why does the IMDB hate critics?
Was it really necessary to frame the situation like this?
In the latest demonstration of how little influence film critics are able to exert on the box office these days, the Will Smith starrer Hancock collected an estimated $66 million over the three-day weekend despite an avalanche of negative reviews.
I don’t see how this is the fault of film critics. Does anyone have any numbers on what percentage of casual moviegoers even read critics? Perhaps moviegoers are at fault, for being so fucking stupid that they cannot be trusted to tie their shoelaces on their own.
Now, to be clear, I don’t actually think that casual moviegoers are too stupid to tie their own shoes (though I do wonder, sometimes). I didn’t hate Hancock, for all its many problems (my review is here), though of course I’m not a critic anyone counts when talking about “the critics.” And I do think that casual moviegoers -- the kind likely to turn out over a holiday weekend for whatever new is on offer -- tend to look for very different things in a movie than critics and serious cinephiles to.
But still: How is it the fault of critics if not enough people listen to us to make a difference? And is the IMDB suggesting that critics just stop what they’re doing? Does the IMDB even recognize that the purpose of film criticism is not the same as, say, a Consumer Reports report on window air-conditioners?
(Technorati tags: Hancock, movie critics)
more below the ad... scroll down...
comments
posted by misterb (Thu Jul 10 08, 1:33AM)
OK, I'll bite. What is the purpose of film criticism? Is the purpose post-modern, applying theory to deconstruct the filmic work so that you can reveal the underlying rot that is society? Or is it really just a narcissistic exercise to see how many people you can piss off by spitting on their sacred cows? How about a cynical way to make a buck, woofing the rubes that wouldn't know a dolly-shot from a pan while you write your masterpiece? Or is it a way to display your superiority of trivial knowledge as if you were Comic Book Guy in the flesh?
I don't know why you in particular write reviews, Mary Ann, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's because you are compelled by your love of movies. My favorite reviewers don't presume to tell me what I should think; they tell me what their experience meant to them, and I can take what I want from our commonalities and our differences.
posted by Aderack (Thu Jul 10 08, 3:32AM)
Good grief. The purpose of film criticism is to enhance film literacy. Nearly every Ebert review I read, however well I might or might not agree with his conclusions, furthers my ability to understand the way that film is used to communicate, thereby allowing me to get more out of the movies that I watch. And frankly, understanding of any communicative medium enhances understanding of all communication. So in a sense, becoming more literate in cinema, poetry, painting, or even videogames makes it easier for me to understand myself, other people, and the events that make up my life.
Cinema is just one art, but any art can make you a better person.
posted by Mark (Thu Jul 10 08, 3:44AM)
In all fairness, that's piece isn't produced by IMDB; it's from Studio Briefing, which is syndicated on (among other places) IMDB. Your points are totally valid, but I don't think it's fair to lay blame at the feet of the IMDB here.
posted by MaryAnn (Thu Jul 10 08, 11:58AM)
And why do you read film criticism, misterb, if this is what you think of it?
"A cynical way to make a buck"? Yeah, that's us film critics, getting rich off all the dumb saps who throw money our way to read stuff they don't understand. Damn you for stumbling upon our secret.
posted by Mike Brady (Thu Jul 10 08, 1:59PM)
Did you even read his second paragraph? That's not what he was saying about you at all. He was actually trying to be kind.
It bothers me when you assume the worst about your commenters, even if that comment wasn't particularly well-constructed.
posted by JoshB (Thu Jul 10 08, 2:51PM)
For me film criticism is a form of entertainment and even art all its own. Roger Ebert's review of Jaws: The Revenge is the single most compelling short essay I've ever read (I literally had trouble breathing the first time.) Closer to home, I'd say that MaryAnn's reviews of The Last Samurai and Knocked Up had me saying "yes, that's it exactly" while her Aliens vs. Predator review was nearly as funny as Ebert's Jaws review.
Misterb, I've read critics that do all of the things in your post, and enjoyed the review immensely. As with any art, the only sin a critic can be guilty of is being boring.
posted by MaryAnn (Thu Jul 10 08, 3:25PM)
Really? What about that post can be construed as "kindness"?
I don't even see the connection between the first graf and the second. Why I write reviews is not at all the same thing as what the purpose of film criticism is.
I'm sorry you think I do that, because I don't. But all I have to go on is what people post. If you want me to assume that people are being kind even when there's no evidence of that in a comment... well, I can't do that. I do assume that people who enjoy reading my work are literate -- indeed, why else would they be bothering? -- and so I assume that they know what they're saying.
You're suggesting that I should assume people are stupid and don't know how to express themselves. And you know what: in general, I do assume that. But not with people who are regulars here, as misterb is. Perhaps I flatter myself by assuming that my readers must be smart to keep coming around, but I do.
posted by Rob Vaux (Sun Jul 13 08, 4:12PM)
Slate magazine recently published a very good rebuttal to the "film critics are meaningless" argument, with some cold hard figures to back it up. You can find it here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2194532/
Beyond that, the fundamental fallacy that arguments like IMDB fall into is that popularity equals quality. "Critics hated Film X, but Film X made 300 gazillion dollars, so therefore critics are wrong." It's a fallacious assumption, both in terms of the critics' role in the equation and the perceived function of their work. A wise man once said that the only true barometer of a film's quality is time. Critics (and by extension, anyone who loves films) don't have any more insight about which movies are going to last than anyone else. However, they are the only ones--besides perhaps the filmmakers themselves--who are at least keeping that reality in mind. They're the ones looking beyond the first weekends grosses or the need to just be entertained for a couple of hours and ask whether anything meaningful is taking place on screen. They may not always have the right answers, but at least they're asking the question.
I'd love to see a formal study on how many critically panned commercial blockbusters of the past are still being watched today. The Flintstones? Home Alone? Love Story? The Towering Inferno? They all made a ton of money. Or how about the Bowery Boys movies of the 1940s and 50s? They cranked out dozens of them in that time--they were box office gold. How many people today have seen even one of them, or even recognize the name? I'm speculating a bit here, but you can see my point. I'm betting that a lot of big money makers--the kinds of movies that show how "little influence critics have"--have since been consigned to the ash heap.