I have been repeating this tirelessly for a quarter century now, and I'm very glad to read A.O. Scott saying it again so well, in Dave Itzkoff's NY Times story about the demise of the "Siskel & Ebert"-style "At the Movies" format on TV:
"It's always been true that people can go to the movies without reading what critics have to say about the movies," Mr. Scott said. He added: "Criticism matters to the people who care about it. It's not that everybody out there in the world needs to hear what we have to say, but some people want to. And there is still, I think, an appetite."
8 Comments
Refreshing to read this just after Kevin Smith's nonsensical anti-critic rant - he may be interested in what 500 'randoms' (i.e. fans) on Twitter think about his movies, but I'm not. Come to think of it, exactly what was Mr Smith's designation when he sat in for Ebert on the Ebert & Roeper show?
I'd forgotten about that. Was he ejected from the show for taking up more than one seat? (I mean metaphorically, of course.)
Kevin Smith on twitter: "The arbitrary nature of letting 100 random people tell how they feel about the movie would be taken one step further: I'd select the same amount of folks from the Twitter feed, who might actually give the movie a chance."
It's hard to believe that someone who has actually made movies has such a naive and stupid idea of what film criticism is. How clearly he doesn't give a damn about critical thinking is however much more alarming, for how can you make a movie if you don't attempt to give significance to what you observe?
Hello. I've read many of these blog entries but have preferred to read other people's comments rather than add my own. But the combination of this entry, the talk about Kevin Smith, and the Steve Almond "lousy critic" entry brings up a question to me.
I went to Kevin Smith's Twitter feed and found two quotes of interest:
1. "And my point about that was that, in this democratized era of film criticism, EVERYONE can (and is) just as valid a critic."
2. "Never said 'Do away with critics.' Said on my next flick, the arbitrary nature of letting 100 random people tell how they feel about the movie would be taken one step further: I'd select the same amount of folks from the Twitter feed, who might actually give the movie a chance."
At first, the first quote seems odd. The direct implication is that my "criticism" of a film is as valid as Roger Ebert's. That seems impossible beyond words. Since you don't know me, I'll prove it:
"I liked Avatar. I give it a B. The 3D visuals were nice but not necessary to enjoy the film, so if you see it in 2D you should be fine. The story was more compelling than I expected; however, James Cameron clearly wants us to cheer for the Na'vi against the Earthlings in the end, but I couldn't. For one thing, we the audience are the Earthlings, and without technology the movie could not have been made, so siding with the Na'vi would be hypocritical. Secondly [Spoilers!], the Earthlings' desire to take the Na'vi land to mine unobtainium is not much different from the Na'vi hunting and killing animals for food. The Na'vi already accept the principle that you can take anything from anyone if you need it, as long as you thank them when you kill them."
So you see I won't be getting a TV show anytime soon, and Kevin Smith seems to be quite wrong. But...
The second quote characterizes criticism as "letting 100 random people tell how they feel about the movie". Now in that sense, if I like a movie and Roger doesn't, I suppose my feeling and his are equally "valid", since if nothing else they are equally real, although not equally informed. Furthermore, I can't tell you offhand which of the two (my like or Roger's dislike) would be more predictive of the general public's reaction to the film, let alone one individual's feeling.
Here's where Almond comes in. It appears that you (Jim Emerson) say that he is/was a bad critic, and he seems to admit it. As I read his article, his "epiphany" was essentially that his opinion of the MC Hammer concert had no effect on the feelings of the crowd around him. Since he couldn't write critically about music, the most he could do is say that he disliked a show that other people liked.
So it seems that what passes for "criticism" is two different things that need to be formally divided and separately labeled. One is criticism itself, which is something like the discussion of the artistic merit of a work and its elements. The other is a prediction as to whether an individual is likely to enjoy a work. Often people are reading reviews simply to decide if they are likely to enjoy something (such as a movie) or not. So if the critic does not agree with them, both sides are frustrated.
And maybe that is what has upset Kevin Smith (in addition to simply not enjoying hearing negative feedback about his work, which seems human enough). I have not yet seen Cop Out (although I admit that this all makes me curious to find out for myself), but let's suppose that it is an artistically flawed (or even bad) film that most moviegoers would nevertheless enjoy. Professional critics would then review the film harshly, because it isn't "good", but general audiences would be better informed by being told that they will probably like it (such as by Netflix's predicted rating). If these two forms of "criticism" were properly divided, then there might be less frustration. People could read the professional critics to evaluate and discuss the artistic flaws of Cop Out, and they could read the other group (previewers??) to decide whether they would enjoy the film anyway. Then Steve Almond could go on being in the second group. telling people about bands he likes, without having to take on the guise of a true critic and therefore being a bad one.
Does any of this seem anywhere near accurate? I know that critics often hope to improve public taste by informing it, but in the short term, should these two apparently separate categories really be identified as such?
Thanks for writing, Devyn. I think the system you describe, where critics write about cultural events (whether they're live performances or pre-recorded ones like movies or albums), has always existed -- and is more active than ever because of the access people have to the Internet. I've always tried to point out that critics say whatever they say and audiences "vote" with their pocketbooks -- buying tickets or recordings -- and the two operate together, in synch and independently, just fine. "Word-of-mouth" -- that is, the buzz created by people who've actually been exposed to the work in question and have told others about it -- supercedes all the reviews in the world, and always has. Critics (if given access to something before the public release date) offer the initial first-hand reports -- everything else, to that point, has been marketing and advertising. But from the moment the work becomes available to the public, everybody's free to make up their own minds.
I do not believe it is possible for critics to tell you or me whether we are "likely to enjoy something." The critic most likely does not know either of us well enough to make that kind of prediction. A critic's job is to describe the work and evaluate it. Someone reading the review should be able to tell whether it sounds like something they'd be interested in, whether the critic "liked" it or not.
Yes, Almond is a bad critic because he says he stood around and got off on feeling superior to the audience around him and simply tried to put himself above enjoying the show. Anyone adopting with that attitude is, by definition, a bad critic. Now, he prefers to be a booster -- which is perfectly fine, but it's a very limited undertaking and doesn't offer the reader a very broad view of music, surveying a range of things beyond his tastes -- the way a critic on a regular beat does.
I don't know what Kevin Smith is complaining about. I haven't read his tweets or seen any of his movies in years (because "Clerks" was one of the most excruciating experiences of my moviegoing life, and it's clear his idea of humor and mine could not be more unalike). According to what you report, he believes "EVERYONE can (and is) just as valid a critic." OK. He's never been under any obligation to press screen his movies for critics, so why doesn't he tell his distributors to stop it? It's entirely a matter between him and the people who put up the money and marketing for the movie. If the distributor agrees, then he's perfectly free to say to the press, "If you want to review my movie, buy a ticket when it opens." I'm sure many critics would love to be relieved of the burden of having to attend a screening of a Kevin Smith movie, and would happily either 1) not review it at all; 2) pass it off on a second- or third-stringer; or 3) see it with a paying audience on opening day and post the review on the web by that afternoon. Smith wants to give his fans the first word -- which is what marketing departments have done with pre-release, recruited audience screenings and previews for eons. He's not suggesting anything remotely new. I don't know why his latest twit has gotten so much attention.
Good post, and I would love to see you analyze the humor of "Clerks" in a future post, assuming you can stomach it (and I realize that maybe you can't). After all, you have described yourself as a guy who likes to analyze humor, and I'm sure this would be very enlightening.
But what's with the scare quotes around the word "liked"?
Good post, and I would love to see you analyze the humor of "Clerks" in a future post, assuming you can stomach it (and I realize that maybe you can't). After all, you have described yourself as a guy who likes to analyze humor, and I'm sure this would be very enlightening.
But what's with the scare quotes around the word "liked"?
A major problem with current film criticism is that it is commissioned by publishers to be read before seeing a film. Such articles are really just "reviews", a way for someone to decide if they want to see a movie, and NOT an in-depth discussion of a film's qualities. Someone who hasn't seen the film is not interested in detail - in fact would dislike spoilers - and really just needs a thumbs up or down.
I like to read Ebert's reviews AFTER seeing the movie, because he always has something interesting to say. It's more interesting if I've seen the film and know what he's talking about. You don't need to be a critic to know if you like a movie - but you do need to be a critic to say why you feel that way. Ironically, given his trademarked thumbs, he has not given in to mere reviewing but is truly critical.
I might check out his star rating BEFORE seeing a movie, though, because I've learned to trust his opinion.
Thank goodness his articles are available online.
Leave a comment