Well they often overlap. Kevin Brownlow for example isprimarily a historian of the silent era. Of course he has opinions and does some critical analysis from time to time. But basically he asebles information about the past.
A good critic must havesome historical knowledge. It’s of crucial import when tlaking about films of yore. But even thne no one would expect a critic to apply information with the depth of a historian to writing about a particular film. A few pertinent insights will more than suffice.
In a nutshell, the historian is primarily descriptive, the critic is more focused on evaluation.
They really should not be separate but complementary. However, I think David has summed it up well.
They really should not be separate but complementary. However, I think David has summed it up well.
At his or her best a critic will identify new trends and movements that no one knew existed before; he theorizes. A historian tends to stick to documenting and detailing the established knowledge. Historians love research. I loathe it; it’s the hardest part of writing criticism for me. That’s all I would add to David’s definition, which is correct.
Usually, critics write of a film that is either just out, as in media critics of all stripes, or still in the consciousness – they are in the moment. Film historians, and I would mainly mean here, film scholars, are by nature – in the past. I find both invaluable. A good critic can often define, quickly and succinctly, the essence of a film. Film scholars/historians delve into the heart of the matter, with very careful examination of the topic. I am just reading two books on Tarkovsky’s films by film scholars, who look into every aspect of his films and filmmaking. This type of thing is not the domain of critics, although David is certainly correct in that they can overlap. To over generalize: critics write articles on a film or subject whereas film scholars/historians write books. It is a question of how much detail and background you want, eh?
We have several recognized or soon to be recognized film critics on site, and it is a great pleasure to have their insight. Some of you, like David, I know by their articles in various film publications. Others of you are no dout published too, but because of your anonimity on site, I may not be aware. I know we have several excellent film bloggers here, who it is always a pleasure to read.
i dont see much of a difference, except for the basic strategies you guys mentioned (one writes short reviews, one writes historical books). but both ought to be able to function in either world. maybe its a little easier for a true historian to write criticism than for a true critic to write film history.
but a film historian must be an academic. not so much for a critic. a true film historian must be concerned with issues like scientific research and such. a critic can be populist, shallow, overly subjective, stylish, and make it all work. a historian must be objective and rigorous and quantifiable.
that being said, i love both forms, and practice both.
I think Bob is mistaking critic for reviewer, which is a whole other worm in the apple. A critic can very well write a comprehensive book about a past director. Rohmer and Truffaut were critics when they wrote about Hitchcock; Bazin when he wrote about Renoir. And actually, critics have to be academics or academically versed because we — I — deal in theory, Freud, Lacan, Derrida, etc. A whole range of disciplines come into play in film criticism which do not enter into film history, which is often just the arrangement of anecdotal information. Theory is the distinction. But clearly this thread’s become more about spanking me, and Bob, who once wrote on my wall that my published film essays impressed him greatly, now consigns me to a realm of anonymous obscurity. Fine, Bob, fine. Just kiss whoever’s butt smells sweetest to you at the moment.
i dont even see much of a difference between a critic and a reviewer. except maybe one has a more “artistic” air and tone to it. critics review, and reviewers critique. both of their starting points are subjectivity (their own). maybe some critics considers themselves higher quality writers than people they would simply call “reviewers”.
yes, critics have to be academically versed. but they dont necessarily have to be academics. historians must be. not all critics deal in theory. not even the ones who write for cineaste or film comment.
but yes, a historian must historicize. a critic, criticize. they can play in each others field. again, at the end of the day, i dont see that much of a difference, and as you mentioned, their skills are complementary anyway.
Justin: You say: “But clearly this thread’s become more about spanking me, and Bob, who once wrote on my wall that my published film essays impressed him greatly, now consigns me to a realm of anonymous obscurity. Fine, Bob, fine. Just kiss whoever’s butt smells sweetest to you at the moment.” Wow! I am not sure if you are pulling my leg, but I meant in my comments about on site critics above, there are those, like David Ehrenstein, who use their real name (at least, I assume it is the critic Ehrenstein – unless someone is using his name as a pseudonym, which is just scary) and can easily be found by a google search. That’s why I used his name. There are those, like yourself, who use a pseudonym. I know you and several others here are critics in the best sense of the word, but I am not sure who also publishes in film review publications. It really doesn’t matter to me. I did, of course, read and admire yours and several other on site film critics – I won’t make the mistake of calling them reviewers – who publish their reviews on the net and have a link here, so I can find them. My comments re film critics were certainly general and not specific. I am not a film critic, so I won’t comment any further. I wasn’t trying to slight you or anyone.
Those of you who also publish in film magazines, write articles, books, screenplays, etc, please don’t be offended if I don’t recognize who you are if you are here with a pseudonym. In other words, it isn’t easy for me to tell, by just being on a site where most people are anonymous (I am not, because I really am a nobody), who is a published critic, a filmmaker, a film scholar, and who isn’t. I used to be an avid reader of Film Comment, Sight & Sound, Film Quarterly, but am now out of the loop. I thought we were an egalitarian site here, where no one got any special privileges because of their ‘status’. I have enjoyed the film critiques of several people on site, and I intend to read more. Sorry for the unintentional offense.
I’m a reviewer. I read film criticism. I’ve taken classes in film history.
For one.
—DiB
Thank you for your contributions. I knew asking this question might have me looking ditz, but for a while now I’ve been poundering the historian v. critic category. It’s like asking what’s the difference between a granny smith apple and a washington apple, or perhaps, asking what besides the color of their peel, is the difference between a green and red apple? According to the content of the replies, it seems like most agree that historians and critics overlap (and that a historian is also interchangable with “scholar.”). Yet, it also seems that there is no definitive defintion for either—yet we know a critic/historian when we see one!
I agree with Matt Parks when he says that a critic deals with evaluation. And I agree with Justin Biberkopf when he says that critics deal with theory—Freud, Lacan, Derrida, etc. That clarifies a lot for me. I also agree with Biberkopf when he says that historians deal with “the arrangement of anectodal information,” although those choice of words sound a bit perjorative to me, but the point is taken.
A critic then evaluates a film and scrutinizes it for its value. Critics of the past and present then determine what films become part of the canon. Once a film becomes, bear with me, part of the canon, the film historians role is then to preserve its place in film history by documenting and preserving and passing on from one generation to the next the importance of the film, including its anecdotal information. This include the film’s cultural and historical relevance, to why the director decided to make the film, to even on-set difficulties, etc.
Would anyone like to add or dispute anything to this?
i’ll just dispute the implication of a heirarchy. that the critic decides what’s worthy of study and preservation for the historian, who must dutifully follow.
quite often, the historian’s job is to unearth interesting relics that nobody knows about, even some of the best critics. once unearthed, they must be evaluated.
Bobby Wise, that’s a very good point. Thank you.
Jay Olie Espy
I know this is going to sound obvious, but what’s the difference between a film critic and film historian? Sometimes DVD commentary tracks will be done by a film critic, or a film historian, and sometimes by a “film critic and historian.” I’m wondering why historian and critic are mutually exclusive? I would think if you’re one, you’re the other.