Challenge of the Critic

Critics, amateur or otherwise, owe something to the art

I fancy myself a critic. (links here) Do I get paid to do this? Rarely. But that is not why I do it. That isn’t to say I would turn down a paying gig. *Taps microphone*

Anyway. I think a lot about film as art. I think a lot about the way that we, as critics, engage with this art. There is now, and probably always will be, discussion of the divide between critics and audiences. This is mostly corporate spin BS and loyalty to a brand (insane behavior, by the way), but it is mostly a waste of time to discuss.

What I do want to discuss is an alarming attitude from many critics about populist entertainment.

Look, I am the first person to prefer the “arthouse” film over the massive, big-budget, blockbusters. But that does not mean that they are without value. Some of the biggest money makers in history (Jaws, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, The Avengers), still have interesting ideas. Yes, many times they are covered by spectacle and expensive special effects.

But the ideas persist. Jaws is about masculinity and the importance of humane governance. Star Wars is an entire universe based on the hero’s (or heroine’s) journey and anti-Fascism. Indiana Jones is about the protection of artifacts, without profit. The Avengers is about teamwork and fighting for what is right. There is a reason that these spectacles make money, and it is not just due to being “an event.” Comic books, myth-making, whatever you want to call it, has persisted throughout human history.

And yet, I find critics (even paid ones) making decisions about movies, sight unseen. Yes, film is a visual medium, but it is not solely visuals. This is what galls me about commenting that films look “like slop” using a low quality trailer as “proof.” We all know that they rush these trailers out to get people talking. This is especially true of the bigger budget films.

And you can have that opinion of the visuals, but, as a critic, you should hold yourself to a higher standard. It is important to meet a film on its own terms. Lawrence of Arabia and Madame Web are both movies, but they have wildly different goals. You cannot and should not judge them on the same criteria. There is good to be found in all genres.

Now, I will admit, I have been guilty of this in the past, or at least jokingly so. But I pride myself on doing my best to give everything a fair shot. If we, as critics, do not do this, aren’t we just as bad as the fans we complain about, just in the opposite direction?

We claim that they will enjoy any “slop” put in front of them. But if we walk into a movie ready to eviscerate it, are we not just as much of a problem?