Everyone’s a Critic
Every time I walk out of the theater having seen a film there’s little I have to say. When I tell people that I’ve been to see a new release they’ll ask, “How was it?” Or, “What did you think?” They don’t want my in-depth review — they want a sentence to tell them whether the film is good or bad. And that’s all I can initially give them because I need time to let a film settle in my mind. I need to process a film.
It might sound strange but I don’t really know how I feel about a film until later. The best films, in my experience, are those where you’re thinking about them for days, weeks, or even years later. We return to them in our minds, reliving those moments that move and excite and shock us. Bad films, on the other hand, will dwindle in our thoughts. They have no enduring strength, and fade into the dark recesses of our memory. I’ve changed my mind about the quality of films dozens of times — at first being an avid fan and defender, only to defect and become their critical adversary. The strength of any film is in its longevity, and without it a film loses its worth.
Knowing which films are worth our time is not without a margin of error. It’s inevitable that we will watch bad films in the future, but it’s possible for that number to be reduced. Film reviews can give us a measure of assurance that we’re directing our attention to the right titles. Critics can become trusted figures who can spare us from inferior films and praise the best cinema has to offer. But critics rarely agree with each other in all things. The depth of knowledge and subjectivity of one critic compared to another covers a broad spectrum — it can be difficult to judge which critics best reflect our own tastes.
In the age of social media everyone can express their feelings about film to the whole world, myself included. How do you know who to listen to, and who to ignore? Whose opinions matter the most? Do we listen to a single voice, or value the consensus opinion more?
The Old Days
Before social media, before the internet, film criticism was the institution of broadcast and print media. Critics were expected to be knowledgeable in the history and theories of cinema. They knew more than the average cinema patron, and because of this their opinions were informed and reliable enough to be paid for. With columns in newspapers and magazines, and shows on radio and television, film critics held a position of authority.
They were expected to give in-depth, meaningful reviews, presenting arguments and observations in a concise and well-presented manner. They were held to a high standard by their readers and their employers because their words held power.
Critics from the pre-internet era were not without their problems. Accusations of cultural snobbery and intellectual superiority were frequently thrown around, as evidenced by the prejudice many critics carried against horror and science fiction. Horror films were largely dismissed as vulgar and without artistic merit, with critics abusing their position to decry the genre’s creators and audiences as immoral and ‘sick’. Other critics harboured grudges against individual artists, exploiting their column space and air time to publicly humiliate directors and actors.
Following the rise of the internet and social media the institution of film criticism in traditional media saw the ground collapse from under its feet. The words and opinions of columnists, radio and TV presenters had been diminished — lost in a web of new voices of equal and lesser expertise. Hundreds of film critics were dropped by their employers, who suddenly undervalued their profession. Literary and broadcast criticism is not dead in the 21st century, but it has been considerably thinned.
Aggregate Score
A new phenomenon has arisen with the fast-paced age of information online. The way we absorb film reviews has changed. Websites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes accumulate reviews from new and traditional media sources and condenses them into bite-sized chunks for quick consumption. It has become an established practice by many to use such sites as evidence of a film’s quality or lack thereof, based solely on their percentage approval rating.
Individual reviews are less important than the mass reception of a film. Where a critic may take the time to present a balanced and depthful review the website Rotten Tomatoes will pick a sentence or two for people to read and apply an arbitrary ‘fresh’ or ‘rotten’ tag to their piece. (The website does provide links to full reviews, but I question how many people choose to read them.)
There is also the issue of who owns and operates such websites. How are reviews assembled and quantified? How does a website decide who is a worthy critic and who is not? Do any of the critics named have ulterior motives or incentives to write positive reviews?
This practice undermines and oversimplifies a critic’s thoughts for the disposable ease of visitors to these websites. And I am just as guilty of this offense as the next person.
Who isn’t a Critic Nowadays?
The online community is never short of reviewers, professional or otherwise. In addition to news media websites platforms such as blogs, podcasts and YouTube are host to the opinions of all filmgoers. The elitist model of classical film criticism has been shaken by the democratized model of new media, where every person’s voice has a chance to be heard.
This is, however, a double-edged sword. For every online critic who delivers insight and considered opinions there are others prepared to sell film criticism cheap. Poor reviewers make shallow arguments, and dole out extreme praise and hate in equal measure for the purpose of entertainment. The Twitter review has become an common form of criticism — condensing one’s thoughts into 140 characters because readers on social media are viewed as having zero attention span.
Thankfully not everyone ascribes to this sensationalist, attention deficit approach to online critique. There are great writers and speakers in new media who share their love and respect for film freely, continuing the traditions of classical criticism while embracing new platforms of communication. I love watching film review/video essays on YouTube.
Finding Your Kindred Critic
With the glut of critics available for our consumption, professional and enthusiast, it’s not possible for us to read, listen and watch all of them. So how do we decide? Who is the right critic for you?
It’s a case of trial and error. It takes time.
Critics are divided amongst themselves according to their tastes and interests. Some are steeped in the history and academia of film, while others are more concerned with storytelling and filmmaking culture. Wading through the masses and finding critics who share in our tastes and interests can be an positive indicator of a film’s merits or flaws. While not an absolute guarantee their opinions have a greater chance of corresponding to our own — exposing us to great films while sparing us from the bad ones. They can act as guides through the cinematic wilderness.
A guide, but not a promise. I doubt any person agrees with their favourite critics all the time. A critic’s word is not gospel — we can choose to heed their words or refuse them. It ultimately falls to us to decide whether or not we enjoy a film, and no one can tell you your opinion is wrong. So, you don’t agree with the consensus? Who says you have to?
Reviewers/Critics I Follow:
Mark Kermode — noted film critic for the BBC, documentary filmmaker and writer of several non-fiction books about film criticism. Perhaps the greatest fan of The Exorcist in the world.
Double Toasted — an Austin, Texas-based podcasting team and YouTube channel, filled with great personalities and light-hearted, thoughtful discussions.
RedLetterMedia — a Milwaukee, Wisconsin-based group that reviews new releases and bargain bin, straight-to-video B-movies from the 80s and 90s. Their Best of the Worst episodes are delightful.
Renegade Cut — this YouTube channel reviews and analyses films both old and new, providing cultural, thematic, and philosophical examinations of their texts.
GoodBadFlicks — making the case for overlooked and undervalued genre films, this webseries delves behind-the-scenes, charting their development from inception to screen. The host also reviews new titles on the big screen and home release.
Coming soon: None the Worse for Wear
