The Internet can be an nasty place. In the case of online reviews- Between Twitter, Facebook and blogs, online opinions are becoming just as prominent as those of professional reviewers, raising the question: where does the role of the expert critic stand in the social media age?
The originator of the ‘Body Horror’ genre of cinema, David Cronenberg, took some shots at online film critics recently.
Quoted by the Canadian Press wire service: “I think the role of the critic has been very diminished, because you get a lot of people who set themselves up as critics by having a website where it says that they’re a critic,” states Cronenberg. “Even now if you go to Rotten Tomatoes, you have critics and then you have Top Critics, and what that really means is that there are legitimate critics who have actually paid their dues and worked hard and are in a legitimate website connected perhaps with a newspaper or perhaps not.”
“Then there are all these other people who just say they’re critics and you read their writing and they can’t write, or they can write and their writing reveals that they’re quite stupid and ignorant. … Some voices have emerged that are actually quite good who never would have emerged before, so that’s the upside of that. But I think it means that it’s diluted the effective critics.”
Now, There is no certification for being a film critic. In an interview Roger Ebert was asked how do you learn how to be a film critic he answered “You learn it by doing it.” Also, I don’t think Cronenberg is referring specifically to critics with a degree; he simply states that they have ‘paid their dues’. So more that they have taken a deeper interest in film as an art form and as an industry rather than at face value.
I went a long time before realizing there was an average score for Rotten Tomatoes – totally obscured by the percentage – which is huge, because you can get movies where the overall average is a 7.0 out of 10, but get 55% fresh, and then another film that has an average of 5.4 out of 10, and be 78%. I’m not really sure what makes each critic’s score fresh. Even with Siskel and Ebert, the thumbs were just for the show. I always like Roger Ebert, he was BOSS. Though ever since he died, I’ve had trouble with checking reviews. First off, if Ebert gave something 3 or more, I would check it out. But more importantly, Ebert had this great way of letting you know whether YOU wanted to see it, even if he loved it or hated it – and often times he’d try and incorporate that into the score, even if he didn’t think the latest Jason Statham picture was as “good” the arthouse flick that came out the same weekend and got equal scores.
It’s worrying that so much weight is attributed to star ratings and percentages as they leave no space for nuanced, thoughtful discussion, which is, in essence, the stuff of good criticism. Another constant threat to discussions about movies is the language of critical cliches – for example, the banal observation, often made, that the plot was, or wasn’t, believable. Cliche, as Orwell argued, is always a threat to independent thought – as it is essentially allowing words to do the thinking for the writer – and swathes of reviewers, in particular, are susceptible.
I think that the real question is whether you believe in the wisdom of crowds? Some people think the smart swarm is brilliant, others are offended by that idea.
-Dagobot
Get at me on twitter: @markdago
Like me on THE Facebook: facebook.com/markdagoraps
Download my latest EP for free: markdago.bandcamp.com
Listen to MY podcast http: http://poppundits.libsyn.com