Do Film Critics Have To Protect the Movies and What Does This Mean?
Can you link the thread?, that seems like a somewhat absurd contention, but I suspect it is out of context (especially since you also ask what it means).
If it is saying that critics aren’t liking the right things, then that is silly: like is like, and like is culturally significant. If it is saying that critics are not doing enough to bring to light certain lesser seen works, that is more a symptom of the current state of journalism than to critics specifically. Either way, or if any of the other things it could mean, the singling out of critics seems strange without knowing why critics are being singled out (or if they are).
Isn’t this part of the The USA Patriot Act?
^ haha
I’m not really sure what this means either. Seems kinda weird.
Robert: Isn’t this part of the The USA Patriot Act?
Hahaha.
@A Smith
Can you link the thread?, that seems like a somewhat absurd contention, but I suspect it is out of context (especially since you also ask what it means).
Well, I’m trying to be a little more careful about quoting people (but I suspect the person will pop in and won’t mind making a link). In the meantime, I’ll try to describe the context. Basically, this person felt that the critic smoothed over and ignored crucial distinctions between classical music and pop music—basically equating the two. This person felt that there are crucial differences (in general) involving depth, richness and complexity—and by not recognizing and pointing out these differences, the critic does a disservice to music. To me, that makes sense. The value of critics is that they can point out what makes one work of art better than another and hopefully help people appreciate these differences. If a critic ignores these differences than it can foster the idea that there are no meaningful differences between art. Does that make sense?
First of all, I think when we type something here in the forum, we are giving de facto permission to be quoted throughout the forum.
I agree with the mystery poster that classical music and pop music are so different in form and purpose that any comparison would be as useless as comparing a painting with architecture. How this will apply to film remains to be seen or quoted.
“First of all, I think when we type something here in the forum, we are giving de facto permission to be quoted throughout the forum.”
I hope Brad doesn’t mind me quoting him but I just want to say that I agree with him.
That’s it. I’m calling my lawyer.
Protect movies from what?
Or do you mean protect distinctions between different kinds of movies (going off the pop music vs. classical music complaint you mentioned)?
I think critics should be responsible for promoting culture in such a way that the average person will become excited about it. I don’t think they should tell us what films to like. They should make the exploration of film seem fun and enlightening, so people will go out and form their own opinions.
Yes, critics should protect the reputation of films and directors they love. They should fight for them. What fun is it being a critic if you can’t be on the front lines for something?
@Brad and Santino
The thing is, I’m not just quoting the person, but I’m using what the person said as the premise or impetus for a thread. I used to think this wasn’t a problem, and I’d mention the person’s name (for me, I thought this was crediting the person), but one person expressed some ambivalence and maybe annoyance at me doing this. Thinking about it, I guess I can understand as it might draw unwanted attention to the person. Hence, I’m trying to be more cautious when using what other people say as the premise for a new discussion. (I really don’t think this person would mind, but I’m erring on the side of caution.) I’ll try to ask him/her if it’s OK, and then post links, etc.
@Odi
Maybe protect is the wrong word, but I think we’re talking about recognizing and preserving real distinctions between different styles or individual works. In this case, the person felt like classical music is more rich, complex and profound than the typical pop tune. When a critic says that good music can come out of both classical and pop music, these key distinctions are dismissed. This dismissal would be the opposite of “protecting” art and culture. Does that make sense? (I hope the person I’m talking about comes very soon to speak for him/herself. :)
I think he’s thinking of what this guy said:
Any attempt by a critic to ‘preserve culture’ is, in effect, stifling cultural evolution to define one’s own self as a cultural shepherd.
People who preserve art because they love it do a better job than people who do it because they think it’s their responsibility.
I think that maybe the only problem with starting a thread by quoting something someone else said somewhere else is that it’s possible that you may be quoting someone out of context and/or may be misinterpreting what they said (or the intention thereof).
“People who preserve art because they love it do a better job than people who do it because they think it’s their responsibility.”
I can get behind this.
Since when are love and a sense of responsibility paired opposites?
@Matt
I think that maybe the only problem with starting a thread by quoting something someone else said somewhere else is that it’s possible that you may be quoting someone out of context and/or may be misinterpreting what they said (or the intention thereof).
I hope you’re not implying that I’m doing that in this case. :) And if I am, I would sincerely ask for your help.
@Jirin
Any attempt by a critic to ‘preserve culture’ is, in effect, stifling cultural evolution to define one’s own self as a cultural shepherd.
It depends, though. Sometimes great art is complex, profound and demanding. These qualities make this type of art unattractive to many people. If a critic takes the position that there are no significant differences between art that is complex, profound and demanding from art that has the opposite qualities, that’s not serving art well. To recognize these differences, while bringing them to the public’s attention as well as helping the public understand and appreciate the more challenging works of art could be described as “preserving culture.” See what I’m saying?
People who preserve art because they love it do a better job than people who do it because they think it’s their responsibility.
This is a false dichotomy, though. One can both feel responsible and passionate, right? And the other missing pieces are knowledge and the ability to communicate. You can be passionate and feel responsible—but who cares if you don’t have the knowledge and ability to communicate?
“I hope you’re not implying that I’m doing that in this case. :) And if I am, I would sincerely ask for your help.”
No, er, I mean, I dunno unless it’s an instance where you’re quoting something I said, in which case I would probably just drop in and say, "Well, Jazz, what I really meant was . . . "
Here’s my two cents on your question: I think critics have to be careful not to make sloppy comparisons just for the sake of connecting audiences. You know, if I’m writing for rock fans about jazz and say something like “John Coltrane was the Jimi Hendrix of the saxophone”, although I could go interesting places with that connection for people, I’d have to be pretty carefully because it’s obscuring as much about each as it is finding interesting commonalities, maybe more so. A critic has to preserve the integrity of the form he’s writing about, even when he’s trying to sell it to people who may not “get” that form.
No, er, I mean, I dunno unless it’s an instance where you’re quoting something I said, in which case I would probably just drop in and say, "Well, Jazz, what I really meant was . . . "
I’d hope that most people would react the same way.
You know, if I’m writing for rock fans about jazz and say something like “John Coltrane was the Jimi Hendrix of the saxophone”, although I could go interesting places with that connection for people, I’d have to be pretty carefully because it’s obscuring as much about each as it is finding interesting commonalities, maybe more so.
So I hear you saying that critics who use comparisons like this might “protect” art by ensuring that the integrity of things he’s comparing—that the critic can bring to light or at least not distort the things being compared.
OK, I got permission. The paraphrase comes from the thread, Is There an Aesthetic Bias in the Film Community. Greg X links an NYTimes article near the top of the second page.
The conversation about the article is a little difficult to follow, so I’ll try to post some excerpts. First, here’s the quote from the Times article (by Anthony Tommasini) that riled Greg up:
“I do not contend that classical music is weightier than other types of music. Mahler’s “Resurrection” Symphony is no more profound than “Eleanor Rigby.”
And here’s some things Greg had to say afterward (emphasis added):
…individually we all like what we like, that’s how taste works and to the person who has it that’s great, but what Tomassini is doing is an abdication of his critical responsibility, the denial of the possibility to discriminate or explain differences, to suggest that those differences do not in fact matter as long as you feel something. Saying something like “great” music can come from any style is easy enough, but without differentiation the word “great” becomes meaningless, akin to tedious as a description. Any idea of shared cultural meaning or significance comes from seeking out and trying to explain the distinctions, not simply saying, “Hell, I like ‘em both, let’s call it even and not worry about it.”
And later,
It all goes back to the issues I was mentioning earlier about the approach taken to the subject and the underlying assumptions which seem to be in place behind the writing. It isn’t a question of him not having experience in his field or knowing the craft, it’s a matter of how he thinks about and applies that knowledge and how I see it having an effect on the wider view of art in this country. It all too often feels like those who’s job it should be to help shape and protect our cultural heritage are now the ones helping to degrade it instead, and that irks me.
“It all too often feels like those who’s job it should be to help shape and protect our cultural heritage are now the ones helping to degrade it instead, and that irks me”
I’ll pose a question: Is it the job of the critic to protect the art form or the job of the artist to protect the art form? I don’t have a definitive answer to this but I’m curious to hear what other people think; Greg seems to put the responsibility on the critic to shape and protect our cultural heritage and I’m just wondering if that’s also the job of the artist, by them simply creating art.
“So I hear you saying that critics who use comparisons like this might “protect” art by ensuring that the integrity of things he’s comparing—that the critic can bring to light or at least not distort the things being compared.”
Pretty much, yeah. Personally, I don’t like the word “protect” in this context (Greg and I seem to spend a lot of time haggling over word choice) , but, to me, In a broader sense, I do think a critic has a certain obligation (I mean obligation in the sense of “if they want me to bother reading them they have to . . .”) to not sell out the form about which they are writing. It’s the kind of thing that a number of critics have criticized David Thompson for. Kent Jones :
“It strikes me that he has a pretty marketable attitude . People want to read about movies, but they don’t really want to read about them. They want to read about them from a point of view that allows them to not take them too seriously. His view of film has nothing to do with the rest of the world. It’s all-America, Britain on a good day. But then, why single him out? It’s a pervasive thing. It’s funny. I think people would be outraged if they found that attitude in art or literary criticism. That’s the reason Dave Kehr is marginalized. The notion is that movies deserve to be looked at but not too seriously: if you look too hard, they fall apart. Thomson articulates that whole position with terrific eloquence. He’s an immensely talented writer and he always has been. Now he’s devoted to being embarrassed about once taking movies so seriously. It’s sad.”
Thanks for the Kent Jones article. Great read.
Well….isn’t the power of critics to really influence culture a thing of the past? With the advent of the internet, haven’t we all become critics? How many of your friends (or you) have your own movie blogs? Heck..I have one myself.
Isn’t it OUR job as movie lovers and cineastes to protect the art of cinema, to promote it and to recommend films to our friends and family that they wouldn’t normally find on their own? I have done this several times with mixed results.
I don’t know many people who give a rap about critics that much anymore. Even serious film watchers scoff at many of them.
I do think Roger Ebert (love him or hate him) manages to write his reviews in an accessible way for the general populace. But then how much weight do we give a critic who gave the film Knowing 4 stars?
Do film critics have to protect movies? No….not at all…..they simply don’t have that kind of power.
@Grimes
Well….isn’t the power of critics to really influence culture a thing of the past? With the advent of the internet, haven’t we all become critics? How many of your friends (or you) have your own movie blogs? Heck..I have one myself.
These comments somewhat reminds me of the comments made about professional journalists and the major news publications—i.e., everyone is a journalist now, so we don’t really need the pros and established news agencies. The key difference is that the pros have expertise and experience. Sure anyone can talk about movies, but not everyone has an informed view. I don’t necessarily mean the judgments of professional critics are always correct, or that non-professionals don’t or can’t have an informed view, but, generally speaking, these critics have knowledge, experience and skills that the average person does not.
We can also talk about a responsibility of critics in a way that we can’t for the average person. Critics do play a role in supporting culture and they should use their abilities to support culture in a responsible way—or at least that is what I would suggest. Part of this responsibility involves identifying, promoting and helping people understand the truly great works of art. The average person who blogs doesn’t have to or may not care about this at all—and may care more about writing about what they liked or didn’t. This may or may not be related to identifying and understanding great art.
I don’t know many people who give a rap about critics that much anymore. Even serious film watchers scoff at many of them.
This might be happening for several reasons:
1. People don’t need to depend on critics to help them decide which films to see. They can use aggregate sites like rotten tomatoes or imdb; they can read blogs, etc. The dependence allowed critics a platform to talk not only talk about films that were entertaining, but also important as well.
2. The review format of most newspaper reviews prohibits serious criticism—or makes it extremely difficult. So I don’t think they can speak seriously about films or culture via the review format.
Having said this, there could be other avenues for critics to use their knowledge and abilities.
@Santino
I’ll pose a question: Is it the job of the critic to protect the art form or the job of the artist to protect the art form?
Well, can’t they both protect or preserve the culture? If anything, I’d say the critic has the bigger responsibility, though. I say that because the artist has enough to worry about with creating her art. And I don’t think the creation of art sufficiently protects or preserves culture (although this is clearly a part of it).
Here’s the premise I’m operating from, and maybe it’s flawed: some great art and artists are not readily accessible to the masses. I might add that many people not only don’t gravitate towards great art, but they often (not always) gravitate towards the opposite. This doesn’t mean that many people won’t or can’t receive a fulfilling experience from great art—they absolutely can and should, otherwise the work wouldn’t be exceptional. But the path to this experience isn’t always easy—or known. This is where critics come in. They go out and explore what’s out there, and if they’re any good, they use their knowledge and skills to let everyone know what’s good. They should also try to help people along the path, once the path is found. To me, that’s what makes critics valuable—and if they’re not really fulfilling this function or not fulfilling this function well, then they don’t seem to have much value at all.
Now, am I making fundamental errors here? If the art is truly great, the masses will certainly find and appreciate them? (I don’t buy this.)
@Matt
…but, to me, In a broader sense, I do think a critic has a certain obligation (I mean obligation in the sense of “if they want me to bother reading them they have to . . .”) to not sell out the form about which they are writing. It’s the kind of thing that a number of critics have criticized David Thompson for.
Don’t you think they have an obligation to the culture? I mean to really support and promote art that is truly valuable, and to help society appreciate these works?
Also, in the context of the quote, “selling out the form,” would mean pretending that the form isn’t really serious, profound, etc.? (Does Thompson ever make a case for this position?)
One man’s cultural degradation is another man’s cultural evolution. Homer’s Iliad was populist. I imagine old men back then thinking ‘This isn’t real art!’
@Jazz
Nobody has ever appreciated art because they were told to appreciate art. The people forced to view great art are the ones who hate it the most. A high school student is forced to read Milton, a great work of art. He doesn’t connect with it, doesn’t accept all the reasons his teacher told him to like it that he has to repeat on the test, resents it and creates his own poetry. Critics denounce his poetry as garbage. A hundred years later, their critic grandchildren lament the golden age when poetry like that was still being created.
Sure, a critic has a responsibility for honesty. Say what you feel, not what you were paid to say, or else you’re a bad critic. But what makes you say art that is complex and difficult constitutes some holy institution that the entire profession must preserve as a historical artifact. I find it’s the mainstream art that tells you more about culture in general, and the more difficult the art is, the more personal it tends to be to the artist.
>>They should also try to help people along the path, once the path is found.<<
I’m not entirely sure how critics would offer this help or what that would look like. Is it a glowing review or championing certain favorites as Kael tended to do? Also, I wonder if a critic’s responsibility is so far reaching. I’d say the primary responsibility would be to advocate his or her own tastes based (hopefully) on an informed degree of expertise.
>>If the art is truly great, the masses will certainly find and appreciate them? (I don’t buy this.)<<
Neither do I. The masses can often be quite wrong when it comes to great art, but a critic is unlikely to change their minds on a large scale. The best they can do (and I know this is controversial) is create canons among those who care about the art. If those canons become stale and outdated, they need to be replaced with better updated ones.
@Brad
I’m not entirely sure how critics would offer this help or what that would look like. Is it a glowing review or championing certain favorites as Kael tended to do?
Critics can write about fruitful ways to approach certain films and filmmakers. Think of a filmmaker like Bresson. I’m sure there are dos and don’ts that a critic could mention that would help viewers with Bresson’s movies (and many people would need help). There’s also broader tips with approaching movies—similar to tips that could be given when listening to jazz or classical music. (Think of those “Dummy” books.) Finally, critics can offer interpretations of difficult films—interpretations that both help viewers understand the film and understand why it’s so great. (Something that is hardly ever done in my experience—not in film reviews anyway.)
Neither do I. The masses tend to be quite wrong when it comes to great art, but a critic is unlikely to change their minds on a large scale.
I don’t know critics need to change people’s minds per se as provide clear and compelling reasons to seek out great art; they should offer assistance with this appreciation; and explanations when that doesn’t really work. At the very least, they shouldn’t pretend that differences between good art and bad art don’t exist.
Jazzaloha
In another thread, someone expressed irritation at the failure of critics to defend and protect culture. I wondered what this actually meant in the case of film critics and whether other people agreed with this. Do film critics have to protect movies—and what does that actually mean?