The Best Movie Critic   +  review

Pot, Kettle, Black - Part 1: The Role of the Critic

Hi, Ben here. This is the first of a two-part piece. If you enjoy this half, be sure to check back tomorrow for the thrilling conclusion!

Pot, Kettle, Black, or, Stop Meta-Critiquing! A Meta-Critique
by Ben Martin

I’d like to start by coming out firmly against meta-criticism in the movie community. That is to say, I fail to see the need for our contemporary critical community to critique each other and the state of criticism to the point that we become Ouroboros, the snake that eats its own tail. When I venture into the world of movie writing these days, it seems that more words are spent pontificating the nature of criticism itself than are spent writing about actual honest to god movies.

Yet here I find myself in the awkward position of doing exactly what I detest in other critics, wasting words, time, and space writing movie meta-criticism. I would like to give you my solemn oath here and now that this will be my sole post on the topic. I feel I owe it to you and myself to express clearly where I’m coming from as someone who writes about the movies.

I followed year-end lists and retrospectives more closely this year than ever before. I was struck by the almost uniform negativity in these articles. Countless critics large and small named their top ten movies of the year only after the caveat that 2010 was an awfully disappointing year for movies. Inexplicably, these same critics would then go on to sing the hyperbolic praises of movies like Black Swan, The Social Network, Winter’s Bone, or any number of a two dozen strong pool of contenders. What’s worse, many critics felt they could only discuss the movies they enjoyed by knocking a movie they didn’t. Armond White, of course, dominated the movie negativity field as usual, with his annual release not of a “best of” list but rather a “better than” list, where he defends his favorite movies as “better than” some more popular or critically lauded movie. For example, it is not enough for Scott Pilgrim vs. the World to be one of White’s favorite movies of the year; it must be “better than” Inception, which “bends the frame – and fanboys – into mindlessness.”
In fact, movie pot-shotting seemed to be quite a popular diversion on many critics’ “best of” lists this year. Inception – which admittedly received plenty of accolades as well – was certainly the largest target. The New York Times’ A.O. Scott wrote, “It was more fun to read the impassioned, geeky arguments about Inception than to endure a second viewing of that film.” In SF Weekly, Katrina Longworth suggested that “the massive success of Inception is a sign we’re getting stupider.” Only Matt Zoller Seitz, in a Slate.com response to Longworth’s piece, had the wherewithal to ask, “If we repeatedly deny the quality and effectiveness of a movie that enthralled the world, is that not a back-asswards way of endorsing it? If we ourselves cannot stop thinking and talking about Inception, might there in fact be something to it?”

At the risk of sounding condescending, well... duh.

That “something” to Inception that critics have by and large missed is the very fact that Christopher Nolan’s movie “enthralled the world.” At that point, whether or not you think Inception is the greatest thing since sliced bread, you have been presented with a great opportunity to connect with and grow the ranks of movie lovers. How many people’s interest in talking and writing about movies was ignited by Inception, only to be blown back out by the snide, snarky tone of most of the reviews they could find? At that point, regardless of their “impeccable” taste, critics have failed. There was enough good in Inception that you could have written about the quality of production, the innovative effects and editing, the way in which Nolan utilizes his cast in much the same way as Michael Curtiz, John Ford, and the other masters of the classic Hollywood ensemble. Not only are all of these things true, not only would they have made for more well rounded reviews, but they would have captured the imagination of people who don’t normally spend much time thinking about things like effects, editing, and casting. It would have uplifted the movies. Apparently, however, maintaining the integrity of film criticism requires the primitive potshotting of the obvious. Anybody who started reading the New York Times’ movie section, or Slate.com’s, or SF Weekly’s, or The New York Press’ because of an interest in the art of moviemaking that Inception stirred up in them surely stopped instantaneously.
The obvious complaint of this line of reasoning is that it is not the movie critic’s job to pander to the masses. Therefore, at this point I think it would be important to explore exactly what the movie critic’s job is, anyway. Now, I can’t claim omniscience on this matter, so feel free to debate me on these criteria. However, after some deliberation, I have come up with the following list of “jobs” appropriate for the movie critic to fulfill:

-Interpreter: to extrapolate meaning from a movie, to provide a stimulating frame of ideas from within which to view and think about a movie.

-Tastemaker: to offer informed opinions of the relative merit of movies, to rank, to rate.

-Conversation starter/tone-setter: To shine light on aspects of movies or movie-making in general which are not already illuminated by advertisers and the studios themselves, to provide a preliminary frame within to discuss a movie or idea.

-Moderator: To keep the discussion and debate of movies relevant.

-Historian: To maintain an objective history of moviemaking, and to share that knowledge in a relevant and interesting manner.

-Inciter: To cultivate and spread passion for the movies.

-Entertainer: To be fun to read.

Breaking it down that way, I think it’s plain to see which of these facets of the job contemporary critics are good at, and which they’ve neglected. Without parsing every detail, I’d like to suggest that the most glaring deficit of the contemporary print critics is in their role as Inciters. Contrarily, the relatively new pool of online movie writers are talented Inciters and Entertainers, but often fall short of the mark as Interpreters, and especially as Moderators.

In the wake of infamous critic Pauline Kael, it has been chic and precedented to be controversial, negative, and yes, downright ornery about movies. The generation of critics between Kael’s and ours, the generation that produced A.O. Scott, Armond White, and Roger Ebert, has lost touch with their obligation as Inciters of passion for movies. It seems that many reviewers in this school are under the impression that it is their stubborn duty to maintain the integrity of the art form, which they achieve through an Olympian aloofness. That’s not entirely erroneous, but somewhere along the line, this generation of reviewers forgot about their equally important role as Inciters, champions of the art form, whose job it is not only to be Tastemakers, but to educate the unwashed masses about this great tradition we have inherited. Let’s face it, movies are losing the popularity contest right now. These days, Joe Average is infinitely more likely to watch American Idol or surf the internet for 2 hours than to pop in a movie. Movies are struggling for relevance. Therefore, movie criticism is also struggling for relevance. Rather than engage and cultivate any sense of passion or wonder for the movies generated by the likes of Inception, this generation of critics lock the doors to the elite citadel of criticism. Apparently their good taste will sustain them, because with the current newspaper crash, their paychecks certainly won’t for long.

Here is as good of a stopping point as any. Tomorrow I turn my sights on the turbulent world of online movie writing, the importance of being pro-movie, and why I call them "movies" instead of "films."

-Ben