Critics and the Masses Disagree About Film Choices - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 07-18-2006, 12:58 PM

Quote:

July 18, 2006
Critic’s Notebook
Avast, Me Critics! Ye Kill the Fun: Critics and the Masses Disagree About Film Choices
By A. O. SCOTT
LINK

Let’s start with a few numbers. At Rottentomatoes.com, a Web site that quantifies movie reviews on a 100-point scale, the aggregate score for “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” stands at a sodden 54. Metacritic.com, a similar site, crunches the critical prose of the nation’s reviewers and comes up with a numerical grade of 52 out of 100. Even in an era of rampant grade inflation, that’s a solid F.

Meanwhile, over at boxofficemojo.com, where the daily grosses are tabulated, the second installment in the “Pirates” series, which opened on July 7, plunders onward, trailing broken records in its wake. Its $136 million first-weekend take was the highest three-day tally in history, building on a best-ever $55 million on that Friday, and it is cruising into blockbuster territory at a furious clip. As of this writing, a mere 10 days into its run, the movie has brought in $258.2 million, a hit by any measure.

All of which makes “Dead Man’s Chest” a fascinating sequel — not to “Curse of the Black Pearl,” which inaugurated the franchise three years ago, but to “The Da Vinci Code.” Way back in the early days of the Hollywood summer — the third week in May, to be precise — America’s finest critics trooped into screening rooms in Cannes, Los Angeles, New York and points between, saw Ron Howard’s adaptation of Dan Brown’s best seller, and emerged in a fit of collective grouchiness. The movie promptly pocketed some of the biggest opening-weekend grosses in the history of its studio, Sony.

For the second time this summer, then, my colleagues and I must face a frequently — and not always politely — asked question: What is wrong with you people? I will, for now, suppress the impulse to turn the question on the moviegoing public, which persists in paying good money to see bad movies that I see free. I don’t for a minute believe that financial success contradicts negative critical judgment; $500 million from now, “Dead Man’s Chest” will still be, in my estimation, occasionally amusing, frequently tedious and entirely too long. But the discrepancy between what critics think and how the public behaves is of perennial interest because it throws into relief some basic questions about taste, economics and the nature of popular entertainment, as well as the more vexing issue of what, exactly, critics are for.

Are we out of touch with the audience? Why do we go sniffing after art where everyone else is looking for fun, and spoiling everybody’s fun when it doesn’t live up to our notion or art? What gives us the right to yell “bomb” outside a crowded theater? Variations on these questions arrive regularly in our e-mail in-boxes, and also constitute a major theme in the comments sections of film blogs and Web sites. Online, everyone is a critic, which is as it should be: professional prerogatives aside, a critic is really just anyone who thinks out loud about something he or she cares about, and gets into arguments with fellow enthusiasts. But it would be silly to pretend that those professional prerogatives don’t exist, and that they don’t foster a degree of resentment. Entitled elites, self-regarding experts, bearers of intellectual or institutional authority, misfits who get to see a movie before anybody else and then take it upon themselves to give away the ending: such people are easy targets of populist anger. Just who do we think we are?

There is no easy answer to this question. Film criticism — at least as practiced in the general-interest daily and weekly press — has never been a specialist pursuit. Movies, more than any other art form, are understood to be common cultural property, something everyone can enjoy, which makes any claim of expertise suspect. Therefore, a certain estrangement between us and them — or me and you, to put it plainly — has been built into the enterprise from the start.

The current schism is in some ways nothing new: go back and read reviews in The New York Times of “Top Gun,” “Crocodile Dundee” and “The Karate Kid Part II” to see how some of my predecessors dealt with three of the top-earning movies 20 years ago. (The Australian with the big knife was treated more kindly than the flyboy or the high-kicker, by the way.) And the divide between critic and public may also be temporary. Last year, during the Great Box-Office Slump of 2005, we all seemed happy to shrug together at the mediocrity of the big studio offerings.

No more. Whatever the slump might have portended for the movie industry, it appears to be over for the moment, and the critics have resumed their customary role of scapegoat. The modern blockbuster — the movie that millions of people line up to see more or less simultaneously, on the first convenient showing on the opening weekend — can be seen as the fulfillment of the democratic ideal the movies were born to fulfill. To stand outside that happy communal experience and, worse, to regard it with skepticism or with scorn, is to be a crank, a malcontent, a snob.

So we’re damned if we don’t. And sometimes, also, if we do. When our breathless praise garlands advertisements for movies the public greets with a shrug, we look like suckers or shills. But these accusations would stick only if the job of the critic were to reflect, predict or influence the public taste.

That, however, is the job of the Hollywood studios, in particular of their marketing and publicity departments, and it is the professional duty of critics to be out of touch with — to be independent of — their concerns. These companies spend tens of millions of dollars to persuade you that the opening of a movie is a public event, a cultural experience you will want to be part of. The campaign of persuasion starts weeks or months — or, in the case of multisequel cash cows, years — before the tickets go on sale, with the goal of making their purchase a foregone conclusion by the time the first reviews appear. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t, but the judgment of critics almost never makes the difference between failure and success, at least for mass-release, big-budget movies like “Dead Man’s Chest” or “The Da Vinci Code.”

So why review them? Why not let the market do its work, let the audience have its fun and occupy ourselves with the arcana — the art — we critics ostensibly prefer? The obvious answer is that art, or at least the kind of pleasure, wonder and surprise we associate with art, often pops out of commerce, and we want to be around to celebrate when it does and to complain when it doesn’t. But the deeper answer is that our love of movies is sometimes expressed as a mistrust of the people who make and sell them, and even of the people who see them. We take entertainment very seriously, which is to say that we don’t go to the movies for fun. Or for money. We do it for you.

I recall that a good number of critics hated Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars, and Jaws. All films that did great box office, but were not "art" films.

I found in the early days of Coming Attractions, the original Ebert and Siskel vehicle for review, along with Leonard Maltin, I could easily gauge which movies I wanted to see based on their reviews. Maltin, I don't really get anymore, but during his early ET stint I could almost predict what his rating was based on his wording of his review. But now I do rely on Roger Ebert for some reason, maybe it's just the length of the relationship because I know I don't always agree with his reviews.

What's your take on critics? Who are your favorites to listen to? Which ones do you turn a deaf ear immediately?

MexicanOnABike · 07-18-2006, 02:10 PM

eh. just cause ppl go see it doesnt mean it's good. for example, pirates of the carabean 2 got a horrible score with the critics but ppl went to see it BECAUSE they want to see the sequel of a good movie. they wont care. i didnt care that the matrix 2 and 3 got bad ratings because i just wanted to see the end of the movie.

and as far as critics go, i trust most of them but i prefer Rotten tomatoes for the average. 75 or more is good enough for me. but that depends. some critics will hate good movies and they might love bad movies. "open water" got a 75% when i saw it. it's still the worst movie i saw ever. and "boondock saints" got a 13% but i consider it one of the best movie i own on dvd.

so ya, i dont see movies cause its popular, i'll see it if it's good. i mean, if a critic says: "worst fucking acting of the year no plot and bad CG", then i'll mostly trust them!

edit: i will never trust a critic when it deals with computers since most dont "get" the story or technology like "antitrust". or if the actors are too big "shrek 2"...

ubertuber · 07-18-2006, 02:35 PM

Personally I think any review the NY Times writes is not worth trusting. In particular, their reviews of the classical arts are embarrassing - many times they are little more than a summary of the program notes. I know enough about classical music that the reviews the Times posts often bother me to the point of anger. Similarly, their film reviews hardly ever tell me anything I can relate to.

I often wonder why they think they write reviews. If their opinions and reviews are not reflective of the way that most people choose or enjoy films, then why do they think I would read those reviews? It's not that I think that reviews should conform to popular opinion all the time, but I wish they would explain what the criteria are and why their opinions should matter to me.

It's all well and good for Scott to tell me that he goes to the movies for me (whatever the heck that means), but he has failed to demonstrate or tell me why I should care that he does so.

ShaniFaye · 07-18-2006, 02:47 PM

I usually find (there have been one or two instances this didnt work) Im the opposite of what the critic thinks

cookmo · 07-18-2006, 03:03 PM

Yeah, I agree with ShaniFay. if they hate it, I love it.

Usually I go by word of mouth from friends/family above all.

Grasshopper Green · 07-18-2006, 05:49 PM

I might use a review to gauge whether I'll go see a film I don't really know much about, but if it's a film I really want to see, I'll see it regardless of reviews.

MexicanOnABike · 07-18-2006, 06:53 PM

the weird thing is that the 2 numbers dont go together. i mean, everyone will say: "if it's a film I really want to see, I'll see it regardless of reviews." this does not mean it's a bad or good movie. just cause everyone went to see a movie does not make it good. they could of all hated it. it wont change the fact that they payed to see it.

Grancey · 07-18-2006, 08:12 PM

I read reviews. I digest what critics say. But I can honestly say that the opinion of a critic has never stopped me from seeing a film that I wanted to see or persuaded me to see a film that I did not want to see. I ask the employees at the ticket window for their opinions of films. I discuss good and bad films with the popcorn people. It's tremendous fun....the whole thing. So, I like to get opinions, but what it boils down to is if I want to go, I go.

amire · 07-19-2006, 03:45 AM

I generally use critics' reviews as a guide for which movies are definitely worth seeing. Almost every movie I have seen that was given praise by critics was enjoyable.

On the flip side, I will see a movie that critics pan if it looked interesting to me. Sometimes my personal taste allows me to see a movie that's not incredible because of certain factors (Jodie Foster or Halle Berry being prominently featured is one of these...).

So basically, critics influence me when they like a film, but not when they dislike one.

Frosstbyte · 07-19-2006, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grancey

I read reviews. I digest what critics say. But I can honestly say that the opinion of a critic has never stopped me from seeing a film that I wanted to see or persuaded me to see a film that I did not want to see. I ask the employees at the ticket window for their opinions of films. I discuss good and bad films with the popcorn people. It's tremendous fun....the whole thing. So, I like to get opinions, but what it boils down to is if I want to go, I go.

Wow. I couldn't have put that better if I tried. That is precisely how I feel about critics. I probably read 30 reviews each before seeing Superman Returns and Pirates and, while it didn't make the slightest bit of difference about whether or not I was goign to see the movie, I enjoyed digesting the perspective. I enjoy movies and I enjoy talking about them. Hell, I even enjoy talking about bad movies and movies I didn't like.

I think that article hit the nail on the head. A big part of movies for me, is the communal aspect of seeing something with other people and being able to repond to the movie with them. Critics are just a part of that experience, though a bit more distant part.

Ample · 07-20-2006, 07:49 AM

I never follow what the critics say, its all taste and nothing more. That is as simple as it gets. I know that my taste is going to be different than anyone else’s. Besides they come off like pompous know it alls.

Derwood · 07-20-2006, 10:24 AM

i usually read the reviews after i've seen the movie just to see if I agree or not. I don't like having an opinion preformed in my mind before I see a movie.

Plus some of the "greatest films ever" according to AFI and most critics are totaly crap. I've said it here many times..."The Seven Samurai" is the worst piece of shit I've ever wasted 3+ hours on, yet it's the darling of everyone in the film world.

captobvious · 07-20-2006, 06:22 PM

I don't really rely on critics' reviews to determine whether or not I'm going to see a movie or not. I do read them for fun every once in a while though. To actually decide if I want to see a movie that I'm not sure about, I usually check imdb.com for a rating and reviews. From my experience, that works a lot better simply because it's a lot of people's opinions instead of just one.

snowy · 07-21-2006, 05:59 PM

Roger Ebert is about the only well-known critic I give any credence to. Usually he likes movies that I like, so it works out well.

For me, I wait till friends see the movies, find out how they liked them, and then go see it. In the case of POTC: Dead Man's Chest, I wanted to see it before everyone else. Occasionally that happens, but that's rare.

Charlatan · 07-21-2006, 06:01 PM

Of course the critics and the masses disagree... the masses are stupid.

Willravel · 07-21-2006, 06:02 PM

I watch a ton of stuff, the I decide what's worth a second try. I've seen Superman Returns, for example, 5 times. I've seen A History of Violence about .75 times (I left the theater).

roachboy · 07-21-2006, 07:36 PM

one thing you find out as a historian type is that lists can be good.
other peoples' lists can be better than yours because you didnt make them.
other peoples' lists can be pillaged for information
critics are other people who make lists
they make lists and suggest them to a readership (no readership=no critic)

critics are usually more representative than they are interesting.
it works best if they are representative of the demographic of the space they work for.
no-one has to take what they say terribly seriously--they function anyway to talk about films they like and because they are representative that the imaginary median of their readership might also like.
why would you take seriously what a critic actually says?
i mean, who actually relied on siskel and ebert to inform their judgments?
leonard maltin? o and there's someone even worse--a horrible little man with glasses.
the only time i read what they say closely at all is if there is a huge list of films in a weekly paper. but even then, its mostly about the paper and its line--you can skim what the critics say and they reliably confirm that most hollywood films are not worth going to the theater for tho some are worth watching on a television while laying in bed but then again so is static.

Tophat665 · 07-23-2006, 08:57 AM

The critic on NPR Morning Edition (John DeFord?) is usually pretty good. I started paying attention to him when he absolutely nailed The Matrix. It was a really good review, but you could tell that 1) it wasn't what a critic would normall call a good movie and 2) there was something decidedly odd going on in it and 3) it would add nothing to the arguments over whether Keanu Reeves can act or not.

Now, I hate theatres, the 20 minutes of f*cking commercials, the overpiced food, no smoking, teeange girls on cell phones, suave urbanites having arguments with the screen, screaming children. I only ever go if it is something that Has to be seen on a very large screen. LOTR, f'rinstance. For that, I have found DeFord to be very useful indeed.

07-18-2006, 02:10 PM	#2 (permalink)
MexicanOnABike Location: up north	eh. just cause ppl go see it doesnt mean it's good. for example, pirates of the carabean 2 got a horrible score with the critics but ppl went to see it BECAUSE they want to see the sequel of a good movie. they wont care. i didnt care that the matrix 2 and 3 got bad ratings because i just wanted to see the end of the movie. and as far as critics go, i trust most of them but i prefer Rotten tomatoes for the average. 75 or more is good enough for me. but that depends. some critics will hate good movies and they might love bad movies. "open water" got a 75% when i saw it. it's still the worst movie i saw ever. and "boondock saints" got a 13% but i consider it one of the best movie i own on dvd. so ya, i dont see movies cause its popular, i'll see it if it's good. i mean, if a critic says: "worst fucking acting of the year no plot and bad CG", then i'll mostly trust them! edit: i will never trust a critic when it deals with computers since most dont "get" the story or technology like "antitrust". or if the actors are too big "shrek 2"... __________________ - Movie Reviews - Ratings-

07-18-2006, 02:35 PM	#3 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Personally I think any review the NY Times writes is not worth trusting. In particular, their reviews of the classical arts are embarrassing - many times they are little more than a summary of the program notes. I know enough about classical music that the reviews the Times posts often bother me to the point of anger. Similarly, their film reviews hardly ever tell me anything I can relate to. I often wonder why they think they write reviews. If their opinions and reviews are not reflective of the way that most people choose or enjoy films, then why do they think I would read those reviews? It's not that I think that reviews should conform to popular opinion all the time, but I wish they would explain what the criteria are and why their opinions should matter to me. It's all well and good for Scott to tell me that he goes to the movies for me (whatever the heck that means), but he has failed to demonstrate or tell me why I should care that he does so. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

07-18-2006, 02:47 PM	#4 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	I usually find (there have been one or two instances this didnt work) Im the opposite of what the critic thinks __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

07-18-2006, 05:49 PM	#6 (permalink)
Grasshopper Green ...is a comical chap Location: Where morons reign supreme	I might use a review to gauge whether I'll go see a film I don't really know much about, but if it's a film I really want to see, I'll see it regardless of reviews. __________________ "They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king" Formerly Medusa

07-18-2006, 06:53 PM	#7 (permalink)
MexicanOnABike Location: up north	the weird thing is that the 2 numbers dont go together. i mean, everyone will say: "if it's a film I really want to see, I'll see it regardless of reviews." this does not mean it's a bad or good movie. just cause everyone went to see a movie does not make it good. they could of all hated it. it wont change the fact that they payed to see it. __________________ - Movie Reviews - Ratings-

07-18-2006, 03:03 PM	#5 (permalink)
cookmo Insane Location: Ohio	Yeah, I agree with ShaniFay. if they hate it, I love it. Usually I go by word of mouth from friends/family above all.

07-18-2006, 08:12 PM	#8 (permalink)
Grancey Life's short, gotta hurry... Location: land of pit vipers	I read reviews. I digest what critics say. But I can honestly say that the opinion of a critic has never stopped me from seeing a film that I wanted to see or persuaded me to see a film that I did not want to see. I ask the employees at the ticket window for their opinions of films. I discuss good and bad films with the popcorn people. It's tremendous fun....the whole thing. So, I like to get opinions, but what it boils down to is if I want to go, I go. __________________ Quiet, mild-mannered souls might just turn out to be roaring lions of two-fisted cool.

07-19-2006, 03:45 AM	#9 (permalink)
amire Crazy	I generally use critics' reviews as a guide for which movies are definitely worth seeing. Almost every movie I have seen that was given praise by critics was enjoyable. On the flip side, I will see a movie that critics pan if it looked interesting to me. Sometimes my personal taste allows me to see a movie that's not incredible because of certain factors (Jodie Foster or Halle Berry being prominently featured is one of these...). So basically, critics influence me when they like a film, but not when they dislike one.

07-20-2006, 07:49 AM	#11 (permalink)
Ample Psycho Location: In your closet	I never follow what the critics say, its all taste and nothing more. That is as simple as it gets. I know that my taste is going to be different than anyone else’s. Besides they come off like pompous know it alls. __________________ Her juju beads are so nice She kissed my third cousin twice Im the king of pomona

07-20-2006, 10:24 AM	#12 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	i usually read the reviews after i've seen the movie just to see if I agree or not. I don't like having an opinion preformed in my mind before I see a movie. Plus some of the "greatest films ever" according to AFI and most critics are totaly crap. I've said it here many times..."The Seven Samurai" is the worst piece of shit I've ever wasted 3+ hours on, yet it's the darling of everyone in the film world. __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

07-20-2006, 06:22 PM	#13 (permalink)
captobvious Insane Location: Somewhere	I don't really rely on critics' reviews to determine whether or not I'm going to see a movie or not. I do read them for fun every once in a while though. To actually decide if I want to see a movie that I'm not sure about, I usually check imdb.com for a rating and reviews. From my experience, that works a lot better simply because it's a lot of people's opinions instead of just one.

07-21-2006, 05:59 PM	#14 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	Roger Ebert is about the only well-known critic I give any credence to. Usually he likes movies that I like, so it works out well. For me, I wait till friends see the movies, find out how they liked them, and then go see it. In the case of POTC: Dead Man's Chest, I wanted to see it before everyone else. Occasionally that happens, but that's rare. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

07-21-2006, 06:01 PM	#15 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Of course the critics and the masses disagree... the masses are stupid. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

07-21-2006, 06:02 PM	#16 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I watch a ton of stuff, the I decide what's worth a second try. I've seen Superman Returns, for example, 5 times. I've seen A History of Violence about .75 times (I left the theater).

07-21-2006, 07:36 PM	#17 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	one thing you find out as a historian type is that lists can be good. other peoples' lists can be better than yours because you didnt make them. other peoples' lists can be pillaged for information critics are other people who make lists they make lists and suggest them to a readership (no readership=no critic) critics are usually more representative than they are interesting. it works best if they are representative of the demographic of the space they work for. no-one has to take what they say terribly seriously--they function anyway to talk about films they like and because they are representative that the imaginary median of their readership might also like. why would you take seriously what a critic actually says? i mean, who actually relied on siskel and ebert to inform their judgments? leonard maltin? o and there's someone even worse--a horrible little man with glasses. the only time i read what they say closely at all is if there is a huge list of films in a weekly paper. but even then, its mostly about the paper and its line--you can skim what the critics say and they reliably confirm that most hollywood films are not worth going to the theater for tho some are worth watching on a television while laying in bed but then again so is static. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-23-2006, 08:57 AM	#18 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	The critic on NPR Morning Edition (John DeFord?) is usually pretty good. I started paying attention to him when he absolutely nailed The Matrix. It was a really good review, but you could tell that 1) it wasn't what a critic would normall call a good movie and 2) there was something decidedly odd going on in it and 3) it would add nothing to the arguments over whether Keanu Reeves can act or not. Now, I hate theatres, the 20 minutes of f*cking commercials, the overpiced food, no smoking, teeange girls on cell phones, suave urbanites having arguments with the screen, screaming children. I only ever go if it is something that Has to be seen on a very large screen. LOTR, f'rinstance. For that, I have found DeFord to be very useful indeed. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.