Every year, some terrible movies come out and make boatloads of money (see: “Paul Blart: Mall Cop,” “Transformers 2,” “Fast and Furious”). And every year, some poor schmuck has to write the tired “Do critics even matter?” storyline for one more go-around. What fun.
Consider one of this year’s entrants, Sarah Lafferty of StarPulse. The essential argument is always the same — that critics are “out of touch” because they love Truffaut and hate common people:
This past week and a half is a strong example. “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” was not well reviewed. Eighty percent of the critics on Rotten Tomatoes panned the film. Granted, I could not even stomach it. However, did this stop the masses from running to the theater and almost beating the previous box office opening held by The Dark Knight? No. It made $60 million on opening day and over $200 million in just five days. That being said, “Public Enemies” was extremely well reviewed but only made $8 million on opening day. This opens a sort of battle of the Michaels (Michael Bay and Michael Mann). Anyone who thinks these two films can be compared or pitted against each other, needs serious help. But outside of various awards, these two films are equal in the eyes of distributors, production companies, etc. The cost of the ticket is the same.
While box office blockbusters may not be your thing, they still have a rightful place in cinema. What we need is a critic who actually plays to their audience. Art film does have a place, and people should always try new things, but tastes of all people should be respected. If you are searching for a good fun horror film for instance, you should be able to find an accurate review telling you as much. While no review is perfect, a reviewer should at least try to serve their audience; in the end, isn’t that why reviews exist?
To address this final question bluntly, no. A reviewer’s job is inherently narcissistic (just like, dare I say, a blogger’s). A reviewer watches a film, then writes down her observations on that film, using the experiences (both film-based and otherwise) that she has accumulated over the years. Her job is not to agree with the audience, because the audience is not her. Lafferty is correct in that films like “Transformers 2” should not be compared with, say, “Casablanca,” but that does not preclude film critics from making their observations. After all, shouldn’t “Transformers 2” be compared to other big-budget action movies, such as “Jurassic Park,” “Iron Man,” or even the first iteration of “Transformers”; all films to which “Transformers 2” has been compared unfavorably?
Furthermore, let us not confuse box office successes with good movies. On Sporcle today, they have a new quiz up about actors’ highest grossing films. It will sadden you. Reese Witherspoon’s most “successful” picture? “Monsters Vs. Aliens.” Meryl Streep’s “best”? “Mamma Mia!” Robert De Niro’s top-grossing movies are… “Meet the Fockers,” “Shark Tale” and “Meet the Parents.” Sweet Lord! Can we agree that movie box office success has more to do with marketing and timing than quality and durability? Of last year’s films, will we remember “Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa” ($602.3M) more than we remember “Wall-E” ($534.8M)?
What I believe is that all clear-minded people should remain two things throughout their lifetimes: Curious and teachable. If someone I respect tells me I must take a closer look at the films of Abbas Kiarostami, I will take that seriously. If someone says the kung-fu movies of the 1970s, which I used for our old Dog of the Week segments, deserve serious consideration, I will listen. I will try to do what Pauline Kael said she did: Take everything you are, and all the films you’ve seen, into the theater. See the film, and decide if anything has changed. The older you are and the more films you’ve seen, the more you take into the theater. When I had been a film critic for ten minutes, I treated Doris Day as a target for cheap shots. I have learned enough to say today that the woman was rarely gifted.
Those who think “Transformers” is a great or even a good film are, may I tactfully suggest, not sufficiently evolved. Film by film, I hope they climb a personal ladder into the realm of better films, until their standards improve. Those people contain multitudes. They deserve films that refresh the parts others do not reach. They don’t need to spend a lifetime with the water only up to their toes.
What we need in criticism is not a reinforcement of our existing values, but a challenge against the tastes we have developed and a demand for a different perspective on looking at a film. Back to Lafferty’s point, a critic’s job is to serve her audience — through providing alternative perspectives, analytical acumen, and as Anton Ego would say, “the defense of the new,” and not in the way that Lafferty suggests, a mere recommendation machine.
The title of this post comes from an account of Leonidas at the Battle of Thermopylae. Although the combat metaphor is perhaps overstretched, the film critic still serves an essential purpose — to deliberately explore the joys, despairs and ennui of the world of film and convey an expert opinion to us hordes. In this sense, a film critic is merely the latest division of labor, specializing in the consumption and evaluation of film so that we don’t have to.
Which, of course, leads to all the inevitable crowing about the death of film criticism in general. After all, Leonidas and his Spartans did die to a man at Thermopylae (I think there were 300 or so?). I, like Ebert, find the growing mass of amateur criticism to be worthwhile because it indicates a seriousness about film that has moved beyond the film-school-educated and towards the hungry masses who desire a deeper connection with film, who do not shrink from subtitled movies, be they Bruce Lee or Luis Bunuel.
Soon, one hopes, we will have the numbers and the heights.
You’ve pretty well covered it, but I’ve always hated the argument that just because more people go see a movie or more money gets spent on it, it’s “better” than good movies which make a lot less money. Is McDonald’s better food than that of a steakhouse because it makes more money in a month?
Plus, looking at movie ticket sales alone ignores major movie-goer influences. If you’re the head of a family are you going to take your 13 year old son and his friends to Transformers 2 or Atonement?
Good point on kids and movies; Hollywood knows that the pursestrings for films today are held by kids, not by parents.