I’ve been planning to write this for ages, and while the specifics of what I want to say have changed over time, the central theme has remained the same. I have a love/hate relationship with critics and criticism (pertaining specifically to art/film/theater/music) in the same way I have a love/hate relationship with politics. And, like American politics, the state of criticism is in rapid freefall.
The world is shrinking, and the abstract is quickly becoming more defined, and information is more accessible than ever thanks to the internet and our inescapable 24 hour news cycle. But for some reason it seems like the general public is less informed than ever before. So, what do a faltering crop of critics, a misinformed populous and a decline in our political system have to do with one another? At the root of the problem is a degrading, corroding standard of journalistic integrity.
I will spare you the rant about politics, there is plenty of that out there already, so if you want to increase your levels of cynicism I trust you can manage that on your own. I will though, focus on Critics. Now, I could write a piece about Sebastian Smee and Jerry Saltz and the pressures of the art market defining critical praise with outlandish prices, but that’s going to alienate all but a handful of people who might somehow stumble upon and read this. Instead, I will focus specifically on what this blog was initially created to be about: Film Criticism.
The biggest influence on modern film criticism is someone I look up to and admire very much. Roger Ebert has been reviewing movies since before I was born, and he is still setting the bar high today (in fact, I think some of his best work has come over the last few years). But, along with Gene Siskel, Ebert redefined criticism forever with the inclusion of something so simple, pulled right from Roman gladiator pits where lives hung in the balance.
Thumbs up/Thumbs down.
Yes/no. Rotten/Fresh. See it/Don’t go see it. So simple and fitting for our fast paced world and, combined with a quick and witty blurb, can give you the answer to what you really want when you look at a film review: Should I spend my money and two hours of my life on this movie? So today, almost all criticism is structured like this. And that is not a good thing. It grants the critic a huge amount of power. Luckily, there is a form of checks and balances against such corrupting power that comes with the digital information that is always at our finger tips. Critics aren’t elected officials. They aren’t born into their roles. So all we have to keep them honest, and to judge and critique their work, is the precedent they set with each review.
Let me explain: If a specific critic writes a quick blurb poking fun at a recent film, and gives it a thumbs down/rotten review, it might make you think twice about seeing that film. Unless, you looked at previous reviews of theirs and noticed a trend of poorly reviewing films you liked or were widely praised, and a trend of positive reviews of films widely thought to be garbage. This is important for so many reasons, and the fundamental argument against this quick and dirty style of critique. There are a lot of variables that go into a review. And, as much as it pains me to admit it, there will always be a level of subjectivity that comes with any type of art.
Let me give you an example of why this is so important. I am guessing you have heard about what happened with the film website Rotten Tomatoes leading up to the release of Christopher Nolan’s third chapter in his Batman trilogy - The Dark Knight Rises. If not, here’s the run down. Prior to the films release, critics and media people were screened the film for the purpose of reviewing it for audiences. A wave of positive reviews hit the web and stirred up a frenzy that was already brewing. But then, a small handful of negative responses popped up and the fan-boys went crazy (more would pop up later, and the film would go on to be marred by polarizing, defensive detractors and one horrifying act of violence). So, when the more prominent of the first few negative reviews came out, the comment/message board filled up fast. I was one of those people reading the comments in the handful of hours they were available before Rotten Tomatoes and the Critic’s personal website took them down and shut down commenting. Whatever you heard about the content of those boards was most likely false. The overwhelming majority of the posts were in the neighborhood of: “Fan-boy meltdown in 3…2…1…” etc, and were conscious of the fact that people were going to challenge the reviewer and probably call her bad names and use juvenile language. And not just the Trolls. And, they were right, but from what I saw, there were more comments defending the critic’s position (due largely to the fact that none of these angry nerds had even seen the film yet) than there were bashing her. And, apparently there were stupid comments posted threatening the critic with violence, which is terrible, but I never saw any of them. What I did see from a lot of those angry responders were postings of the critic’s previous reviews. I want to go on record right now as say: THIS IS FAIR GAME! That is what you get when you use a thumbs up, stars, smiley faces or whatever system of grading art. If you give The Godfather 2.5 stars, and White Girls 3 stars, you are stating that White Girls is a better film than The Godfather. I don’t care what the content of your review has to say, or whether you based your review on expectation or on comparisons to other like films. Thumbs up = good. Thumbs down = bad. And it is fair game for others to use your past reviews to set the curve on whether we should take your current opinion to heart. Another, well known and respected critic chimed in and (I am paraphrasing) said, ‘if we start comparing old reviews for movies that have no relation to the one in question, the whole system will crumble’. Yes, if you are dealing with a house of cards. Not if you have a foundation built on your own convictions, and are willing to stand by your work.
Unfortunately, I don’t think Trolls are going away anytime soon (a rant for another day), and there will always be the occasional nut who tries to take down a critic by claiming they are corrupt. There was a lot of that type of talk being thrown at this specific reviewer, and that is too bad. I do not believe it was true in this specific case (unfortunately, the reviewer’s negative response to the film was mostly based on her extremely high expectation. Again, this is the down side of abridged critiques). But I understand the skepticism. In fact, buried in this story was another “Top Critic” for Rotten Tomatoes, who was dropped from the site after his own negative review was proven to be written without his seeing the movie. He knew the bad review would stir up publicity and draw people to his site. This happened the same day that the comment boards were removed. Add that to the growing cynicism that comes with any and all internet based review sites. Aintitcoolnews and The A.V. Club, both havens for geek culture that have been growing since the early days of the internet, are under constant criticism for their abuses of power. A lot of people, including me, have noted that sites like these heavily favor and give publicity to those who give them access in return. No spoilers for them to post and make money off of = you get a negative review. And the only defense we have against this is the past. We have a record of their past work, and that is how we will critique the critics.
Almost every major critic disagrees with me on this issue, several whom I have nothing but respect for and will continue to read regularly. But here, I am siding with fan-boys. Not the crazy, threaten-your-life if you don’t like the latest Batman types, but the ones who question the motivations of the people behind each review. The ones who will use your past opinions to counter your current one. Your record will speak for you as much as your current article and you will have to be careful and honest in what you say. The downside to this is that critics will play it safe, and try and wait until a clear consensus about the art in question has been formed. Translation: Critics will do exactly what they have been doing anyway. For the most part.
Let’s look at a couple topical examples of critics gone wrong:
As mentioned before, The Dark Knight Rises had so much hype surrounding it that everyone from the critics to every geek with a blog (no need to point out the obvious here) was foaming at the mouth in anticipation for their chance to ride some coattails. I just read a lengthy transcript of critics discussing this film on Mubi.com, a great little site honoring the best in film. The three critics spent the entire (and it was long. Again, no need to point out the obvious) time discussing the mixed message of politics the movie seems to display. They talked about the “obvious” Occupy Wall street comparisons, and how the film seemed to change message on a dime, and even how it diminished the ending of the previous installment The Dark Knight. I have heard a lot of similar notions being tossed around from other reviewers as well. - And don’t take what I am about to say as a defense of the film (I will post my own personal review at the end of the year, as always), because as a storyteller it is the directors job to get ideas across clearly to the audience. – If any of these critics took the time to think about what they are writing or saying, this discussion would never have happened and I wouldn’t have to waste my time ranting about it. First off, the Occupy movement did not exist when this film was written or when it was filmed. Therefore, any claim that this film is at all connected or is making a statement about it, has about the same validity as Rush Limbaugh claiming the villain Bane is a liberal shot at Mitt Romney’s time spent running Bain Capitol. And, as a critic, if you do not have a simple understanding of times and dates, that is what Wikipedia is for. It would have taken all of 30 seconds on your Iphone to check your facts. And the argument that these Batman films show a sloppy, mixed message when it comes to politics, thrown around as a detractor, is missing such an obvious point: These films are all about shades of gray. The “mixed message” is the entire point. The media is just mad because they feel they were robbed of a chance to tie a specific political affiliation to Batman. What a country we live in. The sad part is I think a lot of these “journalists” know full well when they are misinforming their audience. I mean, there is no way everyone at Fox is as dumb as Steve Doocy looks. Right? But I guess that is the price you pay when pandering to the lowest common denominator.
And another current example is HBO’s new series The Newsroom. The Newsroom is what lit the fire under me to finally write this rant down; because it tackles everything I am talking about, both in the show and in the critical response. The Newsroom is about a cable news show that decides to start caring about the quality of information they are passing along, and generally try to inform their audience instead of passing off entertainment for the absolute base of society to smile and drool at. Of course, the precedent the show is built on is the fact that every other cable news network and program is doing just the opposite and heading further down that increasingly dumber, sensationalized direction.
So, expecting those same media outlets to praise the show that is bashing them every week was probably a lot to ask.
But the depths that they have gone to in order to de-legitimize Aaron Sorkin, HBO and The Newsroom have been so reactionary and defensive, it has only strengthened the validity of their cause. The A.V. Club, a source that should take no offense to what Sorkin and HBO have been doing, has repeatedly called out the program for being able to look at each real news story in hindsight, which apparently makes the fictional journalists in The Newsroom look so smart, and everyone else look so very dumb. Do people not remember the rational outcry at the media’s handling of Casey Anthony, and the way they buried the debt ceiling crisis? In a year, when The Newsroom covers the Aurora shooting at the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises, and they blast the networks for glorifying the deranged shooter, is the A.V. Club going to feign ignorance and call them out for being able to look back in hindsight and pass judgment?
I’m not saying all criticism aimed at these two examples are malicious or have ulterior motives. In fact, that is the real problem with this type of reporting, because now that the well has been poisoned, it is harder to tell the honest from the troll. One way seems to be, the one with the lowest ratings is the most honest. How that reflects on our society is very telling. And sad.
Now, to be fair, I am one of the people who feel that art criticism has its place in journalism. It is an increasingly exclusive group of us that share this opinion, and I believe that has a lot to do with the loss of integrity. I understand the argument that it is impossible to fairly compare works of art, especially when they do not share mediums or subject matter. A painting vs. a sculpture, a satirical comedy vs. a period drama. I understand it; I just feel that the importance of maintaining the quality of these art forms outweighs the fairness and any other variables.
The one thing all sides should agree on is that there is a lot of room for improvement.
Ryan Black
8/21/2012
