How Modern Film Critics Are Killing Creativity

“No filmmaker likes critics, no matter how nice they are to him.”

Francois Truffaut


In an exclusive interview Monday, August 5, 2013 with Yahoo! Movies UK, stars of the box-office fiasco The Lone Ranger shared their thoughts on why the film failed to interest audiences. In no subtle way, Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer laid the blame at the feet of the critics:

“I think the reviews were written seven-to-eight months before we released the film,” said Johnny Depp. “I think the reviews were written when they heard Gore [Verbinksi] and Jerry [Bruckheimer] and me were going to do ‘The Lone Ranger’. They had expectations that it must be a blockbuster. I didn’t have any expectations of that. I never do.”[1]

Not only do I want to consider whether their accusations bear any merit, I also want to examine the impact of this particular brand of film criticism on the art of cinema, one that seems more about raising the state of the publication’s view count than it does raising the state of viewership.

Perhaps Depp’s impulse to ignore the chatter is one which artists invariably adopt to better serve their creative output. The incomparable French New Wave director Francois Truffaut once suspected as much when accounting for the brilliance of crime novelists like David Goodis and William Irish. “[B]ecause so many books appear each year in the States,” he explained, “these detective story writers are usually ignored. Ironically, this liberates them. Made humble by their neglect, they are free to experiment because they think no one is paying attention anyway. Not expecting to be analyzed, they put into their books anything they choose.” Truffaut’s words, spoken more than forty years ago in an interview with Charles Thomas Samuels, illuminate a crucial concern for criticism of any kind. Namely: its ability to stifle creativity. The concern is not without merit; nobody enjoys taking a creative leap if they are convinced there’s no one waiting to catch them on the other side.

As a result, a valid review becomes as much a matter of catching artists as it is causing them to reflect on the leap they’ve made. That said, there’s no point in critiquing anything based on pre-conceived notions, or indeed before the leap has even been made, as Depp and his co-star Hammer suspect. “If you go back and read the negative reviews,” Hammer suggests, “most of them aren’t about the content of the movie, but more what’s behind it.” It want to consider the value in this impulse to criticize beyond the scope of the work (in this case, The Lone Ranger), especially when it comes at the expense of any serious investigation of the work.

In order to investigate this claim further then, I decided to examine a review of the movie taken at random from the Rotten Tomatoes list of quote-unquote Top Critics for the film (so as to avoid the accusation that my argument was concerned only with the low hanging fruit, such as lowly internet bloggers). I tend to avoid reading reviews, not simply because I want to avoid having my first encounter with a film spoiled (not that they have much chance of managing that), but because I simply cringe at the amount of unsubstantiated opinion passing for valid argumentation (as a former instructor in the art of writing university essays, I find this practice especially heinous and lazy). My assessment was corroborated by what I found in this vociferous collection masquerading as film criticism. The authors may be film reviewers, but they are certainly not critics (at least, not in any useful definition of the term). My cursor landed on none other than the highly respected Peter Travers of Rolling Stone magazine, and though I would prefer you didn’t dignify the review with a view count, I acknowledge for the purposes of my argument such evils are necessary:

I begin my criticism of a criticism by stating I have not seen The Lone Ranger. The reason is to avoid any overriding bias in protecting the film. I have no vested interest in the film’s success or its reception. My argument does not rest on the laurels of the film in question. My argument is not that modern film critics got it wrong by calling a great movie bad (nevermind that I am fundamentally opposed to labeling any film by a qualifier as semantically null as “bad”, or “good” for that matter). Instead, my conjecture is that modern film critics are getting film criticism wrong.

Travers begins his barbed criticism of the movie by explaining the movie ‘sucks’, how and why it sucks is only ever briefly alluded to in the scant review that barely manages to crack 450 words. But rest assured, dear reader, that Travers’ judgement is sound, for as proof of his assertion, consider the irrefutable argument that the movie sucks “[b]ecause the movie sucks, that’s why.” Is suckage a relative scale? Is there an accepted standard for sucking? What is the established benchmark, Ishtar? Moreover, how can this be considered a valid introduction to a review of any film?

By way of comparison, I refer once again to Truffaut, who established himself as a film critic in the vaulted pages of Les Cahiers du Cinema before he grabbed his own camera and revolutionized cinema forever. In that same 1970 interview with Charles Thomas Samuels mentioned above, Truffaut distinguished the difference between the film spectator and the film critic:

Behaving like the ordinary spectator, one uses a film as if it were a drug; he is dazed by the motion and doesn’t try to analyze. A critic, on the other hand (particularly one who works for a weekly, as I did), is forced to write summaries of films in fifteen lines. That forces one to apprehend the structure of a film and to rationalize his liking for it.

Nevermind that Truffaut was being modest when he described his work as fifteen line summaries (let’s chalk it up to a mistranslation), the feature I wish to draw attention to is Truffaut’s insistence on rationalization. Film criticism, whether we want to admit it or not, is implicitly a study of value judgments; the documentation of one’s visceral response to a movie. It simply gets tarted up with appeals to reason, for only when these judgments are shored up by reason and evidence do they approach something resembling an argument. Otherwise the response is that of the ordinary spectator, one who views the film “as if it were a drug […] dazed by the motion and [who] doesn’t try to analyze”. To return to the circular reasoning of Travers’ rhetoric, offering that the film “sucks” because it sucks and “that’s why” falls more in line with the non-analytical ravings of the confounded film goer, grasping for words to describe his experience. Travers caustic remarks crucially neglect to demonstrate any awareness that a valid film review (if we take Truffaut’s measured logic) is in no small way an argument over a film’s merits (or lack thereof).

Compare then Travers’ introduction to Truffaut’s introduction in his review of Jean Renoir’s 1937 La Grande Illusion:

…the least contested of Renoir’s films, [the film] is built on the idea that the world is divided horizontally by similarities, not vertically by frontiers. If World War II and especially the horrors of the concentration camps seem to have weakened Renoir’s ennobling thesis, the present attempts at “Europeanization” show that the strength of his idea was ahead of the spirit of Munich. But La Grande Illusion is nonetheless a film of its own time, as La Marseillaise was, because in it men fought a war based on fair play, a war without atom bombs or torture.


A still from La Grand Illusion, a film I cannot recommend highly enough

Granted, Truffaut was writing for a 1967 Renoir Festival—a certain modicum of reflection on the work was to be expected—but he nonetheless demonstrates how to adequately begin a review. The rhetorical impetus for the rest of his review is to demonstrate the validity of his claim about “Renoir’s ennobling thesis”, not simply arguing whether or not the film “sucks”. Let that task fall to the internet polls, for whose view-mongering creators such thought-deprived binaries are their vital stock and trade. So too notice how Truffaut avoids any rootless qualifiers like “good” or “bad”. The point of the review is not to offer whether it is good or bad (nevermind these terms are arbitrary descriptors of nothing), but to offer an interpretation of the experience. If the reader decides, based on the interpretation, that the subject matter in question does not interest them, then the decision rests with the spectator whether to go see the movie.

“Aha!” cries the defence, won’t then curious filmgoers simply seek out other sources of reviews? The simple fact is that they are doing just that, in droves, and in no small part because film criticism is quickly becoming the playground of snobbish elitism (more on that below). Film criticism is being entirely supplanted by the quick-click score of Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB and the like, and for good reason. Why would anyone subject themselves to a vapid review that simultaneously panders and derides as it pejoratively comments on a film? The solution is to provide content, not simply reduce each film into the simplest LCD review for easy tweeting. Leave that to the spectators, who are all too happy to share their thoughts in that way. The solution is trickle-down film criticism, not a level playing field.

Consider that in just 60 years film criticism has devolved from the Elysian wit of Truffaut to the hyperbolic pedantry of Travers et al.

Speaking of which, Travers’ review quickly becomes an extended diatribe presumably as dreary as the film it disparagingly describes. I have no issue with a review that negatively criticises the problems with a film; it would be hypocrisy for me to suggest otherwise, given that I hold no film as perfect. I take issue, however, with a writer who is two times too clever to care about commenting on the film, and who applies his critical gaze at everyone except himself. For example, he describes the film as a “two-and-a-half hour obstacle course of cinematic horse turds [that] resists redemption even from Depp”. A clever image, sure, but what evidence qualifies any of these statements? Furthermore, how do these statements contribute to the film’s “suck” factor, a proposition teased by the review’s introduction. That the film is an obstacle course was surely no impediment to the critical perception of the twisting narrative of say Mulholland Drive. Does he mean then that the film is stylistically inept? That the film throws too much at the viewer in an awkward fashion? He never specifies. And what, pray tell, is the literal equivalent of a “cinematic horse turd”? Notice how the ambiguity removes the onus from the review to actually offering any valid criticism and instead invites the reader to insert one’s own interpretation of what these statements might entail. It’s paint by numbers then, fill in each number with the negative opinion of your choice. Travers repeats this tactic again in the very next sentence when he explains that “[y]our expectations of how bad The Lone Ranger is can’t trump the reality”. The rhetorical strategy, in essence, requires the reader to fulfill Travers’ job and judge the film based on a review he’s only five sentences into. What should my expectations for this film be? I haven’t seen it yet, how can I judge that which I haven’t seen?

Rather than elaborating on any of his points, Travers loads his review with the gamut of exaggerated puns, calling it a “monumentally monotonous production” about “a pacifist lawyer who learns to grow a pair”, without ever addressing or explicating any of his claims. In what way is the production monotonous, no less monumentally so? Is that a quip about the film’s oversized budget? The review makes some truncated reference to the film involving two train chases and a “ton” of exposition, but fails to distinguish in what way these constitute monotony.

By the time Travers goes so far as to compare another of Johnny Depp’s roles to his portrayal of Tonto, it slips into the unsettling tone of thinly-veiled racism: “Captain Jack Sparrow would have swanned away from this dullness the first chance he got. But Tonto, the noble savage, has to stay and represent.” Nevermind that the reference to the stock character of the noble savage is more groan-inducing and clichéd than any film using the character itself, I’m at a loss to derive any meaning from the statement as it pertains to film criticism. I challenge anyone to do otherwise—especially considering how the review cultivates that pat manner of ending each paragraph with a sentence fragment. The point supposedly made. (Convincing, isn’t it?)

Travers finally begins to circle a relevant topic of inquiry, and one worthy of further investigation, when he insists the film “forgets it’s [sic] duty to entertain”. Nevermind he (and presumably his editor) failed to catch the wayward apostrophe, Travers is also aggressively glib on the precise nature of what this duty entails. Does he mean the film is designed to cater to his expectations, is that why he begins this paragraph with that note? (Maybe Depp and Hammer were on to something…) Or is he simply deferring to our expertise on the matter to supply the relevant criteria for entertainment. If the review depends solely on the reader supplying their own interpretations of what the film is and isn’t, what do we need this piece for?

One similarly has to wonder whom Travers is intending this review for, especially when he concludes his abbreviated points with such hackneyed idioms as “Here they’re just putting Pirates of the Caribbean in a saddle and pretending we won’t notice. Burn.” Those nine-year-olds he mentions just a few sentences earlier? (That same group he sarcastically asks us to imagine “bitching about ‘tonal shifts’” just to prove he’s got this movie figured out better than the rest of those critics he disparages with his comment?) When did the business of film criticism become the challenge of out-sassing even the most cynical?

You may notice that I conflate my criticism between the two subjects, between Travers and his review. My argument borders on ad hominem not because I’m especially rancorous towards Travers, but instead it’s precisely because Travers seems to invite the conflation. Why else pen a review which seems intended as a vehicle for showing off his ability for wit and flair for vitriol, more than it does for actually discussing the movie, except to say it’s a pile of horse turd? It reminds me of a similar argument I made against Rex Reed’s vicious review of V/H/S 2 (another film I haven’t seen, but which once again is entirely beside the point of my argument).

In comparing these two figures, Reed and Travers, I’m reminded of a pitiful scene from Book II of Alexander Pope’s satirical poem The Dunciad, in which the Fleet Street critics (home of London’s main printing houses in the 18th century when the poem was written) participate in some farcical “heroic games”. Among their many scatological contests is one intended to discover who can bray like an ass and impress the king of the monkeys (Pope traded insults for subtlety with this moment). The poet Richard Blackmore, derided by Pope for his limited vocabulary and repetitive imagism (particularly the use of the word “bray” for love), wins the catcall contest, and is praised by the other hacks (themselves parodies of what Pope considered hack writers in his day): “All hail him victor in both gifts of Song, / Who sings so loudly, and who sings so long” (II 255–6).

In case the reader missed the insult, the assembled throng run down the street to frolic in a river of shit, the Fleet Street ditch, where they engage in a diving contest to see who can muck up the most filth. The judge of the contest, Dulness, offers to he “Who flings [the] most filth, and wide pollutes around / The stream,” the prize that “his the Weekly Journals, [shall be] bound” (II 267–8); the Weekly Journals being a collective noun for the London newspapers—the modern equivalent of People magazine and a couple others I leave to your imagination.

Ironically, Travers gets closest to offering a valid criticism when he dismisses the lead actors. “Hammer and Depp never develop a rapport,” he writes, “This is Tonto’s show.” Rather than investigating this line further, however, and interpreting whether the filmmakers intended to say anything by making the sidekick, Tonto, the star of a film called The Lone Ranger (besides merely allowing Johnny Depp more screen time), Travers dismisses the possibility with the unflinching certainty of a fundamentalist preacher. Lest you worried the review would cause you to think, it’s on to the next point, which is that “when you’ve seen one scene of a Native American conning a dumb white dude, you’ve seen them all.” Again, I fail to see how that reinforces the film being about Tonto as a negative.

In light of these many egregious practices in contemporary film criticism, consider then this piece as but another disputation in my own personal Ninety-five Theses. Whether a reformation ever comes is not the point. Though there may never come a time when the decadent critics will be torn screaming from their lofty pinnacles, viewers are nevertheless beginning to tune out the noise—the deadly din of a thousand voices all shouting the same dull pitch. Buy! Sell! It’s a firesale on integrity and everything worthwhile about cinema must go.

Rome burns—the critical and cinematic landscape is aflame—and Nero, the critic, fiddles.

It’s clear from Travers’ review that he didn’t enjoy the film, though why we’re never quite certain, other than perhaps he found it boring, monotonous and covered in shit (if I am to take his quip about “horse turds” literally). My point is that with clearly nothing worthwhile to offer, no biting criticism of the film, Travers merely barks his disapproval.

Nevermind that he deigns to end the review with an arcane ritual of conferring the lowly one star out of four on the film, the five plodding paragraphs of his review encapsulated into the five pointless tips of that pixelated little star. The only point the star really provides is to crush the potential of film criticism down into a quick-chew tablet for the Neanderthalic nine-year-olds he refers to in his review.

Perhaps after I watch the film I may decry it as vapid and intellectually offensive, but rest assured, I will resist the urge to dismiss it simply because this movie sucks, and that’s why.

[1] I would also like to point out that of all the news agencies that reported the story, the only one who properly sourced the story was IGN, the rest carefully omitted that the words were ever exchanged with Yahoo! Movies UK. Whatever happened to academic and professional integrity? On that note, Yahoo! Movies UK misspelled Verbinski as Verbinksi (which is visible in the quotation which I have left untouched). I give up on these people.


17 thoughts on “How Modern Film Critics Are Killing Creativity

  1. I’m not about to defend Travers’ review, but I will say that “cinematic horse turd” is probably intended by him to be a clever reference to a scene in the film where The Lone Ranger ends up with his face in horse crap. Also, the “noble savage” line could be a reference to the display title where we first see an aged Tonto in the beginning. None of that makes his “criticism” any better, but I imagine that’s where he was going with it. It does no good, however, to make those references without explaining their meaning both with regards to the film and his criticism of it. Those lines are meaningless to the readers.

    • Except then who is his review intended for? People who’ve only seen the movie? You’re suggesting I need to somehow correctly guess every viable interpretation his words offer? Maybe he was having a laugh. All I can do is interpret with the material at my disposal, which I note at the start of my post is NOT the film in question (because that was my point in the first place).

      I will grant that I fail to adequately capture the full range of meanings offered by his words (though who can claim such knowledge?), but to say these lines are meaningless is quite another matter.

      • Yes, you pretty much have to have seen the movie for his review to have meaning, which is insane. I’m merely pointing out what he was trying to do, not saying that’s what he should be doing. It’s ridiculous to write a review for people who’ve seen the movie. You can’t reference things without explanation and expect it to have any meaning to the readers.

      • My apologies, I don’t think I understood your point. Though yes, my piece lacks some measure of fairness, though I’m merely reacting to the evidence I’m presented.

      • I was agreeing with you. I was pointing out that those two things are references to things in the movie which a reader who hasn’t seen the movie would have no basis for understanding. It’s lazy writing, if nothing else. It’s the equivalent of saying it sucks because it sucks. He thinks he’s being funny by referencing the movie, but without any of the “why” behind its supposed sucking, it lacks any meaning.

      • Wait, I’m still trying to get this cleared up, are you suggesting my words are meaningless to the reader, or Travers? I’m not good with ambiguity.

        EDIT: Nevermind, I see what you mean. I was confused by the lack of a specified subject and the “however” in the “It does no good, however, to make those references without explaining their meaning both with regards to the film and his criticism of it.” Carry on, nevermind me.

      • Travers’. He’s referencing things that the readers would have no understanding of. It’s like if I were to describe the Star Wars movies to people and say they’re like a Rancor without the audience knowing what a Rancor is and whether that’s good or bad.

      • Glad we got that cleared up. I agree with everything you had to say in your article. I was simply attempting to add to it by showing the nature of the circular references in his review. Sorry for the confusion.

  2. When I was much younger I wrote film reviews for my local newspaper. I really enjoy Travers as a critic mostly because as a reviewer you are sent to watch an unbelievable amount of crap movies and it can be pretty frustrating to watch the same formula unfold over and over or watch an actor play the same part one movie after another. I don’t necessarily think that all films deserve critical thought. I’d rather someone like Travers (who I trust because our tastes are fairly similar) tell me “this sucks, don’t waste your time” rather than go into some lengthy critical review of Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift. This entirely depends on the reader trusting a specific critic of course, and agreeing that fluff films aren’t worthy of critical analysis.

    I disagree that Travers review doesn’t offer any reasoning for why the film “sucks”. He calls the film out for using cliched stereotypes of Indians, the monotony of the action scenes and lack of an interesting/engaging story (an educated reader could infer that the reason is because it’s a Jerry Bruckheimer production), absence of chemistry between the two leads, and something that I was particularly happy to read:

    “They’re just putting Pirates of the Caribbean in a saddle and pretending we won’t notice. Burn.”

    In my opinion, between Pirates of the Caribbean and all the Burton collaborations, Johnny Depp has become a caricature of himself. His career has gone from interesting, thoughtful and unique characters in mostly independent productions to playing the eccentric. It’s boring. And Depp has a solid enough repertoire of daring performances that it is offensive. As for Bruckheimer, that man doesn’t concern himself with making good film, he cares about making a lot of money at the expense of dumb mass audiences that will pay money to watch the same movie over and over. Depp doesn’t think that a film collaboration with a producer like Jerry Bruckheimer is going to be marketed as a blockbuster? That a guy who has probably produced more sequels than original films is really going to make a film concerned with creativity? I call bullshit, and I appreciate that Travers cuts right through it too. I don’t think that Travers can be accused of stifling creativity, because what he is criticizing is a film that in essence lacks creativity.

    I will agree that there is a difference between a review and a critique. But I don’t think that the majority of audiences are concerned with critique. Before seeing a film, I think that most people just want to know whether the acting is good, the direction notable, the story interesting and original, etc. When I really like a movie and I want to read critique, I’ll search for film essays on mubi, or similar sites. I think both styles serve a good purpose.

    • I’m not mounting any sort of defence for poor ole multi-millionaire Depp, or the film (as I said, I haven’t even seen it). At certain points (like during the cogent review offered of the film) I’m almost uncertain if this comment is meant to pertain to the argument at hand or merely to defend Travers. In a way, this comment inadvertently proves my point. It offers a more coherent review of the film than Travers’. This review seems less about sass and LCD tactics and all about the film at hand based on evidence, nevermind if this evidence becomes a matter of taste rather than content.

      As for the latter point, I disagree with the binary distinction between critique and review. While I agree most audiences would rather read Travers than Truffaut, that doesn’t make what Travers is doing the best idea. Nevermind that I wonder the point of making a movie if the sole purpose is to get actors acting “good” (whatever that means), and directors notably directing (again, that needs qualification) an interesting and original story (again, why do we need the distinction of interesting AND original. Can you have one without the other? Interesting in what sense? Original in what sense? Truffaut made numerous film adaptations of books, should these not count as original works, for example, or are they made more interesting because of the interest generated by the originality of the adaptation?). If only because it’s so damn restrictive. Rossellini purposely cast a nervous, mumbling, wreck of a man to play Louis XIV; he seems ill-suited to the role, carries himself without any typical kingly grace and at times looks like he’s reading lines off a cue-card. He would be quote “a bad actor” by any stretch of contemporary vernacular. But that’s precisely what Rossellini wanted. Maybe chalk it up to that notable direction then, but how can we make any sort of arbitrary statements without falling into the is-ought dilemma? Much better to interpret, to consider whether casting an actor like that to play a monarch like that is a sound choice, and consider its implications, and let the viewer decide for himself. If that doesn’t sound like a better idea than trashing anything that doesn’t constrain itself to the ambiguous realm of “suck” and “doesn’t suck”, then what’s the point of making movies? Just for profit? This is not a matter of splitting hairs, it’s a matter of asking why not have both, why not have reviews that don’t seek merely to support the initial conclusion that a film sucks because Bruckheimer produced it. I intend to make it my mission to show how the latter type of review doesn’t serve a good purpose.

      As for the title, perhaps it’s a fear-mongering tactic, and on reflection I maybe should have written the “gotcha” headline as a question rather than a statement, but I stand by the statement, if only because I intend to explore the issue further with more columns.

      • My argument is that most films that are marketed to mainstream audiences are studio films that are manufactured in such a way that they are indistinguishable from one another. You hear certain names (in this case Depp and Bruckheimer) and it’s safe to assume what the entire package is going to consist of. That is a lack of creativity on the part of Hollywood, and therefore a critic “reviewing” it in a negative way can’t be accused of killing creativity. I think further investigation on your part, which I’m excited for you to explore would offer a more fruitful analysis of the topic.

        To answer your questions about what makes acting “good”, direction “notable”, or a film “interesting AND original”, I suppose if we want to be pc we can say that all art is subjective, and that therefore there can be no such thing as good art or bad art. I suppose….but in the end acting or directing is like any skill, and some are better than others. To me the qualifications of that are by how much an actor inhabits a character: their voice or accent, body language, facial reactions, visual appearance, etc. Is an actor really creating a person whose mannerisms are foreign to their own, or just reacting like themselves and reading lines? I don’t think that judging an actor in such terms makes me presumptuous or pretentious. What makes a film interesting and original? I don’t think that Truffaut is unoriginal because he adapted other people’s works. Truffaut played around with the limitations of film. Limitations that were placed on him by the mainstream film community and audiences who defined film by a specific structure and discouraged any deviation from established rules. He broke the 180 degree rule, used jump cuts, experimented with plot and structure, that is what makes him original, because he pushed himself to do things that were fresh and new. Bruckheimers films are formulas that have proven successful amongst audiences, he produces films that repeat those rules and expectations, type of film making is what I would classify as uninteresting and unoriginal. Maybe it is all a matter of taste, but I think that people that watch lots of films and read theory and critical analysis would disagree.

      • I agree that my title is hyperbolic, and perhaps I go too far towards the very same tactics I accuse others of. Something to consider in the future. Or perhaps the problem is that I argue they kill creativity and use what can only be determined from general consensus is a less than creative film. That also ties back into my belief that if a film is not worth the review, then why review it? Why not just put a bunch of stars up and move on? I hope you don’t mind if I defer a more detailed response to a subsequent post, I just don’t want to give a Coles notes version in haste.

        Ironically, I myself subscribe to the general rule of thumb–pardon the pun–that “if Ebert liked it I probably will too”, and I consider Ebert something of a light in that even though he played by the rules of film criticism, the stars and thumbs, the good movie and the bad movie, he was always measured and thoughtful in his dislike of a movie. Consider his initial reflections of the Brown Bunny compared to his final review. This man might have argued for what a filmmaker should and shouldn’t do, in this case more explicitly than in other reviews, but he made sure to back it up.

        I do agree that there can be a fixed general usage of the word “bad” or “unoriginal”, but I disagree that these should function as rules to abide by. For example, I can understand that you wouldn’t want a bad performance on film (bad as we currently define it), but I can equally understand why one might want a bad performance from an actor. I’ve yet to read a compelling argument for what a film should and shouldn’t be allowed to be (Aristotle famously argued that all plays should happen within a single day, obviously we disagree). Again, it all goes down to the intended signal the film is meant to transmit. If the sole signal is “have fun watching this movie and don’t think too hard about it”, there’s nothing wrong with that, but they shouldn’t expect or hope for anyone to engage with it. The fact that they do is the problem. So the modern critic might instead be better served interpreting the film, even if that produces a negative review. They would be better served arguing “this film reads to me as this”, instead of “since I read this film as such, it’s a bad movie, avoid avoid avoid”, that’s an overstep in logic, and it’s atrophying creativity.

        I attempted to get at that somewhat in this column, but I realize it would take more than just a single yahoo interview to prove that. Consider my title then as an ongoing thesis.

        I also appreciate the time, thought and energy in your comments, and by no means do I mean my replies to be read as “stop commenting”. I thrive on this kind of critical review of my own work, it lets me know if I’m going off track as well as what pieces of the puzzle I’ve yet to put together. And I’m convinced there’s a complete picture capable of emerging, or else I’ll shut this blog down and never write another word on film again. So yes, I value your words, and I sincerely hope you will continue to keep them coming so long as you deem my work worthy of them.

  3. I think that my main problem with your argument is that you are asking that films like those of Rossellini or Truffaut be critiqued in the same manner as a film produced by a big Hollywood player. They are on two different planes, and as I said before, a film like Tokyo Drift and, say, Beasts of the Southern Wild don’t deserve the same level of critique. One is made to entertain for the simple purpose of selling tickets, the other is a work of art meant to provoke thought. If that makes me a pretentious film snob I’ll take it. I’d like to see more examples of modern films and their critiques.

    • I agree to an extent with the difference between say a Rossellini and a Hollywood Hack (and I don’t argue such a difference doesn’t exist). Where I don’t agree is whether we can truly distinguish until we consider these figures in turn. By way of truncated explanation I offer Paul Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers. Mindless summer popcorn movie or a crass satire on fascism? How can we know unless we interpret? And how can we interpret if we choose the film’s budget and its marketing materials as our litmus test for value? (Or much less its actors, who struggle to emote with anything passing for human.) How can we tell is Verhoeven is a Hollywood hack or a director of estimable brilliance? I would argue the latter, but I don’t have any analysis of my own to back it up yet.

      I for one would never dream of writing anything positive about a film that crassly exploits its audience purely for profit, but then, I can’t make that statement until I’ve considered the evidence, and that involves paradoxically reading the film without preconceived judgment (aside from whatever theoretical backgrounds are underpinning your understanding of film) in order to form a judgment.

  4. Pingback: On the Need for Critics, and the Means by which their Field might be Improved | digital didascalia

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s