On Criticism

It stinks!
- flim critic Jay Sherman, describing . . . well, basically any movie.

Being a film critic can be a thankless job. At best, you bring much needed attention to small films that should be seen by wider audiences. At worst, you dump on more popular fare and give off the aura of a stuck-up tight ass who doesn't know how to have any fun. New York Times critic A.O. Scott muses on that problem in a recent piece:

For the second time this summer, then, my colleagues and I must face a frequently — and not always politely — asked question: What is wrong with you people? I will, for now, suppress the impulse to turn the question on the moviegoing public, which persists in paying good money to see bad movies that I see free. I don’t for a minute believe that financial success contradicts negative critical judgment; $500 million from now, 'Dead Man’s Chest' will still be, in my estimation, occasionally amusing, frequently tedious and entirely too long. But the discrepancy between what critics think and how the public behaves is of perennial interest because it throws into relief some basic questions about taste, economics and the nature of popular entertainment, as well as the more vexing issue of what, exactly, critics are for.

Scott's ponderings have led some to lambaste him further, but I think he's just a bit short sighted. Keep in mind that Scott (and other critics) watch lots of movies. I mean a huge amount. And, quite frankly, most of them suck. That's not being snobbish, it's true of any quasi creative art form (gods know, it's true of this blog!). It is, after all, their job. As a result, they seem to sometime lose sight of why lots of people go to the movies in the first place - to have fun and indulge in a bit of escapism. The same reason they watch American Idol and those endless Law & Order spinoffs. Thus, when someone like Scott pontificates on the merits of a movie, it just doesn't matter to most folks.

Also, keep this in mind. Scott is right that financial performance is no indicator of quality, if for no other reason that you can't get your money back if a movie sucks. Once you've paid your money to see, say, The Da Vinci Code, they keep your cash regardless of your aesthetic reaction to the film. After all, you don't go pay them another $10 if you really like a movie, do you? TV, by contrast, allows you to sample a show and either keep watching future episodes or just spend your time elsewhere.

And I will give Scott credit for one thing, a refreshing bit of honesty:

Online, everyone is a critic, which is as it should be: professional prerogatives aside, a critic is really just anyone who thinks out loud about something he or she cares about, and gets into arguments with fellow enthusiasts.

In the end, art is subjective and any critic (provide he's not discussing strictly technical aspects) can basically only tell you in a long-winded sort of way whether they liked the movie or not. If you read the same critics consistently, you can get an idea of how their tastes mirror yours so that a review tells you whether you might like a flick, not because the critic liked it, but because you know why they liked it (or not).