Who's a Film Critic? Am I? Are You?
Would the real film critics please stand up
Awards Daily writer Sasha Stone has sparked an interesting conversation while pointing to IndieWire's Toronto Critics Poll, which takes a look at 34 films from the Toronto International Film Festival and sums up an overall opinion using a variety of online reviews a la RottenTomatoes.
Stone's commentary on the polling data has her debating the term "critic," saying not everyone included in the aggregate is necessarily a critic, at least not in the understood meaning of the term. She writes:
What makes a film critic, one has to wonder. Nowadays, anyone with a blog who sees movies is called a "critic." I really think that should be amended to use the term "blogger" or "industry columnist." Not everyone is an actual film critic. I feel like I’m the only person in the known universe who cares about the difference but that’s because I come from a time when there was a difference; not just anyone could write about movies and be called a "critic."
Jeff Wells adds to the discussion as a result of Sasha's post and despite being known as an opinionated blogger on all things movies, he freely says, "I wouldn't call myself a 'critic' either, [which] can be otherwise defined as seeing every last film that comes along and sitting down like a rank-and-file machinist in Detroit and reviewing every last one (including and especially the awful-awfuls) and always with a five-or-six-paragraph plot synopsis."
He adds, "We all know what proper film criticism is and no, I don't follow the form. But a fully considered response to a film doesn't always have to be expressed in ten to twelve graphs with five or six devoted to some droning boilerplate synopsis."
Personally, I have never labeled myself as a "proper" film critic (or a film critic at all for that matter) despite doing my best on a weekly basis to review as many of the new releases as possible. I think it takes more than just starting a website, seeing a movie and writing about it to be a film critic. However, I would like to think I am on my way to perhaps one day claiming such a title, and hopefully in a way that doesn't read like someone dedicating five or six graphs to synopsis as Wells puts it.
The best critics are those that have seen movies you and I have never even heard of. They have an understanding of film history and look at movies on a whole and aren't particularly dedicated to a single genre. They can see a film and guide you in other directions and have you exploring new avenues based on your likes and dislikes. One of the reasons for my weekly What I Watched columns is to do just that. However, if you've been keeping up with that column you will see just how many films I have not seen and perhaps once I come back around to many of these titles I will be on my way to becoming a proper critic. Until then I look at it as a journey and one I hope many readers will join me on and help me shape the way I convey my opinions and interact with a new generation of film lovers.
In my opinion the title of film critic isn't given as much as it is earned. However, that doesn't mean that a film critic's opinion is more worthy than yours or mine, but it's an opinion that has earned respect as a consistent measure of a film's quality. Agree or disagree, a good critic is a useful tool. Sure, some aren't that good, and some are downright awful to the point any random film blogger can prove more useful in one paragraph than some of these critics' 10 paragraph time wasters, but a lot of the time that has much to do with the outlet they write for and their interest in discussing film as an art or simply being the first outlet with a review online, a trend the Internet has created and one that is also hurting the art of film criticism 140 characters at a time.
Showing 10 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New CommentNOTE: The Facebook login option has been disabled. We apologize for any inconvenience. |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
I tried being an interweb film critic back in the 90s – stopped when I realised a) I didn't enjoy it and b) didn't want to see films I had no interest in (ie, I would only review films I knew I'd like anyway).
I definitely think a big part of this is what you mentioned: understanding of film history. It's a big deal to try and see as many movies as possible to become a respected 'critic'. The more you see, the more knowledge you have.
A film critic is generally known as someone who is paid by a publication (not just from web advertisements) to write about film.
If someone does the same thing (write about film) on an amateur basis (read: hobby), they can claim the title of film critic if they'd like.
It's the same thing as playing a sport. I'm a basketball player, but I don't do it everyday, nor am I paid to play.
People who get paid to review movies shouldn't get their panties in a wad about mere semantics. They should be thankful that they have such an awesome job, and continue to impress us with their encyclopedic film knowledge and mastery of the written word.
I think its okay to get "your panties in a bunch" over online bloggers calling themselves critics. If you do a job that you work hard and have a sense of pride over, you don't want amateurs to come along and cheapen the work you've put into it. I edit movie trailers and promos as my day job and it's something I spend long hours doing. Watching the stuff that shows up online because they've got a video camera and IMovie gets "my panties in a bunch." It's a disregard for the industry. The art is truly loss. It's more than knowing film history, it's knowing what elements make a good film and putting the pieces together to examine the overall experience. It's much the same as literary criticism. Film criticism should not be "Avatar looks sweet." Critics want to get into the why factors of filmmaking. Unfortunately, there is a dumbing down factor that goes into some internet blogging that we lose the spirit of debate and thoughtful examination of film. I think the name "critic" has gotten a bad rap and has taken more a pejorative terminology. And I can certainly understand people who've worked hard in this field getting upset when someone who writes a paragraph saying "Transformers 2 gave me what I was looking for, so it's a good film," calls himself a critic, and runs outside to deliver pizza or something. It's almost insulting.
Actually, for anyone to be a film critic, he/she must not have the fun gene!! That's just it!
Right, Mr. Bay? =/
@The Check Spot:
If you're good enough at it to be paid to do it, who cares what the people not getting paid call themselves? Any film critic who has a problem with bloggers "calling themselves" critics has either self esteem issues or a superiority complex.
Sure there are people who post reviews that are crap, but who actually reads them and keeps coming back for more? I submit to you that film bloggers, especially the good ones, actually strengthen the industry by keeping the "professionals" on their game.
Yes, the industry is changing, and many film critics have lost their jobs at traditional print publications, but anytime someone is truly great at something, they can find a way to monetize it. It's the mediocre who suddenly feel exposed.
I believe that a distinction should be made between film criticism and film review. I write reviews. I have not been to film school, and don't know a lot about the technical aspects of film, but I have seen 4-5 movies a week for the last 20 years, so I definitely have something to bring to the table. I don't think bloggers should be written off, they are often times more passionate about the subject matter than the paid critics. That being said, whenever someone asks me if I am a film critic, I always point out that I review films, and do not consider myself a critic. This is my way of showing respect to the profession of film critic.
a good critic is someone who paid theater and doesn't attack director(Tarantino,Zombie,…) or actor(Bale ,…) personally by movie critic
@pomme: and can explain why he likes/dislikes the movie
i agree with the quote above. there is a big difference. i want to be a film critic. i understand the history of cinema. local papers would publish my reviews as they hired me to be their contributing-columnist. but i still feel there is much more things to learn to be called a 'critic'.