Do critics (specifically, professional film critics) matter? In a word, no.
This is something I’ve been thinking about for a while now, ever since I came across an article by “professional” critic Sasha Stone in which she asked the exact same question and came to the exact opposite conclusion. Her argument boiled down to one quote: “You see things differently when you’re 20 than when you’re 30.”
And she’s right. I see things differently at 25 than I did when I was 13. And I imagine that when 30 comes around, I’ll have a whole new set of opinions. For that matter, I’m sure that as a Texan I probably see some things differently than how a native of California would see them. As I mentioned in my previous review of Black Swan, a lot of my reaction to that film was due to my own history and experiences. Would someone who has never had those same experiences have the same reaction? Probably not.
So, yes, Sasha is right. People see things differently.
And I’m even more right when I say that a 30 year-old critic matters about as much as a 20 year-old critic.
At the heart of professional film criticism is this elitist notion that somehow, Roger Ebert’s opinion is more worthy of consideration than some guy who actually had to spend money to get a ticket so he could watch the movie in theater surrounded by strangers while he eats rancid move theater nachos.
Ultimately, criticism is just an opinion and the only opinion that matters is yours. Just because I hated Avatar doesn’t mean that Avatar is a terrible movie. It just means that from my point of view, it sucks. And, as much fun as I have explaining why I felt it sucked, that’s ultimately just my opinion. Whether or not Avatar is a good film or if Black Swan is a great film , the only person that can answer that question is you.
When it comes to film (and really, all art) I think we would do best to remember the words of Aleister Crowley: “Nothing is true. All is permitted.”
This has been on my mind a lot recently as we went Oscar season and so many critics are now taking it upon themselves to announce which films are the best and we’re all expected to follow along with their opinions like lemmings going over a cliff. Around this time, the old school film critics start to get paranoid about all of us bloggers who have the nerve to offer up our opinions on film as if our opinion matters. That’s because most of these critics are a part of that generation that was raised to believe that only certain people were allowed to speak and that they only had the right as long as what they said was safe and predictable. Independent bloggers scare them because it proves what we all know: that anyone can provide an opinion.
Perhaps that’s why they’ve been so enthusiastic about embracing The Social Network, a film that suggests that blogging was the invention of sociopaths.
But ultimately, a critic is just another person providing their opinion. And maybe you respect that opinion enough that you’ll allow it to influence what you chose to see or not to see. And there’s nothing wrong with that. To me, the best thing that a critic can do — and what I hope I can do on occasion — is make the viewer aware of a film that he or she might otherwise not be aware of. If you see a film because I recommended it, I thank you and I hope you enjoyed the film as much (or as little) as I did. And if you didn’t, that’s cool too. I’m just a viewer with an opinion.
But when it comes to the movie itself, critics do not matter. The only thing that matters is the individual viewer. Art is the eye of the beholder.
At this time of year, we’re reminded that so much of so-called “professional” film criticism is simply about building a bandwagon and hopping on. Here’s hoping that in the future, we set that bandwagon on fire and let it burn.
Through the Shattered Lens 
I give you many points for using such an appropriate Crowley observation.
Your point is exactly why your reaction to both Avatar and The Mist doesn’t bother me none. Also why I continue to encourage it. 🙂
LikeLike
I like this article, especially the use of the “Nothing is True. All is Permitted.” quote. Maybe we do give a little too much weight to what’s really a individual’s opinion. Thanks for writing it. 🙂
LikeLike
“Pay no attention to what critics say. No statue has ever been put up to a critic.” ~ Jean Sibelius
“If you choose to criticize, you choose your enemies.” ~ Ozzy Osbourne
Despite declarations from such lofty cultural and intellectual icons as Ozzy Osbourne (I do like Ozzy), I think there is value in the concept of the critic. From a contemporary standpoint, given the ridiculous price of a movie ticket (it’s not my fault the producers paid the lead actor $25,000,000. Find some other way to recoup your investment, or learn to negotiate better), especially in the case of a just plain bad film, it can be useful to have someone warn you and prevent you from wasting your money.
One down side of the advance review is that it takes away the “patron’s” opportunity to experience the art with a fresh mind – no preconceived notions, anticipations, or in the case of films, of course, “spoilers”. Some of my most enjoyable experiences have been watching films about which I knew little to nothing about the plot. Both advertising and advance reviews ruin that ability.
I find the main value of critical reviews is their application after the fact. Once I have seen a film, it can be interesting or enlightening to get someone else’s perspective. I may have missed some things in my interpretation. A good review by a capable reviewer can help me ”get” a film, or an aspect thereof, by providing a different perspective that transcends my biases and ignorance. Or it may just provide a different viewpoint with which I may or may not agree, but which I find interesting. For both that reason and the one referenced in the previous paragraph, I will read Ms. Bowman’s review of “Black Swan”, which, by all accounts, should be a good read, after I have seen the film.
In the case of a site such as this, the interactive aspect of it enables some in-depth exploration. The back and forth which I have read or in which I have participated has sometimes changed my perception of a film or program. Arleigh’s comments in a recent “Walking Dead” review come to mind. Even when it has not, it has been enjoyable to read the discussion. In this environment, even more than with a television or newspaper critic, there is a sense of a shared appreciation of the art form or artist, and therefore a sense of community.
Reviewers, or “critics”, who are more familiar with the medium, genre, principals, etc. (I have neither the interest or the knowledge to compare Bergman to Fellini, but I might want to weigh in on the convincingness of the zombie creature effects)) make me aware of things I would not have otherwise been, and enhance my interpretation of things with which I am already familiar. Or they might save me 10 bucks.
Keep on keeping on.
LikeLike
The critical establishment is feeling more and more like a free-thought gestapo by the day, and the extent to which the herd turns to others to decide for them what they should think is seriously disturbing. It’s just as well you quote Crowley since there’s no better historical example of a guy who literally didn’t give a flying fuck about what anyone else thought of him, or his actions. Was he a right total bastard? By most accountsabsolutely. But his “devil may care” attitude is worth emulating in all walks of life. No one’s “right” or “wrong” in the realm of opinion, and the older I get, the more I seem to be able to relate to the simple folk who see a movie like “The A-Team” and like it because “it was exciting and made me laugh,” and who pay no mind to the slf-appointed hipsters and arbiters of good taste out there who tell them what they should think.
LikeLike