Maybe it depends on the critic. Some critics I believe are treated very well by the studios if they offer a good review. I believe I have read that somewhere. Harry Knowles was flown somewhere to see a film. I think he got a great hotel room, but still gave the film he saw, which I do not know the title of, a bad review. Other critics I guess you could trust a little more because they are a little more consistent with their reviews such as Roger Ebert or A.O. Scott. I think the ones with the big names that write for the big newspapers and magazines such as David Ansen for Newsweek, Richard Corliss and Richard Schickel for Time, Janet Maslin for the New York Times, Pauline Kael for the New Yorker, Peter Travers for Rolling Stone and Kenneth Turan for the L.A. Times maybe more qualified to give a better review because they write for a well respected magazine or newspaper. I’m not saying that I agree with all of their reviews and I don’t always read all of these critics reviews, but if a critic can articulate well enough why he or she did not like a movie and give some ample examples or analysis to a review, then perhaps, then that film critic’s review can be taken more seriously. I’m not saying the audience is going to agree with them or should agree with them, but I think a good critic will provide a chance for an adequate interpretation of a film. I think though the only true judge for a film is the audience member, even though I like to hear a review by somebody like Roger Ebert.
The critics who provide comments like “greatest western ever made” or “just as good as Casablanca,” if it’s a crappy film tend to be critics that no one has ever heard of and maybe the audience member goes with it just based on the quotes, but, to be fair, that’s not always the case either. I guess you could make a case that sometimes a really good critic might stop themselves short of a clear opinion. In the biography of Pauline Kael that I read, she seemed to be a champion of Robert Altman’s films, even the ones that other critics didn’t think too highly off. I believe I read that in the book. Also, there was a critic that supposedly wrote for a Connecticut newspaper in Ridgefield that turned out to be a fake that actually came from Sony studios. I can’t remember the name of the fake critic.
@HAL
Is a critic not an audience member? And do critics honestly get special treatment in the 21st century? I’m not having a go at you, I’m genuinely interested; I imagine it happening in the past, when criticism was more influential in guiding people with their decisions, but not so much now with the prominence of marketing.
I think most modern film criticism is rubbish. Too much style, not enough substance. Too much focus on breaking-news, and not enough on analysis. Big names like Ebert get away with this because of their brand-name. They’ve been doing it for so long they have a cult following.
It’s interesting, because other art criticism—whether it be architecture, painting, music, etc.—usually involves interpretation, analysis, judgement, and evaluation. David Bordwell has written about this. Film criticism often lacks analysis, and sometimes interpretation, but it’s heavily descriptive and evaluative. Many film critics don’t explore why something is good, they just say it is so.
@Roger
I’m not sure it’s so much selling out. I think it’s more the prevalence of cliches in film reviewing, i.e. the critics suck at their job.
Of possible interest: Check out the “little lexicon of anglophone cliché” listed at Cinemasparagus, located in the bottom left column.
@Waving Surface I agree with you. Definitely a critic is an audience member. I personally do not know all about all of the critics getting special treatment from the studios or producers, but I believe I have heard that it has been done on some occasions. One of them happened to be the incident with Harry Knowles who has the website Aint It Cool News. His website is supposed to have a huge influence on things like audience appeal for movies. The incident that happened with Harry Knowles happened a few years or so back and the studios thought they could convince him to approve a movie that they were showing to him by pampering him with things like a private jet and a fancy hotel room. You’re probably right about film criticism’s sway on the decisions of audience members. Marketing these days does play a vital role in influencing audience appeal with the trailers for example that are shown before the feature in the the movie theaters, but I’m not quite sure that the critics are not totally ignored by the public. Why, for example, when a trailer is shown, that we might see or hear a comment from someone like Roger Ebert praising a film. I’m not saying he’s right. I don’t always agree with him, but sometimes, maybe a critic like Roger Ebert or A.O. Scott can provide ample explanation as to why they like a film. I wouldn’t say that I have read tons of film reviews. I have read a lot of Ebert’s and some other critics like A.O. Scott of the New York Times. A fair number of film reviewers have been fired from their jobs such as J. Hoberman of the Village Voice. I read that somewhere here on MUBI. I guess film criticism by major magazines and newspapers is beginning to wane a little due to the fact that some of these critics have been fired. Like I said, I haven’t read tons of film reviews, but I do like to read them based on the fact that they cover a subject that I like very much. Thanks for your response. I guess that’s the way I would answer your question.
Yes, a critic is an audience member. Yet, critics are no ordinary audience member. They are influential and can cause a lot of turmoil by providing misleading or inaccurate information. Yes there opinion does get special treatment. They have thousands of people reading there articles. Specifically in this segment i am speaking of the quotes that are on almost every movie. The ones that say “best movie ever”. These are never supported with evidence or provide examples of why they feel this to be true. Rather they are used specifically for marketing strategies. Therefore a critic might be somewhat honest in his opinion in a full review and still be lying when the real buisness of what is actually placed on the movie box comes around.
“One of the best… of the year!” By the time December rolls in, there’s probably 25+ best films out there.
It’s also funny whenever these bums crave, cry for ‘authenticity’ or honesty in films. Once confronted by a film with these same qualities, they then complain about it being ‘forced’.
Roger Kebler
At what point does a critic sell out? There are many movies and there is no need to address specific titles because examples run rampant. When I speak of examples of movies I mean movies that are below par, yet, are given a good review. These movies have quotes in the magazines or on DVD boxes that say “amazing,” “a true masterpiece,” or other cheesy one liners. Once I watch the movie I find myself somewhat flabbergasted because the movie is not “amazing” by any means. Do you feel that critics truly judge these movies to be “amazing” or do they just sell out because they are already in a system where they cannot go around burning all their bridges. If this is so I will rarely trust critics opinions because they are not honest. One other aspect to consider is the viewers opinion. Perhaps the critics judge these movies on specific criteria.