I’ve just been browsing through “American Film Criticism”, a book edited by Stanley Kaufmann and Bruce Henstell. Published in 1972, it is a compilation of reviews of significant films at the time they first appeared. One reason for the book, according to Kaufmann, was to show how there were thoughtful and critical texts right there from the beginning, in the late 1800s. You might be forgiven for thinking that film criticism came much later, but writers gave films serious thought early on, especially as the art form rapidly developed.
There is often reason for a film critic to ponder the work they’re doing. Does it matter? When does it matter? Recently, the question must be asked if there is a future for the profession.
The public’s idea of a critic has to some extent been shaped by two pieces of animation: the TV series The Critic (1994-1995), starring the Siskel/Ebert-inspired TV show host Jay Sherman (Jon Lovitz), and the Pixar film Ratatouille (2007), where the character Anton Ego, voiced by Peter O’Toole, appeared. They were very different men, but had elitism in common.
In this blog entry, I’ll show why we still need critics and what the future must look like.
What’s the point of critics?
The point of reading or listening to critics is to hear different voices and to take part in a broader, societal conversation about a movie. There isn’t one truth, there are competing arguments, and your own opinion is part of that. The purpose of a review is for readers to engage with other opinions, help you shape your own (whether you agree or not), and accept that other people might disagree. Especially that last part is very hard for some, including many who write angry e-mails to critics.
If there’s no “one Truth”, why listen to critics?
Why limit yourself? It’s healthy for us all to be subjected to other impressions than just one’s friend’s or partner’s opinion.
Those who actually sit down to write a review are more than just casual viewers. They’ve typically done some homework, perhaps studied the field or had practical experience. They offer, and have the ability to convey, informed opinions and arguments, based on a personal history of watching films and knowing the history of the medium and its many different cultural expressions, stylistically and geographically.
Sometimes knowledge is seen as elitism, but in that case any plumber or electrician who’s learned a trade is also an “elitist”.
Still, it’s easy to see where the accusation of elitism comes from. Many years ago, the word of certain critics, the Anton Egos of their day, was perceived as somewhat of a Supreme Court decision handed down to the people, because of a media climate that had people trusting the only news they were served, in papers and the evening news on TV.
The internet threw the doors wide open for a whole new variety of critics (myself included). Much needed – but there’s a clear downside. Trust in authorities of many different kinds keeps eroding, for good and bad. One of the casualties is the status of film critics, made worse by a general lack of trust in the media, in many cases the end of reading altogether. Ignorance is spreading.
Who needs critics when you have IMDb?
A question typically asked by dudes, who swear by the ratings of IMDb and Letterboxd. Both websites are widely popular and feature a ratings system powered by users. No wonder these guys view the ratings as “the truth”; we go there to vote on the merits of a film. Seems democratic and all? But these ratings are known to be manipulated at times, especially when a hotly debated film premieres. In 2016, FiveThirtyEight reported how the IMDb rating for Ghostbusters couldn’t be trusted. Not that IMDb would ever agree, but the current rating for that film is much more believable now when a decade has passed and the misogyny of internet users has moved on to other victims (hello, Snow White).
And even if you don’t believe that: again, if you consider these ratings to be “the truth”, why limit yourself? Open yourself up to different arguments and don’t blindly follow a rating. Don’t be sheep.
Are influencers replacing critics?
Influencers can indeed be people who know a lot about movies. But, typically, they are not. Studios love having influencers with massive platforms on the red carpet, because it’s free PR. They are treated well by the studio, who can expect a non-critical approach. This is not the case with film critics. There are times when studios make the mistake of thinking critics are part of their PR machine. Quotes from reviews can be used in ads, of course, but far too often, the management of certain actors or film studios also believe that journalists who write about movies are there to promote what they’re doing. Asking critical questions is perceived as rude. This is a familiar problem at film festivals and overly managed interviews with major stars.
Courting TikTokers and YouTubers who don’t really care about movies but have a big following may serve a limited, financial purpose for studios. Critics are part of a more complex group. On the one hand, they are proudly independent of the industry. On the other, critics who write seriously about film, the art form, its history and what role it should play in our culture, contribute to the preservation and history of cinema. What they write can also influence people in the film industry and their decisions. The documentary Life Itself (2014), about the life of Roger Ebert, shows how a critic can be a valued part of the industry.
What’s the future for film critics?
Time for some tough love. It’s not by chance that the character of Jay Sherman on The Critic looks the way he does. For many years, the profession has been dominated by white men, and to some degree certain successful female critics. Women like Pauline Kael, Janet Maslin, Iris Barry, Judith Crist, Molly Haskell and many others have certainly made their mark.
But as the profession faces great challenges, it needs to change with the times. People with a genuine interest in film, and who also find themselves in a position to affect change, need to look at inventive formats for film criticism, including social media platforms and video, and not just settle for a traditional text. They also need to make sure outlets promote reviews more aggressively in order to reach out.
And they need to diversify who writes those reviews. They need to come from different backgrounds and be able to communicate with audiences the way they look today. If critics are unable to reach young people, especially women (because, on social media, loud opinions on movies are dominated by young guys), the profession is doomed. We can’t let that happen.