|
“I have here a heartfelt
message from a reader who urges me not to be so hard on stupid films,
because they are 'plenty smart enough for the average moviegoer.' Yes,
but one hopes being an average moviegoer is not the end of the road:
that one starts as a below-average filmgoer, passes through average,
and, guided by the labors of America's hard-working film critics,
arrives in triumph at above-average.” – Roger Ebert"
Peter Bart, the editor of Variety, recently wrote a column
attacking film critics and their Top Ten lists, calling them “elitist,
obscurantist and brain-damaged.” Then Michael Medved echoed Bart's
complaint in USA Today, adding that endorsing obscure non-hits "not only
enhances a critic's conviction that he serves some important purpose,
but also strengthens his sense of superiority, suggesting that the
reviewer possesses knowledge, refinement and sophistication that set him
apart from ordinary moviegoers." Roger Ebert responded by saying “But
surely that is the function of the critic? ‘Best 10’ lists are not a
science, anyway. Their greatest usefulness is for readers looking for
rental ideas.” Ebert went on to say, “As for the quote from Medved: I
couldn't have said it better. Yes, like any self-respecting critic, I
believe I serve an important purpose, and that I possess knowledge,
refinement and sophistication that set me apart from ordinary
moviegoers. It is interesting that Medved doesn't believe this
statement describes himself.”
Ebert has also said, "Most people choose
movies that provide exactly what they expect, and tell them things they
already know. Others are more curious. We are put on this planet only
once, and to limit ourselves to the familiar is a crime against our
minds."
Surely
these are the most useful functions of a critic… to teach, to expand
horizons and to enhance curiosity.
And it
is with those thoughts from the Pulitzer Prize winning film critic that
I begin my little rant. There is a stigma to the word ‘critic’, one
that seems to carry extremely negative connotations.
It is a stigma that I have never really understood.
Critics are paid to have opinions and to write those opinions on the
pages of newspapers and websites or, in some cases, verbalize them on
television and radio. How do they get these jobs?
Well, in most cases they are college graduates who have degrees
in Journalism or English or Film. Most of them love
the artistic medium of film and have seen countless movies over the
years. Ebert has estimated the number he has seen at
around 8000. Respected critics have usually seen
between 2000 and 6000 films since the age of 18. Any
film seen before that age shouldn’t really count unless it has been
revisited since. These people are undeniably experts
in their field, like mechanics, judges, coaches, computer programmers or
even politicians (Well maybe I stretched the similes too far).
If you question why critics tend to have
such opposing opinions to the general movie-going public, and what gives
their opinion more validity than ‘Joe Schmo’, ask yourself this. -- Why
do car mechanics know more about internal combustion engines than the
casual driver? Experience is the answer to both questions. The fact is
that good critics see a great deal more films than the average member of
the public, who may only see the twenty most publicized movies of the
year. Critics also get to see a wider variety of films each year. ‘Joe
Schmo’ doesn’t typically get to see all of the independent films,
foreign films, art house films and documentaries that are available. He
usually reserves his Friday nights for the latest action blockbuster or
teen comedy.
In addition, the best critics have seen most
of the classics in film history, which gives them expertise that can
only be attained by that experience. I hear you hollering ‘What if I
see 100 movies a year? Does that make me a critic?’ -- Well it helps.
But you also need the rare ability to convey your opinion in a clear and
concise way, entertaining and informing your readers. If you couple
that talent with a propensity for watching the bulk of pertinent
releases each year, AND you have the time to write or verbalize your
opinions for a substantial portion of the movie-going public… then, and
only then, can you consider yourself a film critic.
Some may say that everyone's opinion is
equally valid... I disagree whole-heartedly. Who would you take your
car to -- Your buddy, who is working on the beat up El Camino and
Trans-Am in his back yard, or the mechanic who has been working on all
sorts of cars for over forty years? The mechanic may cost a little more
and reading the critic may take more time and effort... but the results
in both cases will be more reliable.
The great critics generally recognize and
respond to great films, bad films and all the mediocrity in-between.
The general public recognizes and responds to big movie stars and $30
million advertising campaigns.
Ask yourself this question... Do you believe
that the average member of the public is intelligent or dumb? I know
what my answer would be. Oh, and if you are offended by that comment...
well... just think about that for a moment.
And in
case you think that critics don’t influence the public... you might want
to ask Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez about the effect of bad reviews.
'Gigli' arguably boasts the two most famous celebrities of the past few
years as its leads. The hideous reviews led to an opening weekend gross
of only $3.8m... not even enough to pay 25% of JLo's salary for the
film. Critics won the battle there and have an amazing effect on the
final grosses of most films.
There are two types of moviegoing people...
the 'Armageddon' crowd & the 'Schindler's List' crowd. That's an
over-simplification, but most people will understand what I mean. I
know where I stand... and you probably know where you stand. The
'Schindler's List' folks are usually open to knowledge and expertise…
they are willing to read or listen to critics so that they may decipher
which films suit their tastes. These people have figured out which
critics best clarify the muddy release schedule each year. They
understand that it is their responsibility to find the critics that best
suit them. The 'Armageddon' fanatics usually spout one-liners like,
‘All critics suck!’ or ‘Critics are just brainiac geeks who like chick
flicks’. They tend to like those films that are supposedly ‘critic
proof’. But I contend that there are no such films. These ‘critic
proof’ blockbusters are very vulnerable to consensus bad reviews. They
may still make $200 million, but they probably could have made $250
million with universal praise.
However, I do believe that there are ‘critic
proof’ people. Those people (The ‘Armageddon’ crowd) will never possess
enough intellect or enough will-power to improve themselves, so that
they may someday live up to Ebert’s challenge of “arriving in triumph
at above-average.” Most people would rather watch a popular movie than a
good one! I truly believe the average moviegoer would have a tough time
admitting that they disliked a huge box office hit because they don't
want to seem outside of the herd. Most people are sheep.
This essay is not intended for ‘Joe Schmos’,
who wouldn’t even make it past the first paragraph without getting tired
of reading. Those people are not welcome to read my reviews and don’t
deserve to have hard working critics laboring for them. To be
completely honest... They are not the demographic that most of my fellow
critics and I are aiming for... We are not intended for the masses.
Our readers should be serious about film… not obsessed with pop culture
icons and flatulence humor. And maybe, just maybe, somewhere along the
road, we can pick up a few of those souls who are teetering on the edge
of a cliff, looking down on millions of blank-faced sheep, and lead them
toward the enlightenment of exploration, curiosity and knowledge.
Most adults will not go to a
movie that they haven't seen a commercial for, or one without a big name
star on the poster. Some will blankly refuse to see a foreign film with
subtitles. They will, however, go to any movie that has been plugged
with a $30 million ad campaign and is sanctified as a 'box-office
winner.' Yes, some of these big hits are good, and a few of them are
great. But what happens between the time we are 8 and the time we are 20
that robs us of our childhood curiosity? What turns movie lovers into
consumers? What does it say about you if you only want to see what
everybody else is seeing? I believe we are born with our minds open to
wonderful experiences, and only slowly learn to limit ourselves to
narrow tastes. We are taught to lose our curiosity by the bludgeon-blows
of mass marketing, which brainwash us to see 'hits', and discourage
exploration." – Roger Ebert
This essay is
solely my opinion and is not necessarily reflective of my fellow
critics on this site. Please direct all complaints and moronic
insults to the email provided below. You won't be the only one!
|
