Mike's Musings: Hating on the Critics
There are a lot of people who hate film critics. They seem to hate every "good" movie and adore every pretentious, artsy-fartsy movie. I don't blame them; for a while, I was in the same boat. There is a film critic at our local newspaper that I absolutely loathed. He gave mediocre to poor reviews for every movie I loved and only seemed to give good reviews to movies that showed at our local arthouse movie theater.
There is a huge disconnect between film critics and audiences about the quality of movies. It's only natural, everyone is different so in turn everyone has a different opinion of a movie. But there's more to that, I think.
The difference is volume. Film critics see countless movies; more than any normal person. Therefore, they may find a movie formulaic and derivative even though the average moviegoer may not. Additionally, critics analyze movies while average moviegoers simply watch them and decide if they do or do not like them. A critic thinks about all facets of the film: acting, directing, storytelling, and what the film is trying to do or say (if anything). It's at this point that I could argue that a film critic should try to put himself in the mind of the "average filmgoer," but I won't because it's fundamentally dishonest; a film critic should voice their opinions and theirs alone (they might suggest who the audience is for a movie, but again, that's just their opinion).
If it seems like critics bash every movie in the multiplex and worship the arthouse fare, it's probably because arthouse movies are the best of the foreign films (crappy foreign films won't make any money here--our subtitle phobia is too ingrained), and lower budgets means more risks that could pay off.
Personally, I like to give each movie the benefit of the doubt. I don't look for flaws; only if it's obvious to someone who isn't looking for it is it worth mentioning, because chances are that the audience isn't hunting for flaws. I'll admit that this is sometimes hard to do, such as when you've heard terrible things about a movie or if it's directed by Marcus Nispel.
And I don't pay any attention to those critics who hate every "mainstream" (what does that mean, anyway? Really?) movie because it's "mainstream" and adore every indie movie because it's indie. By and large, they're all morons who are trying to look hip and sophisticated. A good movie is a good movie, regardless of where it's shown.
There is a huge disconnect between film critics and audiences about the quality of movies. It's only natural, everyone is different so in turn everyone has a different opinion of a movie. But there's more to that, I think.
The difference is volume. Film critics see countless movies; more than any normal person. Therefore, they may find a movie formulaic and derivative even though the average moviegoer may not. Additionally, critics analyze movies while average moviegoers simply watch them and decide if they do or do not like them. A critic thinks about all facets of the film: acting, directing, storytelling, and what the film is trying to do or say (if anything). It's at this point that I could argue that a film critic should try to put himself in the mind of the "average filmgoer," but I won't because it's fundamentally dishonest; a film critic should voice their opinions and theirs alone (they might suggest who the audience is for a movie, but again, that's just their opinion).
If it seems like critics bash every movie in the multiplex and worship the arthouse fare, it's probably because arthouse movies are the best of the foreign films (crappy foreign films won't make any money here--our subtitle phobia is too ingrained), and lower budgets means more risks that could pay off.
Personally, I like to give each movie the benefit of the doubt. I don't look for flaws; only if it's obvious to someone who isn't looking for it is it worth mentioning, because chances are that the audience isn't hunting for flaws. I'll admit that this is sometimes hard to do, such as when you've heard terrible things about a movie or if it's directed by Marcus Nispel.
And I don't pay any attention to those critics who hate every "mainstream" (what does that mean, anyway? Really?) movie because it's "mainstream" and adore every indie movie because it's indie. By and large, they're all morons who are trying to look hip and sophisticated. A good movie is a good movie, regardless of where it's shown.
Comments
Post a Comment