September
30Decoding the Critics
Tom Bernard, the veteran co-head of Sony Pictures Classics, has a theory about critics. He believes when critics in key communities are fired by their penny-pinching newspapers, it’s the movies that suffer – especially art movies. He feels he can statistically demonstrate that filmgoers learn to trust certain local critics and that, when they leave, box office sags.
I hope he’s right. I’d like to believe that amid the present media maelstrom, newspaper critics still wield some clout.
And I agree with Bernard that, when you read critics over a period of time, you can learn to decode them. Serious critics are reluctant to issue “raves” even when they admire a film, but you learn their nuances and figure out which films to put on your list.
Bernard can be shrewd in extracting words of praise (however skimpy) from kindly critics to use in quote ads, and when a David Ansen or a Richard Schickel say they admire a film, that registers.
Here’s the catch: When some distributors run banners of quotes from lesser critics, doesn’t that send the opposite message to savvy filmgoers? “The most romantic movie of the year,” says Stuart Lee of WNYX-TV about “Nights in Rodanthe.” “An American classic,” says the ubiquitous Shawn Edwards of Fox TV of “Appaloosa.”
If the filmgoers learn to decode critics, aren’t they also busily decoding the distributors? Thus banners from obscure critics are a signal to stay away.
Tom Bernard’s theory is interesting… depending on how far one wants to carry it.
I hope he’s right. I’d like to believe that amid the present media maelstrom, newspaper critics still wield some clout.
And I agree with Bernard that, when you read critics over a period of time, you can learn to decode them. Serious critics are reluctant to issue “raves” even when they admire a film, but you learn their nuances and figure out which films to put on your list.
Bernard can be shrewd in extracting words of praise (however skimpy) from kindly critics to use in quote ads, and when a David Ansen or a Richard Schickel say they admire a film, that registers.
Here’s the catch: When some distributors run banners of quotes from lesser critics, doesn’t that send the opposite message to savvy filmgoers? “The most romantic movie of the year,” says Stuart Lee of WNYX-TV about “Nights in Rodanthe.” “An American classic,” says the ubiquitous Shawn Edwards of Fox TV of “Appaloosa.”
If the filmgoers learn to decode critics, aren’t they also busily decoding the distributors? Thus banners from obscure critics are a signal to stay away.
Tom Bernard’s theory is interesting… depending on how far one wants to carry it.
Subscribe to Peter Bart's Blog Feed
You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog.
Posted by: invosotoDus | 10/13/2009 9:29:33 PM
Of course, what a great site and informative posts, I will add backlink - bookmark this site? Regards, Reader.
Posted by: invosotoDus | 10/11/2009 4:34:25 AM
I usually don’t post in Blogs but your blog forced me to, amazing work.. beautiful ...
Posted by: carrepossesseion | 9/14/2009 6:57:18 AM
Hey, Bart - If you want to bash film critics stay consistent. You snidely "look at the bunch of peole at the NY Times", single out Daris (interestly a woman) as being a no-nothing snob, then end your Critic Decoding with "To be honest, the only critics I listen are the big names..." and then include NY Times critic A.O. Scott.
Posted by: for P. Bart | 12/26/2008 7:40:46 PM
For a funny, enlightening take on critics, rent my feature documentary, HECKLER. We made a movie about how many critics on the Internet have become nothing more than "hecklers." And serious, quality criticism is dying fast.
Posted by: Michael Addis | 10/4/2008 7:04:20 AM
*Criticism* will always be a vital component of arts appreciation but I think the day of The Critic may have passed. When you look at the vast history of theater and music that goes back thousands of years, the single elite “expert†who passes judgment upon a piece of artistry is a relatively new phenomenon. Shakespeare managed to carve out popularity based on word-of-mouth and letters written amongst the upper classes. (Think of it as 16th century blogging.) He didn’t need an Ebert or a Travers to sign off on his latest work. I for one would rather the arts be debated and discussed in university classrooms and in restaurants rather than be reduced to the ridiculous thumbs up/thumbs down encapsulations we have today.
Posted by: everycritic | 10/3/2008 10:13:46 AM
I just believe critics have become largely irrelevant in today's context. Years of snobbery, posing and a clear agenda of trying to shape people's opinions have eroded their credibility with the public. People trust a friend's review more than a critics, and with good reason. Audiences and the entire system are way ahead of the curve, which is a pity, because it would be nice to have some realiable, honest and smart commentators that finds gems in the dark and point audiences to films worthy of recognition, but they're a rare species. Just look at the bunch of people at the NYtimes. If you can find a bigger snob and know-nothing than Ms.Mahola Dargis, holler. It is like listening to a pretentious, foolish relative at thanksgiving dinner pontify about movies or whatever. Critics can only blame their incompetence to blame for their sorry fate.
Posted by: steve | 10/3/2008 12:41:50 AM
Raving criticism is not a problem here in Portland, where Shawn Levy of The Oregonian is about as nuanced as they come. Just check out some of his recent picks:
Burn After Reading – “Not top-shelf Coen brothers, granted, but ordinary Coen is so much better than anything else.â€
The Dark Knight – “Genuinely well-made and visceral Hollywood entertainment.â€
Iron Man – “Director Jon Favreau surrounds Robert Downey Jr. with good actors, splashes around the special effects, and then, wisely, stays out of the way.â€
Posted by: MarkMandel.com | 10/2/2008 6:12:22 PM
Correct! Rave reviews turn me off. Very rarely is a movie worth of such a review. Listen to Ben Lyons reviews. He raves and talks about great and brilliant. Problem is he wants his 10 minutes as much as 50 cent does. What comes from that are rave reviews thinking he is ingratiating himself to hollywood. In reality we have no respect or care for that type of critic. It''''s taken my some time but Roger Ebert is a damn great critic. I have recently bought his books and found a clear honest review in every one. I don''''t agree with all but most we are on the same page. Then go listen to Ben. Horrible.
Posted by: AnHonestAnswer | 10/2/2008 3:50:08 PM
I certainly agree. As soon as I see a poster with some critic from a local KWXYZ channel raving about a film, I have to wonder, "is that the best quote they can get?" I don''t know so much about the local critic clout thing, though. To be honest, the only critics I listen to are the big names - Roger Ebert, Peter Travers, A.O. Scott - and the smallest names - my close group of friends. I guess it does bode badly for newspaper critics.
Posted by: Jason | 10/2/2008 11:55:32 AM