was the reason why I loved going to the movies in the first place. It was pure cinema, a great swashbuckler film, great characters, story, action and visual effects. I flat out loved this movie. It made feel like a little kid, (yes I know it sounds cheesy), but for me this made me feel like I did when I saw Star Wars for the first time back in 1994 at age 12. This was easily the most exciting film of 2006 and therefore my pick for Best Film.
Picks from 1999 - 2009
1999: Fight Club
2000: George washington
2001: A.I.
2002: Monsoon Wedding
2003: Lord of the Rings: Return of the King & 28 Days Later
2004: The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
2005: Hustle & Flow
2006: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
2007: Eastern Promises
2008: Milk
2009: District 9 (so far)
JE: What you describe is something a lot of young critics do when they're just starting out. Perhaps because they're grappling with their own opinions, and trying to make their mark, or just feel it's expected of them, they tend to see things in black or white terms. Every movie seems to be the Best Thing Ever or the Worst Thing Ever. Most of us have done it -- especially when we're trying to build a case one way or another. But until you've seen a movie as bad as the non-Cronenberg "Crash," you really don't know what bad filmmaking is all about! (And even that one has some good moments. I think. I just can't remember which ones.)
Personally, I'm rolling my eyes at the fact that there are whole pages of text here debating how a critic "should" or "should not" present his thoughts - as if there were some ethical, moral, legal, biblical (etc.) code or law of nature about such things. [The only obligation I can think of for a critic is not to reveal the resolution.]
The person who calls up his friend and says, "You've GOT to see this movie!" has presented an opinion in six words that is no less valid than when Roger presents one in 500 words.
You critique how you want to, I'll critique how I want to, Roger will critique how he wants to. The concept of "should" is superfluous in the conversation.
Leave a comment