My Defense of Critics

Not too long ago, maybe two issues back of Time Magazine there was an article by Richard Corliss regarding his thoughts and feelings on why critics exist. You see, every so often critics come under fire from Hollywood for being jaded or blah blah blah, essentially not liking their films and therefore giving bad publicity and ruining a film before it even comes out if they can. Yet, Hollywood and most people have learned that critics are often ignored by the paying public as to what films to watch. The original defense for critics created by one of Corliss' predecessors is that film critics make no claim to being able to judge box office or how well a film will do, they are their to determine what films are considered great films in the canon of films. Now, this is true and yet it is also incredibly elitist assuming that the general paying public is a bunch of morons who wouldn't know art if it bit them in the ankle and then jumped up and down a bit. We, as a society, require film critics to apparently tell us what will be the next Casablanca and what films we should study and learn from. Now, although I agree that most of the paying public is too forgiving and usually insensitive to good films and willing to settle for decent, I won't say that they are ALL morons. This excuse was originally employed by a professional well-known film critic in response to trashing James Cameron's Titanic piece of crap. Cameron then came out after the movie had broken all of the box office records whining about how critics were obviously elitist and out of touch with reality since his film had done SO well and wanted the critic fired. Instead of apologizing and saying I'm wrong, the defense was, well, the movie sucked as a movie but the public loved it, what you gonna do? This is the same defense Corliss uses when defending his and many other "professional" film critics choice to destroy the recent films 300 and Ghost Rider. While I agree to this assessment that film critics are needed to help the quality of Hollywood improve for its own sake and they are not an accurate measuring stick for box office intake, the real question then becomes what is the point of having film critics in popular writings if their goal is so elitist? Surely they are more apt to be useful in a cinema magazine or in a paper dedicated to the arts, but the New York Times? Washington Post? Newspaper subscriptions have fallen exponentially over the years as people have become less and less willing to pay for the news, leaving papers with two routes, either go high brow to capture and hold onto the intelligent hardcore, or try and dumb down and spread out to grab as many potential readers as possible. I know when I started off trying to break into journalism, I was told to cover local theater only and then told not to bother because they decided it was too highbrow to review theatrical performances. The question really is, how come the Post and the Times employ critics instead of reviewers? People whose job is to guess how much the audience will like or dislike a film? Well, they kind of do. It's true that critics are a snobby bunch, but one look at Rotten tomatoes reviews for a film will show critics thoughts which can veer wildly away from each other. I remember looking and finding a couple of really positive reviews of Ultraviolet before I saw it and laughed at the film so hard I cried. Many critics have to write so much that finding that perfect take or entrance into a piece could be really difficult. Besides, sometimes critics are fanboys as well. God knows if Arrested Development was made into a movie as had been talked about at one point, the critics would have covered it like fanboys do Spiderman 3 or Transformers. I think the real reason critics are necessary, as hard as this is for Hollywood to stomach, is that they are here to delineate the amazing movies from the rest of the so-so to pretty good schlock churned out each year. If you asked someone for a top 50 movie list, there is a good possibility that some films they have never seen but heard of as being one of the "greats" will be on there such as Gone with the Wind or The Maltese Falcon. The difference is that when you ask a critic for the top 50, you know you are getting a much more accurate and better top 50 than you would from asking some random person. Critics have to try and figure out what films are better than others without allowing taste and current appeal to factor into their decisions. I think that their real problem is that everyone wants to be a critic and not a reviewer and so many people end up sullying the title critic by writing film reviews. Myself, I'm part both. I pump movies I like and I get excited about certain characteristics of films such as Edward Norton or Christopher Nolan. Yet, I do my best to try and see the film as if I was someone in film school or down the line several years and what they would think. What some people might not know is I have an unadulterated love for cheesy 80's to early 90's flicks like 3 Ninjas, Mr. Nanny, Surf Ninjas, the Pee Wee movie, and oh so many more. Although I can easily agree that all of these films are terrible! With the exception of 3 Ninjas, the first one, you know with the pepper coffee filter trick things and the crazy forest acrobatics, which is decent. Instead, because I do not devote myself 100% to the elitist cause of film critics nor do I wish to degrade myself to simply guessing what the audience should like, I am somewhere in between the two main categories and the new third one dubbed the fanboy. The Times magazine has some interesting news based on the rise of what it called "fanboy" critics like aintitcool.com and joblo.com which hype and cover films from more of a populist standpoint and to which the success of 300 seems to have been more or less directly related. Thes sites are fanboy sites because if you notice they go out of their way to cover the most minute details of things like who will voice Optimus Prime? Does Batman's suit really outline his nipples? And who in the world thought it was a good idea to let Uwe Boll touch ANYTHING? As much as I revel in the minute detail provided by these websites regarding such seemingly insignificant material based on beloved franchises and figures, I also realize that at the end of the day, only the acting, directing, and visual presentation matter. Certain things may irk me as a fan, but films are not made for fans, they are made for everyone. Films just like to gain fans support because the fans will spread word of mouth and hype before it opens. Therefore,although I refuse to hype much before the release of a film, I will certainly go out of my way in person to hit you up with inane knowledge long lost to all but the most virulent and detailed driven loser...errr, explorer. I think by combining my love of films and my nerdiness with my criticism and trying to find a middle ground for the average theatregoer, I am providing a good medium ground that could hopefully satisfy any sane human being by explaining my reasoning in clear and concise manner. Although you know what, Little Miss Sunshine still sucked. :) Let the HATE BEGIN!!!

Wannabe