Ok first of all I don’t like the title of this video blog that I came up with… but it’s generally descriptive of what I’m going for. I wanted to talk a bit today about our perception of film critics and how a lot of people in the film fan community just look at “critics” as some sort of collective hive mind and we use massive generalizing statements about them like “critics don’t know what they’re talking about” when “critics” are actually a huge diverse group with massive differences in how each of them think about film.
Meh… I’ll stop trying to describe what I’m talking about and just let you watch the video.
Comment with Facebook
Yes, film is absolutely a subjective medium. Unless of course we’re talking about “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.” It is absolutely, resolutely, objectively bad. Any attempt to argue the contrary will prove futile.
Well said, John. I like it when you imply that movie critics are people who watch movie a lot thus have a lot of movies to compare with. This is make sense when we realize that these critics are people who experience a lot of movies. Like a lot of people said, “it’s hard for you to describe a bad movies if you haven’t watch the good ones”.
Nice thought!
Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
A rant/defense of movie critics without mentioning that you write frequent movie reviews with video reviews to match and do the critic thing enough to count as at least a part time critic.
What’s even better, is that you go beyond critiquing movies and instead critique the critics of movie critics (and yourself).
Very cute.
In short, all movies are subjective. Cannot be objectively measured for quality. There is no hive mind of critics. Except when the hive mine agrees 92% of time time. Then you should listen. Because it’s something you can measure. Objectively.
Hey wait a minute…
You’re getting sleepy…. verrrry sleepy.
I see a movie, then I read the reviews to confirm/dispel my impression of the movie.
Different films have different target audiences. Children, teens & young adults make up the majority of the movie goers. Many top film critics are probably older, highly educated, upper middle-classes,etc. and they tend to be more sophiticated & critical of movies. Because by definition, film critics offer “critiques” of the film through somewhat objective eyes. “Artistic” films such as “Milk”, “Frost/Nixon”, “English Patient” will likely get praises by critics while films like Transformers & GI Joe will not.
The majority of the movie going public (children, teens, & young adults) do not care or read film critiques when deciding whether to go see movies like TF2, Ice Age 3, etc. I know this for a fact because I too was once a child, teen, young adult and I also have children of my own. I can testify that my children and I (as a child) did not read film critiques.
Film critics do help to inform the older movie goers to decide whether to see a movie or not, but it is a very small percentage. Honestly, even as old as I am, I will see Wolverine, TF2, GI Joe, Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Batman, Stallone, JetLi movies no matter how good or how bad the reviews are. And I will probably skip most of the “Oscar nominated” films even though most critics will praise them. And I think this is probably true for the majority of people.
I don’t think ANY child reads film reviews.
I just find it funny when describing a movie, critics will use terms like “EDGE-OF-YOUR-SEAT ACTION!!!!” or “NAIL BITING ENTERTAINMENT!!!!”.
I agree with everything that you mention in the video. The one area that I would highlight would be to find a critic that on most occasions agrees with your taste in movies so that you can make the best decision about whether you want to see a movie. If Roger Ebert hated every movie that I liked then I would no longer listen to Roger Ebert. This is just an example. Like I said it was just something that I would highlight but overall nicely stated. I particularly liked how you said a critic should be someone who can relate their ideas and opinions of a movie in a creative and entertaining way.
I think John, you’re making a lot of generalizations when you make this argument. Who exactly is generalizing about “critics”? Are we talking about film fan, or the general public?
The vast majority of people do not spend time thinking about films. Films are something to enjoy whilst they watch them, and that’s it. For people who really love films, thinking about it and discussing it comes as a natural part of their passion for film.
These days, the majority of people simply do not have time to read film reviews, to read through critics nitpicking the finer points of a movie which to most people, simply do not effect their enjoyment of a film. More than ever, people have a vast array of things to do to occupy their time. Most people would rather spend their time actually watching a movie than reading all the reviews on RottenTomatoes to decide if they should see it or not. Yes it is a generalization when people talk about “the critics”. But for the general masses, “the critics” are out of touch with the way they enjoy films. Regardless of their actual opinion, “critics” are out of touch for thinking their opinion even matters.
Yes, for those of us who love film, we tend to find reviewers or websites where people discuss films, and ponder the finer points of the movies we’ve seen and are looking forward to. But the masses do not. They spend that time watching sport, playing video games, or reading the internet about whatever else their passion in life is. When a 2 minute ad for a film catches their eye, they’ll spend 2 hours watching it on Saturday night, then give it no more thought, whether they end up enjoying it or not.
So when Average Joe makes the statement that “critics are out of touch”, it’s because film critics and the general public view film in a totally different way.
Do you care about household appliances? Do you read through pages of consumer reviews online before deciding which Kettle to buy? Do you have a favorite Kettle manufacturer? Do you post 2000 word reviews of each new kettle you buy, and debate in online forums with others about which is better? I would imagine you’d just buy a kettle and give it no more thought until it breaks and you need a new one. Then you buy one based on what the box says, and if it looks nice, without any real thought about it’s inner workings. To the general public, this is movies.
A film “critic” is as pointless, irrelevant and out of touch for the masses, as a professional appliance reviewer would seem to you.
Hey Shane Hero,
You said:
“it’s because film critics and the general public view film in a totally different way”
I respectfully yet completely and totally disagree with you.
First of all, your statement assumes all film critics view film the same way, and that all non-film critics view film the same way.
Secondly, your statement also makes the assumption that if something is more important to you, you view it a different way once experienced.
Third, your statement makes the assumption that advance critical thought doesn’t change outcome. To use your kettle example, I may or may not give a lot of advance thought to what kettle I buy… HOWEVER, once I buy the kettle and it doesn’t work properly, I care just as much about it as the professional consumer advocate would, because it’s my money that just got wasted. And even if it didn’t bother me that I bought a broken Kettle as much as it would the consumer advocate, my resulting experience would still be the same as theirs.
Critics (who have a billion difference ways of looking at film) and non-critics (who have a billion different ways of looking at film) do not look at film differently because that would imply some sort of uniformity to start with… which there isn’t.
What is the point of the movie critiques, to help a person make a decision before seeing the movie or to help them share, understand and discuss the movie after they’ve seen it? For me, it is the former because 99% of the time, I don’t make a decision to see a movie based on the critics reviews.
even though it’s all subjective, film critics are in general predisposed to value a different set of criteria when they judge whether a film is good or bad. A better example might be with alcohol. A fine wine critic, most of the time, is interested in the nuanced flavors of the drink, taking into account the age, type of grape, climate of the location in which the grapes were grown, etc. The majority of college kids don’t care about those things, they just want something that gets them drunk. So not in every case, but in some cases, their different set of criteria make for incompatible views
John,
A discussion such as this has to make broad generalizations about large groups of people. We can form a basis for generalizations from statistics, like box office numbers and the overall critical responses. There’s no need to reiterate that exceptions to these generalizations exist; of course they do.
The point I was making is that there are two distinct ways of treating films; as something to contemplate and discuss in detail once it’s over… or simply as entertainment that lasts until the credits roll, then give it no more thought. (yes, a massive generalization, and there are many degrees between, but I would hope you can see the distinction being made here)
Movie critics obviously fall into the category of those who give films a lot of thought. However the majority of the general public simply do not care enough about films to give them that same amount of thought. Just as you have sports fanatics who analyze every aspect of the game, and you have those who will just watch the game, and simply enjoy it, not obsess over it.
It simply is not possible to obsess over everything in life in fine detail. While our passion may lie with film, there are obviously other things in our lives that we just don’t give much thought to; maybe sport, TV, politics, food, clothes. They are things we obviously encounter in life, but just do not have a passion for. But to others, these are the things they give more thought to.
This concept doesn’t disallow for the fact there are many degrees of how people treat films. However your suggestion that people should all find critics who they enjoy reading, who write in a way that they can enjoy etc… ignores the fact that the majority of people, simply do not care what ANY critic has to say. They do not have time, nor interest, to devote to reading about something they do not really care about to that degree.
Even for film fans, these days you can be a fan but obsess over certain elements of a film. Some people follow the actors and their private lives. Some follow the characters, and get right into comics, novels, fan fiction etc. With DVD and blu ray extra’s, websites, video games, collectibles etc… reading film reviews, even for fans of film, is not a vital part of the film process.
Do you have a favorite household appliance reviewer? Have you found someone who can describe their experience with a new model of kettle in a way that really engages you? I doubt it, because you probably just don’t care that much about them. My point is, not everyone cares as much about movies as us. Thus film critics are out of touch with how someone who doesn’t care that much views films. Every critic cares about films, and they cannot replicate the kind of detachment felt by people who don’t have that same interest.
The fact that some films like the Dark Knight get good reviews and make money doesn’t validate critics relevance. They did not make those films successful, nor does the films success validate their opinions. However the fact that a lot of films can receive largely negative reviews, and still draw large audiences proves that critics are irrelevant to the general public, and will not determine a films success or failure at all. If critics were relevant and in touch these days, then the success of films would align with their overall critical response.
Clearly what a majority of film fans and critics place emphasis on is different to what the majority of the public place emphasis on when choosing which films to see.
Roger Ebert gave xXx four stars (out of four) ;)
My thoughts:
I think in the last few years, media (especially music and movies) has become less and less community or sharing based. Any visit to an old-time movie theater is evidence to how important the audience once was for the film experience. Nowadays the preferred way to watch is in the privacy of one’s home, or in an arena-seated theater with other audience members a comfortably hidden as possible.
It adds up to all of us feeling a much more private connection to these media, and taking much more personally any criticisms of media we enjoy.
In other words, I think we now are a lot more uncomfortable with straightforward critiques that aren’t couched in qualifiers reminding us of the subjectivity of it all. I think this leads to resentment of critics, who still make their judgments in that fashion.
Additionally, I think film has 2 primary cultural values: to be art and to be entertainment. Anyone who has taken time to study film more than likely sees it as an art moreso than others. Since many critics have taken this path, they often expect different things from a movie than would an average person seeking more entertainment than art. Maybe the trick is finding a critic who falls into the same part of the art – entertainment spectrum as you do. Sorry this was long!
speaking of critics, anyone else think Ben Lyons is kind of unprofessional?
Definitely. This is why he was so hated in that “At the Movies” television show.
I remember Lyons giving a positive response to Clint Eastwood’s Changeling because as he said, “It’s amazing because they made it look like the ’30s.”
In addition, he kept on doing shoutouts to his actor friends on films that they appeared in for only a minute or less.
John, I totally agree with everything you said.
I love the reference Jim made to The English Patient. I just love it.
I completely agree. It seems that recently it’s become trendy to hate on critics for reasons I never really understood. I think the problem is that with sites like Rotten Tomatoes, you get access to hundreds of critic reviews. With that, most people don’t really develop a “bond” with certain critics they trust.
I’ve always said that you should find at least 2-3 critics you trust and tend to agree with if you want to get an indication of whether a film reflects your taste. My two most-trusted critics are Roger Ebert and Emanuel Levy. They usually share my opinions on films and articulate it in a way that I can’t.
I agree with what you say about films being subjective, and you were right on the mark in that area.
I think the reason people look at critics in a negative light is because they come across as if they are looking at films objectively- but as we both know- that’s impossible. It seems like some critics believe that their opinion is objective, and that’s why they get a bad rap.
Example: If a critic says “This film is bad” or “This film does not do X, Y and Z right” it gives the impression that those are MEASURABLE and QUANTIFIABLE . However really it is just that critics opinion that those things were not done to their expectations.
I think a good critic uses the first person tense and personal reference rather that spouting off analysis. I.E. “I hated this movie because the acting reminded me of a children’s play and the romantic scenes made me throw up a little in my mouth.”
I think the best critic is ourselves. Film is suggestive so the only opinion that should count is your own. On that note this reminded me of how I found TheMovieBlog. I was on Youtube looking for transformers movie video and I seen John talking about the transformers characters that were announced. If I remember correctly I was in total agreement with his opinions and I been coming here ever since. Now of course his opinions are diffrent then mind but it all in good fun to make a discussion about our opinions.
A “critic” is just a person who decides to write about, or talk about a movie – period. I gave up on the idea of a critic being someone with an educated opinion a long time ago.
For me, I want to hear the opinion of someone who is intelligent, who has a good sense of humor, who doesn’t take themselves too seriously, who isn’t overly jaded, who knows the difference between what a film like The English Patient is trying to deliver vs what a film like 300 is trying to deliver, and can offer commentary based on the intent of the film in question. In other words, if I hear some guy spewing about how 300 was grossly inaccurate from a historical perspective, then I know I have the wrong critic.
While I don’t want a snooty critic, I also don’t what a critic who is so fascinated by shiny objects, that it’s well neigh impossible to insult their intelligence. Example…if while watching Transformers 2, you were bugged by the characters entering the Smithsonian (which is in DC) then walking out the back door of the place into the California desert…if that pisses you off, well then you might be my type of critic.
I can suspend disbelief just fine…just don’t insult my intelligence.
For the record, you score pretty high in the above departments John, which is why I come here.
Cheers
Jim
i only listen to ign.com
they are very accurate of my opinion !
That’s actually true. Critics have grown into different variates lately. Ebert’s my favorite critic.
For some reason lately everyone has been shiting on film critics in blogs and forums across the net and it makes me wonder.
Rotten tomatoes has brought a lot of attention to critics in the mainstream imo. As a result of that all these ppl who never have read critcs reviews are having them thrown in their face by freinds and ppl online and as a result they are going into denial that some of their favorite movies might really suck and are attacking the critics like 5 year olds simply because they dont understand them!
The only “critic” whose opinions I really care about are yours and Ebert’s.
Other then that the only other thing I care about is the Tomato meter.