New York Times film critic A. O. Scott (no idea what the initials stand for) has written an interesting article asking whether critics are out of touch and a waste of time.
Back in Uni, my dissertation was about the interaction between the film industry and the media and I asked questions of a number of editors of film magazines and supplements about the interaction and wether there is any pressure applied (or carrots dangled) by the studios to get good reviews. Everyone said that there were plenty of free junkets, but that how they were treated and what they were offered by the studio made no difference to their reviews because, at the end of the day, their readers were what kept them going and if they found that they constantly didn’t agree with the reviewers, they’d stop buying the magazine. It also turns the magazine from something offering reviews and insight to a PR brochure, people see through it and they go out of business real fast.
So critics of film magazines have to stay in touch with their readers (that’s not so say they review everything positively, the just need to make sure they review the films their readership will enjoy well, and everything else badly), I’m not sure that’s so true of critics who form part of big newspapers, especially those who are expected to provide high brow criticism. The readers of the New York Times for example, probably expect the reviews of the latest blockbusters to come down on them like a ton of bricks. Readers of FHM, for example, probably expect something a little different.
Then there’s the concept of movie-proof films. I first encountered the term written about this year’s The Da Vinci Code, although it’s far from the first film that can be classed as such. Some films are just so big, so star-filled, so well hyped by the PR machine or have such a large built-in audience that it wouldn’t matter if all the critics on Earth wrote negatively about it the film would still make a boatload of cash. That’s why Hollywood is making more films based on books, TV shows, old movies and computer games. They come with an audience.
Taking all that into account, and the rise of online reviews on dedicated sites or on the sea of blogs, are critics no longer necessary? Well, I still look at the quotes on a movie box if I’m at the rental shop and positive reviews from the right place (or lack of them) help shape my decision, and Hollywood clearly thinks they matter as we’ve seen with the court cases over fake critics being used and the way they seem to keep digging lower down the publication food chain to find a postitive review to stick on the box.
I’ve been thinking about how I decide a movie is worth making the trip to the cinema to see. Sure, I watch a lot of trailers on Apple, that lets me know what the film will be like (sort of), who’s involved, what the story is. I don’t read many reviews, however, but they often filter into news coverage I do listen to, as small snippets, and there seems to be some kind of media bulge around a good film and no matter what you do, turn on the TV or the radio, open a paper, go online, you’ll hear about it. For less mainstream fair, I may see the trailer or hear about something from a friend, I may read about it on another site. I also listen to what friends say about the films they see, that can have a big impact (what are friends but highly specialised critics, atuned to your tastes?).
At the end of the day, there is no one thing that makes me want to go see a movie, it’s a slow build-up of a lot of different sources, of which a review by a critic will be one, even if I don’t read it it will either influence or impact me via another medium, or as part of a growing body of evidence for or against. I don’t think the end of the critic is nigh, for as more and more media gets made (as it will with digital photography and distribution dropping the price), as we’re already finding in the online environment, we’re going to need a filter and aggregator to help us sift the wheat from the chaff. Critics will help us do that, maybe you’ll have a favourite you always agree with, maybe it’ll be a case of tallying the reviews for or against, maybe some critics will split from their publications and become beacons, semi-celebrities in their own right, giving direction to people subscribing to their view. Who knows?
No comments yet.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
