Browsing through the reviews on Rottentomatoes.com for Spider-Man 3 there was a critic who compared the film to the work of the great Swedish filmmaker Ingmar Bergman.
There are two possible conclusions for this critic’s thinking: 1) the critic had seen a different version of Spider-Man 3 than the rest of the world, or 2) he hadn’t seen much of Bergman’s work. Comparing Spider-Man 3 to Bergman is kind of like comparing the third Pirates of the Caribbean film to Fellini’s Satyricon or Kursoawa’s Yojimbo: anyone with enough courage can do it, but what’s the use?
The Problem with Film Criticism Starts with the Critic
Herein lies much of the problem with today’s film criticism: the reviews serve just as much of an outlet to stroke the writer’s ego as they do to share their experience of a particular film. Many critics approach the art from the wrong angle.
They are mostly malcontents who believe themselves and their abilities above that of the film they are writing on. The best critic will avoid this stance because of a greater love of film itself. Robert Warshow once again springs to mind: "A man goes to the movies. The critic must be willing to admit that he is that man."
The Essence of Criticism
That is, at the heart of the matter, the essence of criticism. Years ago Peter Howell of the Toronto Star wrote an editorial on how he told his father not to go see Bad Santa. His father went and saw it anyway, thus determining, in Howell's mind, that people don’t listen to critics.
That many critics believed Bad Santa to be a truly bold and hilarious black comedy doesn’t help Howell’s point. His problem seems to be in grasping that criticism is not absolute. This is why it is not really the critic's job to advise readers on what they should see and what they should avoid.
Truth be told, people are going to see what they want to see, and the only way one may physically influence them is if writing positively about a film that they either have no knowledge of or had no interest in to begin with. The line between criticism and opinion is not telling people what to see, but encouraging them to share in on one's thoughts and feelings towards a particular film.
The Best Kind of Criticism
This is why the best criticism avoids the redundancies of what worked and what didn’t (it can sometimes be hard when that’s all a film offers) and instead shares with the reader one's own personal experience of a film.
Director Sydney Lumet, in his invaluable book Making Movies, states that a good film should leave an audience with a thought or a feeling. Good criticism should reach for this goal as well: to leave readers with a thought or a feeling; some point of reference from which they can then explore their favorite films (or maybe even themselves) under a new light. Good criticism is equal parts emotion and theory.
Film Above Self: Avoiding an Elitist Stance
An elitist stance is an easy one to take, but not a fruitful one, because it usually results in disappointment. Of course, Hollywood blockbusters like Pirates of the Caribbean pale in comparison when one has been blessed enough to have seen Renoir’s Rules of the Game or Fellini’s La Dolce Vita, but there exists no clear link between these two kinds of films.
The world is only balanced when the viewer is free to choose to see films for their own unique reasons, on their own unique terms. It's a world where The Fast and the Furious and Ingmar Bergman’s Fanny and Alexander are equally valid.
As is often quoted, Pauline Kael once wrote that movies are so rarely great works of art that if people can’t enjoy great trash then there is no point in going. Alas the statement finally requires a bit of retooling: movies are so rarely great art that if people can’t at least enjoy satisfying the simpleton in them, then what is the point in going at all?
Still Interested in Film Criticism? Click Here
