Fandoms have created an atmosphere where critique is equal to being a hater. So if you don't worship something, you must think it's absolute trash and are a hater. Lots of things can be enjoyed, and you can still think that there are choices you didn't like or things could be done differently.
The most annoying part to me is how fandoms have weaponized identity politics so any critic who doesn’t like their fave is not only a snob but a bigot. Marvel and Disney fans in particular love to play that card like it isn’t a company owned by conservative white men that only starting casting poc like 10 years ago.
@lrigsnart6821I knew about Johnson, but not about Mendes. Sheesh. I mean, I didn't like Spectre or TLJ but I'm not going to go slander the creators careers. These are the same talented filmakers who made both Skyfall and the Breaking Bad episode Ozymandias.
@lrigsnart6821 Star Wars has had this problem in particular for a long time, particularly with the prequels and Lucas, though thankfully things seem to be changing a bit. Regardless of ones thoughts on those films, the way in which people completely dumped Lucas's previous career in the trash and claimed that he was always a 'talentless hack' (going to great lengths to distort the behind the scenes details) is honestly ridiculous. This is the result of people becoming so attached to a franchise they feel the need to make it their entire personality.
Yes! It speaks about the mentality of fandom: people feel personally upset because someone else didn't like what they like/nearly identify with, so it's taken waaaaaay more personally than it should.
A good point which is only mentioned briefly- film criticism is WRITING that exists in and of itself as something worthwhile. It’s not simply information- the form of the criticism is so important. A good film critic can write about a film you have no interest in, but their review can still be incredibly interesting, thought provoking and entertaining, because it’s simply enjoyable to read good writing.
A great point! I used to read reviews in established newspapers and random blogs religiously because of how well written they were and how they pushed me to reconsider/recontextualize my own opinion. At some point, these "reviews" became plot summaries with a paragraph at most of lazy "i had fun"/"i wasn't the target audience" throwaway lines
I found it curious that she only mentioned anti-intellectualism once, a major factor in the decline of film criticism. Largely coming from the political right, anti-intellectualism has for the better part of fifty-years consistently promoted the idea that film criticism is something only done by the elites and is in direct opposition to what YOU the people want. It promotes film as entertainment only and results in "it's just a movie" and "get politics out of my movies".
Also the rise of the "anti woke" critic. The ones who will bash a film due to it's diversity and openly hate on "the message", as if films having a purpose is wrong and ideological, but films who support that status quo are real films made for the fans. They remind me of the gamergate people, who would claim that videogames are art while hating any videogame that attempted to be anything other than a toy.
@@cactus2260 Yes, that's an interesting development for sure. They come from the anti-intellectual perspective but pretend to be intellectuals themselves.
The idea that there isn’t a measurable, growing chasm between producers of culture and those who consume it that has been accelerated by money, technology and -yes- opportunist reactionaries, seems fanciful to me.
@@glassmuxxic maybe I’m misinterpreting your point. How does that rationalize to “they just don’t get films like the general public” in your mind? As an engineer, I deal with people on the daily who hire me for a job and then tell me how to do it *their way* and ultimately blame me when *their say* blows up in their faces, my face, and their company’s face. It’s not a far stretch to see that’s exactly what idiots like Mauler did to genuine film criticism.
@@cactus2260There's nothing fundamentally wrong with antiwoke reviews as long as they show that this or that film pandering to cancel culture or DEI is less respectable for it if the messaging is so thick it almost erases the artistic value of a movie.
I really appreciate this video. I've always found the "just turn your brain off and have fun!" response to media criticism boring at best and deeply frustrating at worst. It's a sentiment that's meant to shut down discussions rather than enrich them. That's why I appreciate critics, regardless of whether I agree with them because I'd rather disagree with a critic than succumb to a boring, anti-intellectual approach to media.
Art should be an act of creation coming from within and without coercion. Capitalism most often makes that impossible. Experiencing art is a personal thing. If someone adds any knowledge (history, real world statistics, symbolism, feminism, racism, etc...) about the medium, genre or any other aspect of creating a piece of art, it should only ever serve to enrich your experience of it. There is no CORRECT way to experience art! BUT! If anyone tries to use a piece of art to further their hate of women, people of color, LGBTQIA+ Community, people of different religions, disabled, overweight people or any other minority, you should raise an eyebrow and research what they are saying! Minorities will always be an easy target for fascists and people in power who need easy political points.
Where I live, we have a local cinema club, and there's nearly always a discussion group at the end where people gather round and talk about what we just watched. During one discussion, I think it was for "What's Love Got to do with it?" (not the Tina Turner film. The more recent film with Lily James in it) someone said something like "It's just a feel good film that you shouldn't have to think about too much". That really stuck with me because if they didn't want to think about what they just watched, then why were they in a discussion group for the film they just watched?! In short: I also don't like the "just switch your brain off" argument. Lol.
I love film criticism. My favorite part of watching movies is reading people's reviews and reactions. It always annoys me when people say "reviews don't matter" as if criticism hasn't influenced countless filmmakers and the choices they make
I have learned that not all criticism shouldn’t be taken seriously however, I only listen to film reviewers I trust on UA-cam. There is a very annoying and reactionary element to UA-cam film criticism that I dislike.
Reviews matter, but the trouble is a good review recognizes the context of the film and what it's creators were aiming for. It should be possible to say "I'm not a fan of this, but it's well-exexuted" or vice-versa, but a lot of film critics become a bit egotistical and forget that.
Thank you! I love reading discourse online. Yes, there are some stupid takes but for the most part I find others perspectives enriching to my own. I get a better idea of something...
I haven't really watched a movie until I've finished reading three pages of reviews directly after. It's part of the experience and I wouldn't ever want for that to disappear.
“democratization is good, as long as it doesn’t slip into anti-intellectualism” i think this is my biggest concern when it comes to the state of the internet right now. it’s amazing that basically everyone has a voice, but that means everyone is at war with each other, fighting the algorithms and SEO’s to stay relevant. being relevant became a commodity, and the only ones who are guaranteed to maintain this sort of power are the 1% and the multi-billionaire media conglomerates. all of that results in, essentially, propaganda coming from those who want to maintain their status, clickbait, fake news and anti-intellectualism. and all of those phenomenons are already so present in our society that they’re directly responsible to mass manipulation and the rise of f*scism. and the worst part is that there’s nothing to regulate any of it, and no one knows how to deal with it. it’s just so much, man…
If it was regulated it would not be regulated to the advantage of X person with no influence but to the advantage of Y entity with power. Regulation can actually be worse since its imposing 1984 style controls that benefit a dedicated few.
@@florinivan6907unregulated anything has also proven to be worse for most people and better for the well off. An unregulated industry leads not to freedom but to private investors regulating it rather than elected officials. Leaving it up to the companies will create oligarchies in discourse rather than democracies.
@@cactus2260 Elected officials have only one interest. Power. Give them a reason to grab more power and they will. Industry wants money but politicians want power. Either way you're not gonna get anything good out of it. Nevermind the fact that many 'issues' are actually invented by them to create pressure for regulation that will benefit also them. Many of the online problems are not by accident but design to guide people towards certain actions. 1984 style actions. I know these people and what they want.
@@florinivan6907 how did you come to the conclusion that money is not a form of power? corporations have power and want more power, corporations have the power to spread propaganda freely, spread misinformation, exploit workers, manufacture consent, even topple governments at times. is that not as 1984 style as anything you've listed? the difference between joe biden and jeff bezos is that we get to vote who runs the government but not who runs amazon. and if the people we chose are not doing anything to control the people whose power we have no control over then we have corruption. the government should be there to represent the needs of everyone, not just the billionaires. that's what the point of a democracy is. many of the online problems are not by accident, but by design, and that design is not in the hands of the people we chose, but on the people who own the internet and move the money in it. they worsen the internet in pursuit of more money and thus more power.
The Internet was at it's best before everyone got shoved into a few websites for the sake of discoverability. Don't get me wrong, discoverability is great and a lack of it was the Internet's greatest bottleneck, but everyone having their own little very topic-specific websites and communities and little cross-polination between them kept people more civil. I guess it's kinda like how when restaurants get busy everyone starts talking louder and louder and it just snowballs.
Honestly though, I feel like the main problem here is that people are increasingly forgetting (or rather, ignoring the fact) that reviews are inherently subjective. You don't have to agree with a review 100% all the time. There are many films audiences love, but critics hate. And in many cases, there's also the opposite. The cognitive dissonance that arises from people, especially if it's a film they love, but critics don't, is probably the reason film criticism is reaching irrelevancy. This cognitive dissonance is the reason why people sadly dogpile on critics. They're forcing themselves to agree with a review even when they don't, and when they can't take it, they take their anger out on the critics. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' opinions. Just opinions, and I feel people need to be aware of that. We need to be able to disagree. I myself have plenty of films I really enjoyed, but critical opinions were middling at best, and it's been the other way around as well. Film criticism offer us perspectives we might not have previously considered, and give us a different view (and take) on a film. It offers us views on things that we might not agree with, and that's fine. Keeping that in mind, no film review is going to be 100% completely objective, as each of us (film critics included) interpret and see things in different ways, and can have diverse takes of a single film. With that being said, film criticisms are an insight into a film, helping us get a better understanding of the film's background, and provide us with views that we can use in our judgement, and give us deeper insights on a film, even if they are, at the end of the day, subjective.
Part of the problem is that everything has become a team sport. If you really like super hero movies or Christopher Nolan films then you will find lots of people who agree with you and you feel part of a club. But if anyone doesn't like them, that then (somehow) becomes a threat to your club, or worse your personal identity, and people feel the need to dogpile on the opposing team.
@@davidmylchreest3306 - This is the reason we need to be able to disagree! Not everyone going to like what you like. I honestly feel like the reason people dogpile on critics is because criticism can be often taken as an affront to someone's tastes, whereas in reality the critics simply offered a different perspective. We're losing the ability to disagree, and that's an incredibly sad thing tbh 😖
That's mostly true. But criteria to determine if a film is well made on whatever level(s) does exist, and should be considered. I tell these snowflakes that there are films I like that I know are not very good, or even horrible. And that there are movies I think are good but that I wouldn't call masterpieces ("masterpiece" is a thoroughly overused term these days). But yeah, in the end, it is all subjective, and one may like a film in spite of good reasons not to think it is good and vice versa.
I think also a question has to be asked to the crowd that are very "anti-critic": If your goal & intention is for the film critic to go away, then what is the other option you're advocating for in its place? Are we to toss the film critique and just take whatever PR/marketing head of a studio has to say for granted without any question of it? Are we to just "turn off our brains" and never once think about how a film makes us feel rather (and how it makes us feel that way) than just literal describing what happens in the film without any discussion? Is there no room for dissent? Who are the only ones that can have an opinion of a film and if so, what specific metric must they pass (and are those metrics actually democratic & open?).
Very true. While I don't consider myself a critic, I have been called all kinds of names, ad have videos down voted, not because my video is bad, but because people don't like that I have a different opinion. But I don't really let it bother me because the internet is the internet. And I can block and delete comments if it gets too wild.
This video made me think about the intensity in which young people use the media they like as personality building. There's usually nothing wrong with this; it's just what happens when you don't have a ton of life experience yet. But recently fandoms have learned to weaponize their passion and cause actual harm for clout. They don't seem to realize critics are just doing their job and aren't personally attacking them.
What a great video, it really made me think about how criticism in general has been watered down over the last 20 years with the rise of the internet. People can't be able to make mistakes anymore, be critical of something or have their true feelings about something expressed sometimes. Roger Ebert once said something I always take with me and that's when he talked about his advise for future film critics. He said something like: "I worry young film critics are scared to go against the norm and fight for their opinion on a film. If you truly believe a film is good even when everyone else says it's the worse thing ever or the other way around, stick with that opinion because it's yours and no one should take that away from you." I'm paraphrasing but I apply that wisdom to more then just films.
I feel that every time I try to criticise popular movies irl, people don't like to discuss or expose their true feelings on anything anymore. I don't know if they're scared of if they don't even reflect enough on what they watched, but conversations always seem to go the same route of ''i watched it; it was cool'', and I always feel like I'm the one trying to go deeper and risk having someone disagree with me/risk disagreeing with someone (oh the horror)
@@Chuck_EL The SW sequels are not terrible films but in the context of SW they're pretty bad, I'm sorry but they are. Not just in superficial terms because they don't follow up the language and narrative of the previous films but also emotionally and symbolically they're completely void. The Disney SW sequels and most of their shows are written by committees/executives, not artists with an actual need for expression. The people hired for these projects don't even understand SW on a deeper level, they just know the plot to Episodes I to VI. But most criticism of the sequels isn't about the films themselves, it's about "oh le politics and representation" as if politics or representation weren't ever a part of SW. The SW fanbase is one of the absolutely worst I've ever seen or experienced, and this comes from someone who's been a SW fan since like 6 years old. I actually read the books, the comics, etc. SW fans have, for a long time, had a sort of hivemind mentality. The most ignorant kind of tribalism.
I just love when I recieve a notification from Broye and Be Kind Rewind. Like they are essays landmark and the finest with Lindsay Ellis and Princess Weekes
Angelica Jade Bastien is another incredible film critic, her no nonsense approach has really inspired me to speak honesty about films I write about. When you speak so candidly about films with commercial appeal you become a pariah. I cherish the critics of today who maintain their honest review for the sake of the art itself, not to be contrarian, not because its "cool", just because it's real.
I remember seeing her review on Past Lives on Letterboxd and going “daaaamn” like in Friday when I saw it. I think it’s the best movie of the year so far. But while I did disagree with her, knowing that the movie took place in separate moments in time, I could understand the points that she’s making.
@@jakethet3206Setting aside the number of critics turned filmmakers, a tradition that’s been alive since the days of the French New Wave, there are countless filmmakers whose impressions of cinema and artistic taste have been shaped by great critics over the years; not to mention the amount of up-and-coming filmmakers whose careers further flourished due to being championed by prominent critics. Your view on the profession of film criticism feels far too generalized and reductive
@@jakethet3206 that quote generalizes too much. Life is weird and strange and I don't think it's a matter of meritocracy. Some people do because daddy knew all the right people and had loads of cash to get you places.
A joy to watch this after attending the Chicago International Film Festival, where the motto was “Critics Welcome.” Very interested to see the future of film criticism. Thank you for this great video!!
Did you happen to see Club Zero - I know its very controversial. I think Jessica Hausner is really one of the most creative European directors. I really was fascinated by her last three films.
Im in my late 30s. I grew up in Chicago reading siskel and ebert articles every weekend. We had to buy a paper to see the showtimes, so reading the reviews was natural. Then also watching their show every week on cbs was a shared family activity. Ebert and me shared a big sensibility. I knew if he liked a movie, I would almost always like a movie. To an extent that idk what came first. My tastes or being guided by ebert as a child. I now work as a filmmaker (DP or gaffer) and Ebert’s voice and influence still has to have an influence in my work and my relationship to the medium.
Some of my favorite critical voices I first discovered via their opinion I most disagreed with, but it was just so thoughtful and well written that I appreciated it anyway; I’d much rather read a review that makes me think than one I just agree with.
One of my favorite film critics Christy Lemire (who actually worked for Ebert at one point) had a great line about the pros and cons of being a film critic: "Pro: We get to see every movie. Con: We _have_ to see every movie."
watching soooo many movies over the course of my life has given me both the cynical and still hopeful and passionate view that i think critics often have. i hope every film i see will be amazing, and i know that potential is possible due to the amazing films I've already seen, but having seen so many films already, it's so hard to still be delighted or surprised, and also not to easily spot weaknesses in performance, direction, editing, etc even without a film education, so i find myself enjoying CERTAIN films much less - even those critically acclaimed or appreciated by my friends - but appreciating the films i love so much MORE because i recognize how miraculous they are
I heard that either Siskel or Ebert almost quit over having to review a movie with T0n¥ D@nz@ in it. Now they know how TV “critics,” who are everything wrong with this problem only worse, have felt since *Taxi* was canceled.
When criticism and the critic-reading public finally understand that criticism has no component of objectivity, we will have advanced a quantum leap. Criticism has one nature only: subjectivity. The best critics make their opinions fascinating. They make literature, and their form is the essay or long article.
I disagree. There's definitely some objective criticism, mainly when it comes to technical issues with the films. Technical criticism is crucial when it comes to correcting mistakes in films, whether it be in subsequent cuts of the same film or subsequent films by the artist.
Saffron Maeve made a really good point about disagreement these days. Courteous dissent doesn't exist. Disagreeing with "Me" is an attack on "Me", and therefore I must retaliate. Truth is, I believe strongly that it has always been this way with most people. Disagreement is not a simple difference of opinion, but an indication that those who disagree are "The Enemy". This is why the internet giving everyone a voice that can potentially reach millions of people is not necessarily a good thing in all ways. The very fact that most people regard a differing point of view as enemy action bears this out. Most people don't know how to have a voice, and to use it responsibly. Oh, and "Freddy Got Fingered" is a misunderstood masterpiece!
For me, it was Mark Kermode on BBC Radio 5 and now his podcast with Simon Mayo that got me thinking more deeply about film. I always respected how much he defended the first Twilight movie and a lot of work that gets brushed off as horror or young girl shlock while also never feeling like a sell out or a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. He's such a fan of cinema and over the years has lost that slight condescension criticsTM are apparently famous for. He can be quite brutal to films he despises (especially films that feel corporate), but he's always open to other perspectives which is helped by the film club culture fostered by their show, having listeners writing in. Even if I dont always agree with his take, I feel like I often learn something listening to him because of the breadth and depth of his education of watching films, even obscure ones, for years. He can point out similarities to other work and contextualize a film within the filmmaker's history. And his Exorcist hyperfixation has literally given me so much more appreciation for that movie. Ntm he frequently goes on break on his film show/podcast and gives that platform to women and POC critics and radio hosts and so Ive been introduced to some really smart younger voices through him. It's also great that beyond his show and reviews, he does a lot of work like his Secrets of Cinema series or interviews for the BFI that help contextualize and generally improve film literacy among the general public (people like me). He's addressed the question of what even is the point of a film critic on his show a few times and I find his voice so valuable (even when I think he's wrong!) especially because I know he would never sell out and because he continues to champion small films, especially small British films and films from marginalized perspectives, and try to revive restorations of old films too.
to me the most important part of consuming media is being able to see things from a different perspective. i respect people who spent a lot more time watching and thinking about movies than i did. it s super nice to able to have a glimpse into their thought process whether it is via text or by watching a video like this. i like to have my thoughts provoced and challenged. It s sad that there is so many people who get mad at someone because they disagree with their opinion.
Matt Zoller Seitz has also stated that the trend of audio visual critique instead of the traditional print critique bodes poorly for archival. He did a series of film video essays (his contemporaries were the 0th generation greats like Kevin B Lee, Jim Emerson, and Kogonada) back in the 2000s, but has since refrained, frequently lamenting how a lot of his early essays are lost to time. Firstly, many media outlets back in the day elected for their critics to produce original publications instead of hosting on UA-cam (hoping to garner ad revenue), which has led to some difficulties of journals, defunct or not, maintaining access. Secondly, many of these early essays were taken down due to copyright. Even if they aren't taken down, it's more difficult for readers to index or search for these essays or to skim the material themselves. I think video essays make sense to discuss another visual medium like film, but print is invaluable too!
In my honest opinion, English film criticism/theory is waaaay more easier to understand than my own language (Japanese). There’s WAY MORE of well researched, approachable UA-cam based critics like you and BKR which is pretty much doesn’t exist here! Thanks for creating this WONDERFUL video❤❤
after watching this movie, i went to read saffron's review of spencer. and i think part of why i still value criticism is the way it expresses, in words, feelings that i had under the surface, but that i was not able to articulate. there will always value to me in taking my feelings of a film and being able to put it into words. i felt similarly when watching your barbie video, that it takes my feelings of uncertainty and allows me to develop a vocabulary for those feelings.
Fandom nowadays has completely morphed film criticism into outright loathing, and on the other hand you've got old "reviews" from people like Ebert who thought the Powerpuff Girls Movie was an orgy of cartoon violence and yet he encouraged hate mail to an actress from Friday the 13th because he hated it so much.
Ebert was also a hypocrite. When he gave *Bedknobs and Broomsticks* a mixed review, he compared it negatively to *Song of the South,* which he called “a classic.” Three decades later, when he was a Disney employee because Buena Vista Television distributed his show, he never revisited his opinion on B&B when it was restored as close as possible to the originally intended uncut version, but worse yet, he openly supported Disney’s gatekeeping of SOTS.
One thing that has been driving me nuts lately is the concept that critics only like dull, Oscar-bait movies and hate genre. Which… no. Critics like genre when it’s done well. They don’t like genre movies that are bad. Critics like movies, that’s why they decided to watch them for a living.
Yep. It is so ridiculous. Frustrating, too (I feel frustration on their behalf because they are missing out on knowing critics can often like what they like!).
@@fritzthecat8158 well I'm glad you've imagined a scenario to reinforce your beliefs. It's false, but I'm glad for you. Hey what do you think was the critical reception of Evil Dead Rise? It's a silly splattergore horror movie so critics must've hated it, right? Probably just like eli roth's Thanksgiving that just came out, right? Or Happy Death Day, or Tragedy Girls, or Freaky, or Revenge.
I am so desperate to read cogent and interesting film reviews that I actually read the back catalog of Decent Films (a Catholic/Christian-focused reviewer). I'm not Catholic or Christian but I enjoy that he is passionate and has a different take than I do on films. It's so much more interesting than reading another boring synopsis masquerading as a review.
I'd recommend, if it holds your interest: bmovie reviews and the old archived site of cyberpunk reviews (the new site is dedicated to futurism and so on).
I really appreciate this video! I now turn to letterboxd reviews to read everyone's thoughts. I think that platforms like this where everyone can have an opinion also adds to the death of the film criticism as a real job because people feel like literally anyone could do it.
"critics watch a movie and are just looking for something to critique" I wish ppl understood that the "critique" in "critic" means something radically different from the "criticism" they might get from their boss or in-laws.
I saw Roger on the screen and was so happy - I was waiting for this video! I think I've read every 'Great Movie' review on Roger's 'Great Movies' list, and every one is so insightful about how a movie can be a complete work of art and not just a product. Thank you queen ❤
I remember at the top of the old Siskel and Ebert movie review show, the two critics would bill themselves-- "I'm Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune," and "I'm Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times."
One thing i loved about them was they loved socalled bad films.. They'd explained why it didn't work for people and why it did for them and others without throwing anyone under the bus The popular "reviewers" aren't able to do this and they create echo chambers which divides... which isnt a good thing
Another problem seen way to often is people slamming films that haven't even gone into production yet. All based on a script they downloaded, or the actors that have been cast, and who's directing, yada-yada-yada!
Art criticism and art appreciation is going out in fashion in the face of wanton consumption spoon fed via social media. When content has replaced art wholesale, what can remain of criticism and appreciation. We are all just amping up for that next dopamine hit.
I think one of the reasons people dislike film critics now more than ever is because like with so many things, people's film tastes have become part of their identity. We see the same thing with political opinons. Cheering for your favourite film franchise or politician or influencer is like cheering for your local football team. Fans are just closed off from a different perspective. And that's why Martin Scorsese saying that Marvel movies are not cinema has created so much backlash. To many, hearing an older filmmaker giving a critical opinion on your favourite franchise feels like a personal attack.
Yeah, those people are major snowflakes. There are movies I know are not great, or even good, but I like them anyway. "Guilty pleasures", we call them. Also, a film might have one or more flaws that can be acknowledged without discarding the film altogether.
I mean it goes beyond a critical opinion when you exclude something from a medium without providing a definition for it. Elitism on its own is not criticism.
A brief response from someone currently undertaking a bachelor of communication with an interest in getting into film criticism: we are being taught to create digestible content. We are being trained to be current, and to ignore the more traditional and contemporary forms of output (print, internet blogs) in favour of short form content. I hate it personally, but at least for people in my situation, being judged for creating content that I am taught has the chance to be successful over traditional mediums, is unfair.
A friend of mine who writes film reviews for publications literally told me he stopped writing as many critical reviews of commercial movies because they don't get clicks, so they don't make money.
I absolutely believe that. I started my channel @SkinnyEMedia as a film critic myself (I started in journalism as a film critic myself for my university publication among others within the UK and U.S.) but over the years, it's expanded beyond its reach to various disciplines and types of media (music, documentaries, podcasts about censorship, advertising enthusiasm). Plus, the selection what we have is quite dire. A slew of remakes and reboots and umpteenth adaptations of pre-exisiting property (e.g. including Jane Austen novels, etc.) is overwhelming to the core! It's discouraging and on top of that Rotten Tomatoes has had accusations involving bought-out film reviews to appease the distributors. Not acceptable, not genuine.
I don't mean this as a "gotcha", but I do wonder how many people in the comments lamenting the loss of film criticism are actively seeking out and compensating voices like the ones you outlined at the end of the video. I work for a literary nonprofit (and write professionally) and the whole "print is dying" conversation is really frustrating to have because a lot of the same people who moan about it also don't...pay for literature? I understand that the average person has increasingly little discretionary spending power, but there are some magazine subscriptions that can run you as little as $2/month. The New York Times, the very place that was paying A.O. Scott to work, is $4/month for the first six months. I think "x is dying" really means "x is no longer commercially viable", but that's the natural cause of capitalism convincing an entire generation that writing, and by extension criticism, is not worth paying for. Print or film criticism will never die because people will never stop engaging in an art form they love. I also understand this isn't all on the shoulders of the consumer. Mark Thompson, the CEO of the NYT from 2012-2020, reportedly made $17.4 million in salary, stock awards and bonuses from 2017 to 2019. That's a structural issue, and I'm the last person that will urge you to give money to NYT specifically. However, I've known and worked with plenty of independent outlets for criticism that are scraping by, with their staff sometimes forgoing a salary to prioritize paying writers and elevating exciting new voices. They could really use your money.
I understand your frustration that it doesn't cost much in general to support art (including art criticisms). However, subscription paid or not paid is a very subjective and personal decision by a consumer. It takes a lot of good will and efforts developed over the years to foster such a relationship between the subscription service (magazine or what not) and customers before the latter makes a conscious decision to pay for the former's work. Sometimes, that relationship can be easily weakened and even nullified when a specific writer in the magazine whose work is loved by customers has to leave their job (for whatever reason).😢
I think your point would've been made better if you didnt mention the NYT. That paper is actively inciting hate on trans people and justifying war crimes. People don't subscribe to that paper for very good reasons.
For about 15 years, I wanted to be a film critic. As much as I still champion the films that I feel are ambitious and trying interesting things, I just lost steam at a point. I think it's part of the fact that I couldn't see myself as "marketable" because I catered to long-form essays for indie films that nobody saw. Those were what I cared about and finding that I didn't have much of an audience ultimately made me feel disrespected. Writing about blockbusters was boring and felt like a sea your voice would drown in, but I realized it was part of the game to be noticed. What made it worse was how Twitter (and more Letterboxd) became codependent on gag reviews becoming the only thing that got traction. I couldn't be serious in this environment. Even the critics I respected were doing this. I still talk about film, but more in tangent to the rest of my life. It's disappointing. 15 years and I get shown up by shitposters. I'm over it.
Yeah the Letterboxd structure is awful. Deep, well-written analyses are usually buried under snarky one-liners and random thought-burps. They need to implement an upvote/downvote system so that people who are actually trying to write meaningful criticism could get some traction.
I love listening to film criticisms and discussions. One of the best parts of watching a film is getting to listen to everyone's reviews afterwards. But personally, I always want them to be longer rather then shorter so I don't get this movietok trend. I love it when a movie podcast releases a three hour episode.
The one thing I hate about critics, of all art forms, is the lack of empathy and understanding they show towards the artists they didn't like. Critics think artists are fair game for insults and snide remarks. They show little regard for the well beings of the actors and filmmakers, and just reduce them to punching bags. AO Scott and Saffron Maeve are very much what grinds my gears about critics. Scott I find incredibly self-important and tone deaf with how he describes cinema culture, and his scolding of movie fans completely reduces the movie goers to nad raving stereotypes. And Maeve felt more like a troll than a critic. In her review of Spencer, she was snide and vindictive. It felt like a childish over reaction to something that didn't tickle HER fancy. I often wish critics could try and be more civil or comprehensive than actively fanning the flames. We complain about TikTok and UA-cam reducing the quality of criticism, but sad truth is, the professionals have been doing it to themselves for years. It doesn't matter if you're AO Scott or Cinema Sins, both are, at the end of the day, just nasty trolls. They forget artists are human, and that art is subjective. They just see a new actor or director to pick on.
Didn't Maeve say it was a self published blog not meant to make rounds? I looked her up and most of her reviews are very encouraging (ex. her Screen Slate stuff)
As someone who is technically in the industry, I've become far more critical of a lot of online video essays/critic/analysis people online, not because they say anything negative or overly positive, but mainly because of how much sway they have over young peoples opinions and even when talking about a subject they clearly don't know a ton about or say something just flat out wrong, but because they have an online persona their fans like, the fans will not only believe them but take to social media and create a vacuum when it comes to discussing this subject online to the point where studios take notice and will make movies to appeal to these surface level complaints.
@@DaFireElf maybe more journal-based criticism that is based less around a "funny" persona, or at least listen to a larger variety of critics with more varied takes. It's great to listen to other people's opinions but so many people are just ready to rally around a young snary youtube critic and parrot their takes. This is how we get stuff like "The People Vs George Lucas"
@@GreayWorksThe critics of yore, whether in print or on TV, also held a significant influence over audiences and weren't necessarily better, e.g., Ebert himself exhibited weird biases most evident in his ludicrous reasons for giving 1 star to _Blue Velvet, Swing Kids, Texas Chainsaw Massacre_ and so on. And just like before, sometimes these blatant biases backfire beautifully, like when the creepy and defamatory online attacks on Brie Larson and her _Captain Marvel_ flick did nothing to stop it from becoming one of the most commercially successful superhero movies ever, surpassing even their most untouchable favorites. The key distinction is that you have easy access, right at your fingertips and completely free of charge, to a multitude of online talking heads -- sifting through the muck long enough will result in the rare gem. On the other hand, journo-based criticism often remains behind paywalls or struggles to survive in today's fiercely competitive landscape where sensationalism and clickbait generate the revenue.
@@Tretas. but they didn’t have a following of mainly teens who were drawn to someone’s persona who would crafted a narrative of the film director was a bad person
26:17 I think Letterboxd is a good example of this dichotomy. You can get a lot of good thoughtful critiques on there, but at the same time a lot of the most popular reviews are just snarky one line quips.
I think film criticism owes something, in part, to (live) theater criticism and review - both reperetory and musical - which has (or had) a much older history in print journalism and was also treated with great seriousness and aplomb.
My teen gets very angry if/when I don't like a movie. (I have a film degree.) He seems to take it personally, even though my opinion should not change or influence his.
This also applies to music critics. I’ve noticed over the past couple years, album reviews are much more positive and biased. Likely because of how rabid fanbases go after critics who give their faves bad reviews. Usually, an artist’s latest album has a higher metacritic score than their most well loved album, it’s ridiculous. Midnights by Taylor Swift is a good example of this.
I started watching the various incarnations of Siskel & Ebert's shows around the age of 10 or 11. At first, it was probably just to see clips from new movies which I was becoming increasingly fascinated with, but over time their informed talk about film opened up the art form to me in a way I might not have otherwise experienced, film as an art rather than just a product. I ended up owning a number of books Roger Ebert wrote, and since his passing, I've never found a critic that conveyed quite the same sense of love of film as he did. There are contemporary critics I follow now, and they are generally those who convey a sense of some depth of knowledge and genuine interest in not just current or recent films but the whole rich history of film.
And one other thing I liked about Siskel and Ebert is that they didn't make their reviews/criticisms out to be the law-- they didn't say, for instance, "We hated this film, so you shouldn't even try to see it to make up your own mind", or conversely, "We loved this film and it's the bee's knees and the cat's pajamas, so you need to see it and enjoy it, or you just don't like movies."
I only engage with film criticism or analysis after I watch the movie. I need someone with expertise to tell me what I missed and to expand on the themes.
I think his views like many others is a perfect example of one of the long turn major problems with many critics. Those horror movies that didn't aim for high art were seen negatively. But than we have film critics like Joe Bob Briggs who wrote reviews about drive in movies who saw this low brow movies in a different light. Critics like him even now can see the art in such work were other film critics sees crap.
With film criticism, the point shouldn't be to see eye to eye on every single movie if you ask me. Thats ridiculous, as everyone has different tastes. What film critics should do is make you THINK about a movie in a different way. If you like a movie and a critic does too? Congratulations, you've found a new lens through which to express your joy! If you liked a movie, but a critic doesn't? Then that can give you food for thought regarding why you specifically like this film and how you may formulate better arguments to express your joy with it.
i mean ill be honest im not on tiktok, ive never seen a "movietok" creator, but i just have to assume that they dont really go in depth abt what makes a movie good or bad. i have to imagine that being forced to condense your critique into a min or less would force you to water down and leave out important details. i just dont like short form content honestly, i like to have a full detailed discussion, not just a 2 second intro and outro. i mean i dont want to say "movietok" creators are all bad, esp since i havent really engaged with them directly. but i just cant imagine that tiktok could do anything justice. sorry not sorry, a min is not long enough to have an actual conversation abt anything, esp not films that tend to be 2 hours long... just common. if you actually want to fully discuss something that long you have to give it the time it deserves
Exactly the same here. My favourite music UA-camr does YT shorts... I get nothing off those, what is even the point to them? Although I think TikToks may be slightly longer (2 mins opposed to 1 min on YT shorts)
i think a lot of it just has to do with the broader overall trend that people aren't reading as much these days. reading books, reviews in the newspaper, whatever- all of that used to be extremely extremely normal and now with social media, young people are never going to go out of their way to spend the time to read a longform movie review if its not immediately available for them, or not something they're already interested in, or anything like that
First of all, Doug Walker does provide analysis in his reviews. Now, to the point of film criticism.. the truth is that a lot of people just do not go to film to think. They go to movies to shut their brain off and be taken away from reality. Or they just don't consume enough film and discussion to understand what they're looking at. And people bring their own political/social beliefs and personal experiences to the screen, which impacts how they see certain details. Those of us who enjoy film criticism and more detailed commentary can still find it. There really is no right or wrong when it comes to talking about film anyway.
My introduction and passion for film criticism came from podcasts. If you did a film criticism podcast, where you discuss movies and shows with others, I would totally subscribe. Wisecrack's "show me the meaning" is where it started for me.
While there is a lot of thoughtful criticism online like your channel I feel that many reviewers fall into the trap of click bait reviews of “This (insert movie title or popular IP) is the Most Overrated/Worst Thing of All Time” written by someone who’s only seen a handful of movies made before the 1990’s. The mainstream film criticism I miss is the nuanced and balanced reviews. Trad critics who would review a handful of movies a week, giving them poor, average, good and glowing reviews. They wouldn’t just zero in on a film they hated for the week, they would review more than one so you would get a better understanding of where this critic is coming from and what their taste in movies is. Does it match up with mine? If so, cool. If not, I’m curious to know why.
The Nostalgia Critic is still better than this and 99% of channels rehashing the same stuff over and over again. Rob Ager is the best film channel on UA-cam though.
Hi! I just wanted to say firstly, that I really love this video, and it was a pleasure to listen to while being a night shift janitor. There are a few things I would like to add to the conversation on why film criticism is being charged right now. I am from the most recent generation to have had access to the Internet, and I have seen these two factors unfold in time. 1. You mentioned the “angry white man reviewer” era briefly but I think CinemaSins, Channel Awesome, ScreenJunkies, and others have negatively contributed to not only film culture but the negative perception of critics themselves as just “whiny and nitpicky” Cinemasins in particular I think contributed to movies and shows over explaining everything in the plot to “make sense” bc god forbid audiences think for themselves. 2. Something I’m surprised you didn’t bring up in the conversation. Ghostbusters 2016 and several films afterwards have created a hostile environment for criticism. On the one hand you have nasty hateful fans who hate anything new and go after positive feedback or even after the cast themselves. On the other hand you have studios creating a narrative that if you don’t want to see this movie you’re just a racist misogynist. It’s an example but there’s an inherent politics to how we talk about movies now. We have to like the right movies and hate the bad ones to make ourselves look good. There can be a movie with good representation but we find boring. Or it can cause us to look back at movies that received high praise with a new lens and give it negative criticism due to new historical context or humor that hasn’t aged well.
Complaining about “angry white men“ is racist, misandrist, and tone-policing. It is literally singling out a single demographic for scapegoating when this demographic has legitimate concerns, especially when it comes to marrying each other.
This is great to watch just as I start my own journey with film criticism (studying film theory at university, personally thinking of going into archives or records management but love engaging with film in my free time as well ^_^).
To me it makes perfect sense that critics tend to be more negative than the general audience just because the nature of their job makes it so that they can't self select for their demographic. Most people only go to movies that they already believe they will like and only when they feel like seeing a movie, so obviously that's going to be much more likely to be a positive experience than someone who has to watch a wide variety of movies as their job. Just like how a baker probably doesn't personally love every recipe they make because they have to bake for a wider range of tastes than their own, as opposed to a home baker who only bakes apple pies because those are theif favorite. That doesn't automatically mean the home baker has more love for baking than the professional baker
My problem with critics is art is in the experience between the object and the viewer. It's a deeply personal experience. For example, look at the reviews of "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me" from when it came out. Critics, vast majority cishet white guys, hated it. Yet it has become a cult classic, along with the rest of "Twin Peaks", because it speaks deeply to so many viewers. And more modern critics, like Mark Kermode, have seen the artistry in it. Still the most insightful and illuminating writing about TP or Lynch in general has come from fans on the internet. It's come from people who have a deep personal response to the work of art. You just can't get that from someone who's job it is to review or critique film after film ad nauseum. The non-critique can be more open to the experience than someone who has to come up with something to say, be it because of deadlines or egos.
I feel like we need more humanism in film criticism. Everything is so cultural or analytical like the film is a puzzle. Or worse its like sports commentators ie blank check.
I think that UA-cam and other video based platforms are actually better for film criticism than writing. While there are obviously issues w censorship I think it is way more impactful to see a small clip of a film in a review than to hear it described. Some one can describe Ludwig Goransson's music in Oppenheimer but playing a little clip of what they liked gets me closer to understanding what's in their head.
As a critic just a little over a month away from graduating college, this is such an important video for me right now. your videos have been favorites of mine for a long time now and it just feels so full circle to feel a sense of pride and community but also realistic awareness within film criticism before I finally enter the "real world". thank you
In my younger days I was an actor and producer of theatre. I experienced a wide array of critical response and my relationship with it varied a little depending on the context. I was part of a play that was absolutely savaged in a prominent spot in the Chicago Tribune (and we deserved it). Sometimes we were lucky to get a printed review and were in a position where even if we got lambasted it was better for the box office than if we got no review at all. I often found myself curious about the responses my fellow actors, directors, and producers had to the reviews. It's not fun to be on the receiving end of harsh criticism, but if you want to pretend that a critic knows nothing when they say bad things about your show, then you're going to have to admit that they know nothing when they praise your next show. Mostly I was of the opinion that the perspective of a stranger who came and saw a show on one specific night was almost completely out of my control and kind of none of my business. Making a piece of theatre is a challenging job and if I let a review change in a few moments what I had been working on for weeks or even months then I had no business doing the work to begin with. Push forward, continue doing your best work in your current circumstance, and don't let someone who's not involved in the work intrude on it. Publicly pushing back against a critic always seemed foolish to me. You clearly have a vested interest in the project in question, so of course you think it's wonderful. If you can't bonce back quickly from criticism then maybe you just shouldn't read it, because that can get in the way of you doing your actual job.
Love this video! But just a little correction, The Auteur theroy wasn't invented by Andrew Sarris but François Truffaut. Sarris ''adapted'' and introduced the theory in the US and coined the English term.
I miss reading film criticism - newspapers & mags. However, I stopped letting them decide if I would watch a movie in the cinema (Village Voice review of The Aviator by Scorsese). It's fun to compare what you feel, like & appreciate in a film with critical responses - many forget this or frankly don't/can't indulge in it. And I love a long in-depth written review/retrospective or vid-essay. A good, great, enticing, voice with intelligent content, humor and passion is a wonderful thing. Broey should be one of the voices of the people 🌼🍸
The “film critic” is dying because we decided that social media makes everyone’s random opinions equally valid while making any authoritative commentary trivial. Just look at Letterboxd and see how many popular “reviews” are one-line jokes or shallow emotional responses, with no critical analysis at all. Just as social media has destroyed trust in journalism, science, and policy-making, it has dulled interest in insightful and experienced film analysis. The good news is that “criticism” as a scholarly practice is very much alive, and most people who have gone to college will learn this practice to some degree. The general public is not that interested in it, but there are still some good forums and websites around. So in the sense of being an esteemed cultural (and marketable) force like in the heyday of Siskel and Ebert, yeah, film criticism is dead. But we also still do it, so it’s also not.
Michael Eisner is partly responsible for this. When he was at ABC, Paramount, and especially at Disney since that’s what he’ll be remembered for no matter what else he does with the rest of his life, he was the primary proponent of the mentality that everything had to have a sitcom style one-liner attached to it. There is a reason that kind of humor works in sitcoms: they are only 30 minutes long. Even when sitcoms try to expand into movies (hello, *Facts of Life;* you too, *Family Ties,* and especially you, *The Simpsons* ), they feel like multiple episodes stitched together to justify calling it a movie. As a result, the plots feel padded, and the same number of jokes are still there, but over a longer period of time. There is a time and place for it, but it becomes tiresome, generic, and a cop-out when it is used for everything. Disney before Eisner got there also had a similar problem of ending too many movies with car chases involving organized crime.
I have always enjoyed reading film criticism and reviews, even when I don't agree with them. I remember reading the famous or infamous review of 'The taste of cherry' by Roger Ebert; he panned it hard. Even though it is one of my all time favourite film, I found the review pretty enlightening.
I think this video raises a lot of great points. I find myself, however, completely disagreeing with those most of those points. I think all of my issues with the contents of this piece are this - the passion isn't gone, for every Pauline Kael there are 100 nameless critics who don't understand the soul of film or critique. This is still the case for more easily enterable spaces of discussion. I actually think the passion is more apparent in some cases. I can count the times a print critique has moved me to tears on one hand, Tim Rogers has managed to do this in just about every review or essay he has published. It's all about finding the right people, just as it always has been. I think Saffron Maeve is an incredibly important critical voice at the moment, but how she discusses current trends in media analysis comes across as entirely elitist and out of touch and I feel her perspective will only suffer from this narrow-minded approach to what voices matter.
Fascinating works as usual. It occurred to me watching this that film criticism and media criticism in general might be an excellent avenue for community engaged journalism. Critics can only be as smart as the school's, culture, and broader population around them allow them to be. This makes every critic have a vested interest in bringing everyone along with them. Social media has been the main avenue for this, but I don't think that avenue plays to a film critic's strengths. Academia, public education, local radio etc are where critics can help nurture the audience they need to survive.
They were honest? About what? Ebert despised _Blue Velvet_ because of some drama he made up in his mind regarding Isabella Rossellini's role, which Rossellini herself felt entirely different about, giving the movie 1 star. He had an odd thing against Bruce Willis, not only trashing _Mercury Rising_ due to supposed plot holes that the movie directly addressed (if he had actually watched it), but also gave e.g. both M. Night's _Unbreakable_ and _Sixth Sense_ 3 stars -- the same rating he gave _The Happening._ He gave _Swing Kids_ 1 star because he wanted teens during the rise of the third reich to be outspoken rebels against the party, and not what every teen is during every sociopolitical upheavel: confused and looking for fun escapism. He also gave 1 stars to movies that made him unconfortable due to not having a particular message like the _Texas Chainsaw Massacre,_ which is such a BS argument in order to dismiss the horror movies that made his stomach churn.
He was honest in saying that his experience was terrible. If he stated how awesome the film was, while being miserable in the viewing, he would be dishonest. Ebert was writing as a newspaper writer reporting on what he felt and believe while watching the film, and inform whether the audience should find enjoyable. It is not his job, to set a standard for film, as the newer critics believed his role to be. I disagreed with his reviews at least 60% of the time, and 90% in his later years. But he had his code of ethics. That's more important.
The quote from Nick James from 2012, about how critics should tear down the ordinary and present the more stimulating films is interesting. He is saying that critics should try to wield some influence. Certainly it seems that there is less criticism, blogging etc., that is evangelical for art house cinema nowadays than there was ten and twenty years ago. In fact, it's hard to imagine an art cine-vangelist publication, i.e. not just a blog or letterboxd profile, with any kind of readership today. Cinemascope is pretty much an academic publication, and unfortunately I find the very personal, uniquely slanted approach to talking about a film that appears in other publications named in the video, like Reverse Shot and Mubi Notebook, rarely enlightening. Film Comment used to have a section which was called Film of the Week (or something) which was a review by Michael Sragow, but the tone of this more basic reviewing clashed somewhat with the more narrow, specialist focus of the rest of the magazine, and this section no longer exists. But it's the weekly reviewers, who want to do it as a job for life, who build an audience. Nowadays, Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian is one of the best critics, simply because he's reliably there reviewing everything.
I really really thought this video would win me over, but it has this "powerful elite critics need to maintain their power or the culture will die" conservative bend to it that seems antithetical to both film and its criticism. Critics ARE often too negative towards movies for entirely personal taste reasons that only serve, as Saffron said, to "express disdain." And if you express disdain for something that someone likes, they aren't going to just deferentially give you power to control the narrative that Barbie deserves to be gawked at or the Avengers is uncinematic filth.
Weaponizing of the word “conservative“ and distorting its meaning to turn it into a slur is not the flex you think it is. Some things should be conserved.
Just speaking to the democratization: I think a big element at play here is what you pointed out about the gatekeeping that exists in film criticism right now; it's so saturated with older white men. When I read the title of the video, the first thing I thought about was that critic's review of Turning Red wherein he admitted to his own perspective limitations and the internet got (rightfully) annoyed at him for his inability to see himself in the story the way POC have had to imagine themselves in the stories of white protagonists forever. I agree with your positing that traditional film criticism needs to expand, but not just in terms of age, but all forms of perspective.
@@teamblue2431 no, I meant what I said. I didn't know about anybody harassing him and it's not what I was talking about here. this comment is about folks discussing their frustrations with the limited perspectives that have mainstream platforms. hope this helps!
This is a really interesting video and I do agree with it it for the most part, but I also think this anxiety that young people are learning film appreciation in a superficial snarky way through TikTok is probably not as portentous of the end of good film criticism as some people seem to fear? If these are kids or young adults just starting to engage with film then like, yeah for some it might be a passing fad and their criticism is never going to go further than that, but if they're truly developing a passion for cinema then they're probably going to mature out of the superficiality as they watch more and read more widely and learn more and just live more. They're young and inexperienced, and experience will hopefully make them better critics. I know when I was a teenager I was far worse than I am now at meaningfully dissecting and discussing texts, but a decade on and I've gained new perspectives and ideas around criticism and engagement with art, and they probably will too. And I know the video pins a lot of it on the limitations of online platforms and general internet culture as well but let's all just chill out about the youths for once lol
It’s the same with every creative medium. So many people want something for nothing and every artist in every medium is expected to work for peanuts for the supposed love of the craft. Peanuts don’t pay the rent. My landlady is not an elephant.
Hi Broey, love your analysis into topics that affect film on a regular basis, I agree with the sentiment of corporatism and public opinion influencing a shift in the perception of film criticism. I will say I think the wording in this video can be a bit too suggestive sometimes. The elitism is really one thing that usually turns me off to traditional film criticism and onto videos like yours or folding ideas, princess weekes,etc. You guys share your honest and heartfelt opinions on these films in the most accessible way possible. The generation of today are discovering themselves, and I think as someone growing up in an increasingly regressive world, it does feel harsh to be told why something you love may not be as good as you think, without the language and diction to understand why. I personally think the elitism should’ve been covered longer I feel that’s one of the biggest contributors to being disliked. I fear using the language of “teenagers” and focusing TikTok influencers may lead to a different discussion. One where “THE YOUTH” is the problem and film critics are the last bastions against the “uncultured” youth of today. If we view them under this light, no one wil ever pay enough attention to young cinephiles based on the fact that kids just want TikTok and twitter. It’s a problem, but one that I think needs to be more addressed from the critics side in my opinion. One thing that immediately turned me off to Roger Ebert was his opinion on video games as an art form. While they aren’t cinema, I do believe they have the power to tell subversive, creative, and unique stories you can’t find in any medium. And seeing his critique didn’t feel like a disagreement. It felt like a denouncement. He didn’t dislike one game or two or multiple, it was the whole medium he didn’t respect. And that sucks. To hear a famous critic denounce a WHOLE MEDIUM feels monumental. Add on to the fact his worship has only increased in death and his opinion is still something that persists that makes. Video game critics to this day quote him and I just get a sour taste that someone so revered in one artistic space would tear another space down. Without giving it the chance to thrive and evolve. I love film criticism, but arrogance and lack of a cultural perspective puts me at odd sometimes. Because it’s hard to watch a fun, trashy black comedy, and not feel like the critic who loathes it lacks the nuances to even articulate why they hate it. I’d rather have someone disagree with me on a film who has the cultural knowledge than someone who doesn’t. I understand their motives, i just think more effort should be done to engage with the public more directly and I honestly think people would understand. I immediately vibe with a negative review when I know the person who’s making it understands the language of what they’re engaging in. And while film critics basically made the language of film criticism, it’s never a dull moment to widen your sensibilities. Show why you disliked something with the respect of the culture that it resides in i.e. horror movies, video games, romantic comedies, etc. I don’t think exacerbating the distance between film critics and the public won’t help ultimately. As much as it may be hard to hear, engage with those mediums that you feel conflicted about. Just like how the public should deepen their horizons and indulge in more niche genres, we should indulge in these new spaces (ones not being primarily used for profit and marketing and build them up. If we can congregate and pull casuals towards these places, then maybe we CAN widen the film language of the public in a meaningful way. I even see room for discussion between casuals and film critics about the state of the movie industry and critics can discuss with people aren’t educated about the bigger pieces in play that negate fim criticism like corporations, companies monopolizing and galvanizing smaller companies to become big “content” machines. Overall, your video is amazing. Personally I just feel these would help to highlight some of these issues in the video to greater detail. Please feel free to disagree 👍🏾
All I know is I am open to all forms of "constructive" criticism. But if I see the word "WOKE" in the thumbnail image of a UA-cam video review, then that lets me know what your objective is all about.
This video reminds me a lot of “Milton Babbit’s Who cares if you listen?” In my opinion, people in nicher parts of an artform tend to overstate their importance in the overall space. The implication that moving towards audio/visual over written criticism will tarnish its poetic stylings seems really hyperbolic and a weird point to wrap up on.
I agree. I think there's much to be said about the general move towards audio/visual media, especially in the realm of criticism, but they offer a different set of tools for articulating one's ideas. Would like to dig into what Saffron means by 'poetic' in this case.
"The implication that moving towards audio/visual over written criticism will tarnish its poetic stylings seems really hyperbolic and a weird point to wrap up on." You bring up an excellent point. Sure- clickbait-ey, low-effort video essays and reviews are a dime a dozen on the internet; but one also does not have to look all too hard to find legitimately well-thought-out, clearly structured and engaging criticism. Sure, the means of distribution may be different; but a critic will go to the platform that they feel most suits them, where the cultural zeitgeist is, and where they think they can find a potential audience; and right now that's the new media, not The New York Times. A film reviewer is no more-or-less valid as a critic just because they choose to publish their work online rather than in print.
They lost trust . Everyone has an easier time letting you know a movie was bad when you think it might have just been you and the critic seeing differently . Critics praising Rings Of Power as some milestone of story telling when 75% of people hated it so much that they didn't bother finishing it. Many other shows or movies are the same. Critic and audience scores are almost never close.Idk if critics are bribed with access or just cash but they are lying for one reason or another and everyone sees it much easier now
If the superhero-type massive products are meant to be critic-proof, then perhaps that's why the focus among the populists has shifted to culture wars. Anyway, wanted to opine that one of the worst things a critic can do is rate a film from 1-10 - even worse than that if they also claim that 10/10 would be a film made by God.
Fandoms have created an atmosphere where critique is equal to being a hater. So if you don't worship something, you must think it's absolute trash and are a hater. Lots of things can be enjoyed, and you can still think that there are choices you didn't like or things could be done differently.
The most annoying part to me is how fandoms have weaponized identity politics so any critic who doesn’t like their fave is not only a snob but a bigot. Marvel and Disney fans in particular love to play that card like it isn’t a company owned by conservative white men that only starting casting poc like 10 years ago.
@lrigsnart6821I knew about Johnson, but not about Mendes. Sheesh.
I mean, I didn't like Spectre or TLJ but I'm not going to go slander the creators careers. These are the same talented filmakers who made both Skyfall and the Breaking Bad episode Ozymandias.
@lrigsnart6821 Star Wars has had this problem in particular for a long time, particularly with the prequels and Lucas, though thankfully things seem to be changing a bit.
Regardless of ones thoughts on those films, the way in which people completely dumped Lucas's previous career in the trash and claimed that he was always a 'talentless hack' (going to great lengths to distort the behind the scenes details) is honestly ridiculous.
This is the result of people becoming so attached to a franchise they feel the need to make it their entire personality.
Yes! It speaks about the mentality of fandom: people feel personally upset because someone else didn't like what they like/nearly identify with, so it's taken waaaaaay more personally than it should.
those films are still IP, lol. all films are IP. @lrigsnart6821
A good point which is only mentioned briefly- film criticism is WRITING that exists in and of itself as something worthwhile. It’s not simply information- the form of the criticism is so important. A good film critic can write about a film you have no interest in, but their review can still be incredibly interesting, thought provoking and entertaining, because it’s simply enjoyable to read good writing.
I wonder if people will even care about “good writing” five years from now as we embrace more and more AI.
Indeed. I go back and read Ebert's reviews often, both for the quality of analysis and the quality of the writing.
Criticism is itself an art form and an important part of the creative process.
A great point! I used to read reviews in established newspapers and random blogs religiously because of how well written they were and how they pushed me to reconsider/recontextualize my own opinion. At some point, these "reviews" became plot summaries with a paragraph at most of lazy "i had fun"/"i wasn't the target audience" throwaway lines
My favorite comment
I found it curious that she only mentioned anti-intellectualism once, a major factor in the decline of film criticism. Largely coming from the political right, anti-intellectualism has for the better part of fifty-years consistently promoted the idea that film criticism is something only done by the elites and is in direct opposition to what YOU the people want. It promotes film as entertainment only and results in "it's just a movie" and "get politics out of my movies".
Also the rise of the "anti woke" critic. The ones who will bash a film due to it's diversity and openly hate on "the message", as if films having a purpose is wrong and ideological, but films who support that status quo are real films made for the fans. They remind me of the gamergate people, who would claim that videogames are art while hating any videogame that attempted to be anything other than a toy.
@@cactus2260 Yes, that's an interesting development for sure. They come from the anti-intellectual perspective but pretend to be intellectuals themselves.
The idea that there isn’t a measurable, growing chasm between producers of culture and those who consume it that has been accelerated by money, technology and -yes- opportunist reactionaries, seems fanciful to me.
@@glassmuxxic maybe I’m misinterpreting your point. How does that rationalize to “they just don’t get films like the general public” in your mind?
As an engineer, I deal with people on the daily who hire me for a job and then tell me how to do it *their way* and ultimately blame me when *their say* blows up in their faces, my face, and their company’s face. It’s not a far stretch to see that’s exactly what idiots like Mauler did to genuine film criticism.
@@cactus2260There's nothing fundamentally wrong with antiwoke reviews as long as they show that this or that film pandering to cancel culture or DEI is less respectable for it if the messaging is so thick it almost erases the artistic value of a movie.
I really appreciate this video. I've always found the "just turn your brain off and have fun!" response to media criticism boring at best and deeply frustrating at worst. It's a sentiment that's meant to shut down discussions rather than enrich them. That's why I appreciate critics, regardless of whether I agree with them because I'd rather disagree with a critic than succumb to a boring, anti-intellectual approach to media.
I think what they are saying is judge what the movie is trying to do instead of what it isn't
Art should be an act of creation coming from within and without coercion. Capitalism most often makes that impossible.
Experiencing art is a personal thing.
If someone adds any knowledge (history, real world statistics, symbolism, feminism, racism, etc...) about the medium, genre or any other aspect of creating a piece of art, it should only ever serve to enrich your experience of it.
There is no CORRECT way to experience art!
BUT!
If anyone tries to use a piece of art to further their hate of women, people of color, LGBTQIA+ Community, people of different religions, disabled, overweight people or any other minority,
you should raise an eyebrow and research what they are saying!
Minorities will always be an easy target for fascists and people in power who need easy political points.
Where I live, we have a local cinema club, and there's nearly always a discussion group at the end where people gather round and talk about what we just watched.
During one discussion, I think it was for "What's Love Got to do with it?" (not the Tina Turner film. The more recent film with Lily James in it) someone said something like "It's just a feel good film that you shouldn't have to think about too much".
That really stuck with me because if they didn't want to think about what they just watched, then why were they in a discussion group for the film they just watched?!
In short: I also don't like the "just switch your brain off" argument. Lol.
It's not about "turning off your brain" it's about suspending your disbelief.
@lrigsnart6821"Switching your brain off" is not literal. That's like actually wanting an actor to break their leg.
I love film criticism. My favorite part of watching movies is reading people's reviews and reactions. It always annoys me when people say "reviews don't matter" as if criticism hasn't influenced countless filmmakers and the choices they make
I have learned that not all criticism shouldn’t be taken seriously however, I only listen to film reviewers I trust on UA-cam. There is a very annoying and reactionary element to UA-cam film criticism that I dislike.
Reviews matter, but the trouble is a good review recognizes the context of the film and what it's creators were aiming for. It should be possible to say "I'm not a fan of this, but it's well-exexuted" or vice-versa, but a lot of film critics become a bit egotistical and forget that.
Thank you! I love reading discourse online. Yes, there are some stupid takes but for the most part I find others perspectives enriching to my own. I get a better idea of something...
I haven't really watched a movie until I've finished reading three pages of reviews directly after. It's part of the experience and I wouldn't ever want for that to disappear.
They always say “reviews don’t matter” when their anticipated movie gets criticised. But they magically have validity when they say something good.
“democratization is good, as long as it doesn’t slip into anti-intellectualism”
i think this is my biggest concern when it comes to the state of the internet right now. it’s amazing that basically everyone has a voice, but that means everyone is at war with each other, fighting the algorithms and SEO’s to stay relevant. being relevant became a commodity, and the only ones who are guaranteed to maintain this sort of power are the 1% and the multi-billionaire media conglomerates. all of that results in, essentially, propaganda coming from those who want to maintain their status, clickbait, fake news and anti-intellectualism. and all of those phenomenons are already so present in our society that they’re directly responsible to mass manipulation and the rise of f*scism. and the worst part is that there’s nothing to regulate any of it, and no one knows how to deal with it. it’s just so much, man…
If it was regulated it would not be regulated to the advantage of X person with no influence but to the advantage of Y entity with power. Regulation can actually be worse since its imposing 1984 style controls that benefit a dedicated few.
@@florinivan6907unregulated anything has also proven to be worse for most people and better for the well off. An unregulated industry leads not to freedom but to private investors regulating it rather than elected officials. Leaving it up to the companies will create oligarchies in discourse rather than democracies.
@@cactus2260 Elected officials have only one interest. Power. Give them a reason to grab more power and they will. Industry wants money but politicians want power. Either way you're not gonna get anything good out of it. Nevermind the fact that many 'issues' are actually invented by them to create pressure for regulation that will benefit also them. Many of the online problems are not by accident but design to guide people towards certain actions. 1984 style actions. I know these people and what they want.
@@florinivan6907 how did you come to the conclusion that money is not a form of power? corporations have power and want more power, corporations have the power to spread propaganda freely, spread misinformation, exploit workers, manufacture consent, even topple governments at times. is that not as 1984 style as anything you've listed? the difference between joe biden and jeff bezos is that we get to vote who runs the government but not who runs amazon. and if the people we chose are not doing anything to control the people whose power we have no control over then we have corruption. the government should be there to represent the needs of everyone, not just the billionaires. that's what the point of a democracy is. many of the online problems are not by accident, but by design, and that design is not in the hands of the people we chose, but on the people who own the internet and move the money in it. they worsen the internet in pursuit of more money and thus more power.
The Internet was at it's best before everyone got shoved into a few websites for the sake of discoverability.
Don't get me wrong, discoverability is great and a lack of it was the Internet's greatest bottleneck, but everyone having their own little very topic-specific websites and communities and little cross-polination between them kept people more civil. I guess it's kinda like how when restaurants get busy everyone starts talking louder and louder and it just snowballs.
Honestly though, I feel like the main problem here is that people are increasingly forgetting (or rather, ignoring the fact) that reviews are inherently subjective. You don't have to agree with a review 100% all the time.
There are many films audiences love, but critics hate. And in many cases, there's also the opposite. The cognitive dissonance that arises from people, especially if it's a film they love, but critics don't, is probably the reason film criticism is reaching irrelevancy.
This cognitive dissonance is the reason why people sadly dogpile on critics. They're forcing themselves to agree with a review even when they don't, and when they can't take it, they take their anger out on the critics.
There are no 'right' or 'wrong' opinions. Just opinions, and I feel people need to be aware of that. We need to be able to disagree. I myself have plenty of films I really enjoyed, but critical opinions were middling at best, and it's been the other way around as well.
Film criticism offer us perspectives we might not have previously considered, and give us a different view (and take) on a film. It offers us views on things that we might not agree with, and that's fine.
Keeping that in mind, no film review is going to be 100% completely objective, as each of us (film critics included) interpret and see things in different ways, and can have diverse takes of a single film.
With that being said, film criticisms are an insight into a film, helping us get a better understanding of the film's background, and provide us with views that we can use in our judgement, and give us deeper insights on a film, even if they are, at the end of the day, subjective.
Part of the problem is that everything has become a team sport. If you really like super hero movies or Christopher Nolan films then you will find lots of people who agree with you and you feel part of a club. But if anyone doesn't like them, that then (somehow) becomes a threat to your club, or worse your personal identity, and people feel the need to dogpile on the opposing team.
@@davidmylchreest3306 - This is the reason we need to be able to disagree! Not everyone going to like what you like. I honestly feel like the reason people dogpile on critics is because criticism can be often taken as an affront to someone's tastes, whereas in reality the critics simply offered a different perspective.
We're losing the ability to disagree, and that's an incredibly sad thing tbh 😖
That's mostly true. But criteria to determine if a film is well made on whatever level(s) does exist, and should be considered. I tell these snowflakes that there are films I like that I know are not very good, or even horrible. And that there are movies I think are good but that I wouldn't call masterpieces ("masterpiece" is a thoroughly overused term these days).
But yeah, in the end, it is all subjective, and one may like a film in spite of good reasons not to think it is good and vice versa.
I think also a question has to be asked to the crowd that are very "anti-critic": If your goal & intention is for the film critic to go away, then what is the other option you're advocating for in its place? Are we to toss the film critique and just take whatever PR/marketing head of a studio has to say for granted without any question of it? Are we to just "turn off our brains" and never once think about how a film makes us feel rather (and how it makes us feel that way) than just literal describing what happens in the film without any discussion? Is there no room for dissent? Who are the only ones that can have an opinion of a film and if so, what specific metric must they pass (and are those metrics actually democratic & open?).
Very true. While I don't consider myself a critic, I have been called all kinds of names, ad have videos down voted, not because my video is bad, but because people don't like that I have a different opinion. But I don't really let it bother me because the internet is the internet. And I can block and delete comments if it gets too wild.
This video made me think about the intensity in which young people use the media they like as personality building. There's usually nothing wrong with this; it's just what happens when you don't have a ton of life experience yet. But recently fandoms have learned to weaponize their passion and cause actual harm for clout. They don't seem to realize critics are just doing their job and aren't personally attacking them.
Except the times when they sometimes do.
lmao @@IkeOkerekeNews
people take it personally because the stuff they like has become their identity. it's so depressing and unhealthy.
@@IkeOkerekeNewslike when
@@IkeOkerekeNewsExamples?
What a great video, it really made me think about how criticism in general has been watered down over the last 20 years with the rise of the internet. People can't be able to make mistakes anymore, be critical of something or have their true feelings about something expressed sometimes. Roger Ebert once said something I always take with me and that's when he talked about his advise for future film critics. He said something like: "I worry young film critics are scared to go against the norm and fight for their opinion on a film. If you truly believe a film is good even when everyone else says it's the worse thing ever or the other way around, stick with that opinion because it's yours and no one should take that away from you." I'm paraphrasing but I apply that wisdom to more then just films.
I feel that every time I try to criticise popular movies irl, people don't like to discuss or expose their true feelings on anything anymore. I don't know if they're scared of if they don't even reflect enough on what they watched, but conversations always seem to go the same route of ''i watched it; it was cool'', and I always feel like I'm the one trying to go deeper and risk having someone disagree with me/risk disagreeing with someone (oh the horror)
The Star Wars prequel and Sequel hate is a perfect example of what the late great Roger Ebert said unfortunately
@@Chuck_EL The SW sequels are not terrible films but in the context of SW they're pretty bad, I'm sorry but they are. Not just in superficial terms because they don't follow up the language and narrative of the previous films but also emotionally and symbolically they're completely void. The Disney SW sequels and most of their shows are written by committees/executives, not artists with an actual need for expression. The people hired for these projects don't even understand SW on a deeper level, they just know the plot to Episodes I to VI. But most criticism of the sequels isn't about the films themselves, it's about "oh le politics and representation" as if politics or representation weren't ever a part of SW. The SW fanbase is one of the absolutely worst I've ever seen or experienced, and this comes from someone who's been a SW fan since like 6 years old. I actually read the books, the comics, etc. SW fans have, for a long time, had a sort of hivemind mentality. The most ignorant kind of tribalism.
I just love when I recieve a notification from Broye and Be Kind Rewind. Like they are essays landmark and the finest with Lindsay Ellis and Princess Weekes
Hear, hear 👏🏼 The greats of video essayists on media
Angelica Jade Bastien is another incredible film critic, her no nonsense approach has really inspired me to speak honesty about films I write about. When you speak so candidly about films with commercial appeal you become a pariah. I cherish the critics of today who maintain their honest review for the sake of the art itself, not to be contrarian, not because its "cool", just because it's real.
She is my favorite critic! We disagree sometimes but she knows her stuff and sticks to it.
Also, Broey mentioned Angelica in her method acting video
I remember seeing her review on Past Lives on Letterboxd and going “daaaamn” like in Friday when I saw it. I think it’s the best movie of the year so far.
But while I did disagree with her, knowing that the movie took place in separate moments in time, I could understand the points that she’s making.
@@jakethet3206Setting aside the number of critics turned filmmakers, a tradition that’s been alive since the days of the French New Wave, there are countless filmmakers whose impressions of cinema and artistic taste have been shaped by great critics over the years; not to mention the amount of up-and-coming filmmakers whose careers further flourished due to being championed by prominent critics. Your view on the profession of film criticism feels far too generalized and reductive
@@jakethet3206 that quote generalizes too much. Life is weird and strange and I don't think it's a matter of meritocracy. Some people do because daddy knew all the right people and had loads of cash to get you places.
A joy to watch this after attending the Chicago International Film Festival, where the motto was “Critics Welcome.” Very interested to see the future of film criticism. Thank you for this great video!!
Did you happen to see Club Zero - I know its very controversial. I think Jessica Hausner is really one of the most creative European directors. I really was fascinated by her last three films.
Im in my late 30s.
I grew up in Chicago reading siskel and ebert articles every weekend. We had to buy a paper to see the showtimes, so reading the reviews was natural.
Then also watching their show every week on cbs was a shared family activity.
Ebert and me shared a big sensibility. I knew if he liked a movie, I would almost always like a movie. To an extent that idk what came first. My tastes or being guided by ebert as a child.
I now work as a filmmaker (DP or gaffer) and Ebert’s voice and influence still has to have an influence in my work and my relationship to the medium.
Some of my favorite critical voices I first discovered via their opinion I most disagreed with, but it was just so thoughtful and well written that I appreciated it anyway; I’d much rather read a review that makes me think than one I just agree with.
One of my favorite film critics Christy Lemire (who actually worked for Ebert at one point) had a great line about the pros and cons of being a film critic:
"Pro: We get to see every movie.
Con: We _have_ to see every movie."
watching soooo many movies over the course of my life has given me both the cynical and still hopeful and passionate view that i think critics often have. i hope every film i see will be amazing, and i know that potential is possible due to the amazing films I've already seen, but having seen so many films already, it's so hard to still be delighted or surprised, and also not to easily spot weaknesses in performance, direction, editing, etc even without a film education, so i find myself enjoying CERTAIN films much less - even those critically acclaimed or appreciated by my friends - but appreciating the films i love so much MORE because i recognize how miraculous they are
I heard that either Siskel or Ebert almost quit over having to review a movie with T0n¥ D@nz@ in it. Now they know how TV “critics,” who are everything wrong with this problem only worse, have felt since *Taxi* was canceled.
When criticism and the critic-reading public finally understand that criticism has no component of objectivity, we will have advanced a quantum leap. Criticism has one nature only: subjectivity. The best critics make their opinions fascinating. They make literature, and their form is the essay or long article.
I disagree. There's definitely some objective criticism, mainly when it comes to technical issues with the films. Technical criticism is crucial when it comes to correcting mistakes in films, whether it be in subsequent cuts of the same film or subsequent films by the artist.
Your work is wonderful and thoughtful, and I’m honored to be mentioned here.
Saffron Maeve made a really good point about disagreement these days. Courteous dissent doesn't exist. Disagreeing with "Me" is an attack on "Me", and therefore I must retaliate. Truth is, I believe strongly that it has always been this way with most people. Disagreement is not a simple difference of opinion, but an indication that those who disagree are "The Enemy". This is why the internet giving everyone a voice that can potentially reach millions of people is not necessarily a good thing in all ways. The very fact that most people regard a differing point of view as enemy action bears this out. Most people don't know how to have a voice, and to use it responsibly.
Oh, and "Freddy Got Fingered" is a misunderstood masterpiece!
That statement becomes true when it comes to human rights.
I think people aren’t willing to accept that someone is critical of something they like, and isn’t willing to have an honest conversation
For me, it was Mark Kermode on BBC Radio 5 and now his podcast with Simon Mayo that got me thinking more deeply about film. I always respected how much he defended the first Twilight movie and a lot of work that gets brushed off as horror or young girl shlock while also never feeling like a sell out or a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. He's such a fan of cinema and over the years has lost that slight condescension criticsTM are apparently famous for.
He can be quite brutal to films he despises (especially films that feel corporate), but he's always open to other perspectives which is helped by the film club culture fostered by their show, having listeners writing in. Even if I dont always agree with his take, I feel like I often learn something listening to him because of the breadth and depth of his education of watching films, even obscure ones, for years. He can point out similarities to other work and contextualize a film within the filmmaker's history. And his Exorcist hyperfixation has literally given me so much more appreciation for that movie.
Ntm he frequently goes on break on his film show/podcast and gives that platform to women and POC critics and radio hosts and so Ive been introduced to some really smart younger voices through him.
It's also great that beyond his show and reviews, he does a lot of work like his Secrets of Cinema series or interviews for the BFI that help contextualize and generally improve film literacy among the general public (people like me).
He's addressed the question of what even is the point of a film critic on his show a few times and I find his voice so valuable (even when I think he's wrong!) especially because I know he would never sell out and because he continues to champion small films, especially small British films and films from marginalized perspectives, and try to revive restorations of old films too.
to me the most important part of consuming media is being able to see things from a different perspective. i respect people who spent a lot more time watching and thinking about movies than i did. it s super nice to able to have a glimpse into their thought process whether it is via text or by watching a video like this. i like to have my thoughts provoced and challenged. It s sad that there is so many people who get mad at someone because they disagree with their opinion.
Matt Zoller Seitz has also stated that the trend of audio visual critique instead of the traditional print critique bodes poorly for archival. He did a series of film video essays (his contemporaries were the 0th generation greats like Kevin B Lee, Jim Emerson, and Kogonada) back in the 2000s, but has since refrained, frequently lamenting how a lot of his early essays are lost to time. Firstly, many media outlets back in the day elected for their critics to produce original publications instead of hosting on UA-cam (hoping to garner ad revenue), which has led to some difficulties of journals, defunct or not, maintaining access. Secondly, many of these early essays were taken down due to copyright. Even if they aren't taken down, it's more difficult for readers to index or search for these essays or to skim the material themselves. I think video essays make sense to discuss another visual medium like film, but print is invaluable too!
In my honest opinion, English film criticism/theory is waaaay more easier to understand than my own language (Japanese).
There’s WAY MORE of well researched, approachable UA-cam based critics like you and BKR which is pretty much doesn’t exist here!
Thanks for creating this WONDERFUL video❤❤
after watching this movie, i went to read saffron's review of spencer. and i think part of why i still value criticism is the way it expresses, in words, feelings that i had under the surface, but that i was not able to articulate. there will always value to me in taking my feelings of a film and being able to put it into words. i felt similarly when watching your barbie video, that it takes my feelings of uncertainty and allows me to develop a vocabulary for those feelings.
Fandom nowadays has completely morphed film criticism into outright loathing, and on the other hand you've got old "reviews" from people like Ebert who thought the Powerpuff Girls Movie was an orgy of cartoon violence and yet he encouraged hate mail to an actress from Friday the 13th because he hated it so much.
Ebert was also a hypocrite. When he gave *Bedknobs and Broomsticks* a mixed review, he compared it negatively to *Song of the South,* which he called “a classic.” Three decades later, when he was a Disney employee because Buena Vista Television distributed his show, he never revisited his opinion on B&B when it was restored as close as possible to the originally intended uncut version, but worse yet, he openly supported Disney’s gatekeeping of SOTS.
One thing that has been driving me nuts lately is the concept that critics only like dull, Oscar-bait movies and hate genre. Which… no. Critics like genre when it’s done well. They don’t like genre movies that are bad. Critics like movies, that’s why they decided to watch them for a living.
Also always appreciate perspective from a fellow Chenthusiast.
People who say that have never read a critic in their lives, just look a the reviews of John Wick or Jackie Chan films critics love them
Yep. It is so ridiculous. Frustrating, too (I feel frustration on their behalf because they are missing out on knowing critics can often like what they like!).
Don’t assume people’s lives based on a UA-cam comment. It’s rude.
@@fritzthecat8158 well I'm glad you've imagined a scenario to reinforce your beliefs. It's false, but I'm glad for you. Hey what do you think was the critical reception of Evil Dead Rise? It's a silly splattergore horror movie so critics must've hated it, right? Probably just like eli roth's Thanksgiving that just came out, right? Or Happy Death Day, or Tragedy Girls, or Freaky, or Revenge.
I am so desperate to read cogent and interesting film reviews that I actually read the back catalog of Decent Films (a Catholic/Christian-focused reviewer). I'm not Catholic or Christian but I enjoy that he is passionate and has a different take than I do on films. It's so much more interesting than reading another boring synopsis masquerading as a review.
I'd recommend, if it holds your interest: bmovie reviews and the old archived site of cyberpunk reviews (the new site is dedicated to futurism and so on).
I really appreciate this video! I now turn to letterboxd reviews to read everyone's thoughts. I think that platforms like this where everyone can have an opinion also adds to the death of the film criticism as a real job because people feel like literally anyone could do it.
"critics watch a movie and are just looking for something to critique" I wish ppl understood that the "critique" in "critic" means something radically different from the "criticism" they might get from their boss or in-laws.
I saw Roger on the screen and was so happy - I was waiting for this video! I think I've read every 'Great Movie' review on Roger's 'Great Movies' list, and every one is so insightful about how a movie can be a complete work of art and not just a product. Thank you queen ❤
I remember at the top of the old Siskel and Ebert movie review show, the two critics would bill themselves-- "I'm Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune," and "I'm Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times."
One thing i loved about them was they loved socalled bad films..
They'd explained why it didn't work for people and why it did for them and others without throwing anyone under the bus
The popular "reviewers" aren't able to do this and they create echo chambers which divides... which isnt a good thing
Another problem seen way to often is people slamming films that haven't even gone into production yet. All based on a script they downloaded, or the actors that have been cast, and who's directing, yada-yada-yada!
Art criticism and art appreciation is going out in fashion in the face of wanton consumption spoon fed via social media. When content has replaced art wholesale, what can remain of criticism and appreciation. We are all just amping up for that next dopamine hit.
I think one of the reasons people dislike film critics now more than ever is because like with so many things, people's film tastes have become part of their identity. We see the same thing with political opinons. Cheering for your favourite film franchise or politician or influencer is like cheering for your local football team. Fans are just closed off from a different perspective.
And that's why Martin Scorsese saying that Marvel movies are not cinema has created so much backlash. To many, hearing an older filmmaker giving a critical opinion on your favourite franchise feels like a personal attack.
Very insightful - an extension of narcissism.
So true.
Yeah, those people are major snowflakes. There are movies I know are not great, or even good, but I like them anyway. "Guilty pleasures", we call them. Also, a film might have one or more flaws that can be acknowledged without discarding the film altogether.
I think this also is the consequence of capitalism and the way movies are marketed rn , and the effects of fandom too ig .
I mean it goes beyond a critical opinion when you exclude something from a medium without providing a definition for it. Elitism on its own is not criticism.
A brief response from someone currently undertaking a bachelor of communication with an interest in getting into film criticism: we are being taught to create digestible content. We are being trained to be current, and to ignore the more traditional and contemporary forms of output (print, internet blogs) in favour of short form content. I hate it personally, but at least for people in my situation, being judged for creating content that I am taught has the chance to be successful over traditional mediums, is unfair.
I think it's more appropriate to say social media gentrified film criticism
A friend of mine who writes film reviews for publications literally told me he stopped writing as many critical reviews of commercial movies because they don't get clicks, so they don't make money.
No internet for old nostalgic critics
lol nice
I see what you did there
I absolutely believe that. I started my channel @SkinnyEMedia as a film critic myself (I started in journalism as a film critic myself for my university publication among others within the UK and U.S.) but over the years, it's expanded beyond its reach to various disciplines and types of media (music, documentaries, podcasts about censorship, advertising enthusiasm). Plus, the selection what we have is quite dire. A slew of remakes and reboots and umpteenth adaptations of pre-exisiting property (e.g. including Jane Austen novels, etc.) is overwhelming to the core! It's discouraging and on top of that Rotten Tomatoes has had accusations involving bought-out film reviews to appease the distributors. Not acceptable, not genuine.
I have always thought of criticism as a positive activity. It's a way to say we deserve better and thinking of how that could have happened.
I don't mean this as a "gotcha", but I do wonder how many people in the comments lamenting the loss of film criticism are actively seeking out and compensating voices like the ones you outlined at the end of the video. I work for a literary nonprofit (and write professionally) and the whole "print is dying" conversation is really frustrating to have because a lot of the same people who moan about it also don't...pay for literature? I understand that the average person has increasingly little discretionary spending power, but there are some magazine subscriptions that can run you as little as $2/month. The New York Times, the very place that was paying A.O. Scott to work, is $4/month for the first six months.
I think "x is dying" really means "x is no longer commercially viable", but that's the natural cause of capitalism convincing an entire generation that writing, and by extension criticism, is not worth paying for. Print or film criticism will never die because people will never stop engaging in an art form they love.
I also understand this isn't all on the shoulders of the consumer. Mark Thompson, the CEO of the NYT from 2012-2020, reportedly made $17.4 million in salary, stock awards and bonuses from 2017 to 2019. That's a structural issue, and I'm the last person that will urge you to give money to NYT specifically. However, I've known and worked with plenty of independent outlets for criticism that are scraping by, with their staff sometimes forgoing a salary to prioritize paying writers and elevating exciting new voices. They could really use your money.
I think it is as simple as supply and demand. The supply of free good quality writing is enough for less people to be interested in paying for it.
I understand your frustration that it doesn't cost much in general to support art (including art criticisms). However, subscription paid or not paid is a very subjective and personal decision by a consumer. It takes a lot of good will and efforts developed over the years to foster such a relationship between the subscription service (magazine or what not) and customers before the latter makes a conscious decision to pay for the former's work.
Sometimes, that relationship can be easily weakened and even nullified when a specific writer in the magazine whose work is loved by customers has to leave their job (for whatever reason).😢
Bashing capitalism also creates a sense of entitlement to the free labor of the creative class.
I think your point would've been made better if you didnt mention the NYT. That paper is actively inciting hate on trans people and justifying war crimes. People don't subscribe to that paper for very good reasons.
@@AttmayPeople were felt entitled before they were “bashing” capitalism
For about 15 years, I wanted to be a film critic. As much as I still champion the films that I feel are ambitious and trying interesting things, I just lost steam at a point. I think it's part of the fact that I couldn't see myself as "marketable" because I catered to long-form essays for indie films that nobody saw. Those were what I cared about and finding that I didn't have much of an audience ultimately made me feel disrespected. Writing about blockbusters was boring and felt like a sea your voice would drown in, but I realized it was part of the game to be noticed. What made it worse was how Twitter (and more Letterboxd) became codependent on gag reviews becoming the only thing that got traction. I couldn't be serious in this environment. Even the critics I respected were doing this. I still talk about film, but more in tangent to the rest of my life. It's disappointing. 15 years and I get shown up by shitposters. I'm over it.
Yeah the Letterboxd structure is awful. Deep, well-written analyses are usually buried under snarky one-liners and random thought-burps. They need to implement an upvote/downvote system so that people who are actually trying to write meaningful criticism could get some traction.
I love listening to film criticisms and discussions. One of the best parts of watching a film is getting to listen to everyone's reviews afterwards. But personally, I always want them to be longer rather then shorter so I don't get this movietok trend. I love it when a movie podcast releases a three hour episode.
The one thing I hate about critics, of all art forms, is the lack of empathy and understanding they show towards the artists they didn't like. Critics think artists are fair game for insults and snide remarks. They show little regard for the well beings of the actors and filmmakers, and just reduce them to punching bags. AO Scott and Saffron Maeve are very much what grinds my gears about critics. Scott I find incredibly self-important and tone deaf with how he describes cinema culture, and his scolding of movie fans completely reduces the movie goers to nad raving stereotypes. And Maeve felt more like a troll than a critic. In her review of Spencer, she was snide and vindictive. It felt like a childish over reaction to something that didn't tickle HER fancy. I often wish critics could try and be more civil or comprehensive than actively fanning the flames. We complain about TikTok and UA-cam reducing the quality of criticism, but sad truth is, the professionals have been doing it to themselves for years. It doesn't matter if you're AO Scott or Cinema Sins, both are, at the end of the day, just nasty trolls. They forget artists are human, and that art is subjective. They just see a new actor or director to pick on.
Didn't Maeve say it was a self published blog not meant to make rounds? I looked her up and most of her reviews are very encouraging (ex. her Screen Slate stuff)
As someone who is technically in the industry, I've become far more critical of a lot of online video essays/critic/analysis people online, not because they say anything negative or overly positive, but mainly because of how much sway they have over young peoples opinions and even when talking about a subject they clearly don't know a ton about or say something just flat out wrong, but because they have an online persona their fans like, the fans will not only believe them but take to social media and create a vacuum when it comes to discussing this subject online to the point where studios take notice and will make movies to appeal to these surface level complaints.
what is a better alternative to reach young people, then? like where can they learn about these things?
@@DaFireElf maybe more journal-based criticism that is based less around a "funny" persona, or at least listen to a larger variety of critics with more varied takes. It's great to listen to other people's opinions but so many people are just ready to rally around a young snary youtube critic and parrot their takes. This is how we get stuff like "The People Vs George Lucas"
@@GreayWorksThe critics of yore, whether in print or on TV, also held a significant influence over audiences and weren't necessarily better, e.g., Ebert himself exhibited weird biases most evident in his ludicrous reasons for giving 1 star to _Blue Velvet, Swing Kids, Texas Chainsaw Massacre_ and so on. And just like before, sometimes these blatant biases backfire beautifully, like when the creepy and defamatory online attacks on Brie Larson and her _Captain Marvel_ flick did nothing to stop it from becoming one of the most commercially successful superhero movies ever, surpassing even their most untouchable favorites.
The key distinction is that you have easy access, right at your fingertips and completely free of charge, to a multitude of online talking heads -- sifting through the muck long enough will result in the rare gem. On the other hand, journo-based criticism often remains behind paywalls or struggles to survive in today's fiercely competitive landscape where sensationalism and clickbait generate the revenue.
@@Tretas. but they didn’t have a following of mainly teens who were drawn to someone’s persona who would crafted a narrative of the film director was a bad person
26:17 I think Letterboxd is a good example of this dichotomy. You can get a lot of good thoughtful critiques on there, but at the same time a lot of the most popular reviews are just snarky one line quips.
15:50 That's a terrible analogy. Nobody calls in a critic to "fix" the movie. Movies aren't broken to begin with.
I think film criticism owes something, in part, to (live) theater criticism and review - both reperetory and musical - which has (or had) a much older history in print journalism and was also treated with great seriousness and aplomb.
My teen gets very angry if/when I don't like a movie. (I have a film degree.) He seems to take it personally, even though my opinion should not change or influence his.
Ooh give some examples I bet we agree that they're bad lol. Don't worry, there are other people with standards out there you're safe!
This is, without exaggeration, my favorite channel on UA-cam.
This also applies to music critics. I’ve noticed over the past couple years, album reviews are much more positive and biased. Likely because of how rabid fanbases go after critics who give their faves bad reviews. Usually, an artist’s latest album has a higher metacritic score than their most well loved album, it’s ridiculous. Midnights by Taylor Swift is a good example of this.
I started watching the various incarnations of Siskel & Ebert's shows around the age of 10 or 11. At first, it was probably just to see clips from new movies which I was becoming increasingly fascinated with, but over time their informed talk about film opened up the art form to me in a way I might not have otherwise experienced, film as an art rather than just a product. I ended up owning a number of books Roger Ebert wrote, and since his passing, I've never found a critic that conveyed quite the same sense of love of film as he did. There are contemporary critics I follow now, and they are generally those who convey a sense of some depth of knowledge and genuine interest in not just current or recent films but the whole rich history of film.
And one other thing I liked about Siskel and Ebert is that they didn't make their reviews/criticisms out to be the law-- they didn't say, for instance, "We hated this film, so you shouldn't even try to see it to make up your own mind", or conversely, "We loved this film and it's the bee's knees and the cat's pajamas, so you need to see it and enjoy it, or you just don't like movies."
To be fair, Ebert warned humanity against the dangers of Deuce Bigelow: Euro Gigolo
I only engage with film criticism or analysis after I watch the movie. I need someone with expertise to tell me what I missed and to expand on the themes.
...As well as if you disagree with some of their points. Critics are not gurus and art is subjective.
@@KernelHughes It's not as subject as you think...
I respect Roger Ebert, but he was definitely unfair to a lot of horror movies back in the day.
Film is subjective. He may have been an expert, but that doesn't make his opinion "right" every time.
I think his views like many others is a perfect example of one of the long turn major problems with many critics. Those horror movies that didn't aim for high art were seen negatively. But than we have film critics like Joe Bob Briggs who wrote reviews about drive in movies who saw this low brow movies in a different light. Critics like him even now can see the art in such work were other film critics sees crap.
@@stephennootens916 Well after Ebert, Joe Bob is the next critic that I value.
@@Jimmy-fj6dl I've never seen his movies, but actually going to check them out next week.
With film criticism, the point shouldn't be to see eye to eye on every single movie if you ask me. Thats ridiculous, as everyone has different tastes.
What film critics should do is make you THINK about a movie in a different way.
If you like a movie and a critic does too? Congratulations, you've found a new lens through which to express your joy!
If you liked a movie, but a critic doesn't? Then that can give you food for thought regarding why you specifically like this film and how you may formulate better arguments to express your joy with it.
i mean ill be honest im not on tiktok, ive never seen a "movietok" creator, but i just have to assume that they dont really go in depth abt what makes a movie good or bad. i have to imagine that being forced to condense your critique into a min or less would force you to water down and leave out important details. i just dont like short form content honestly, i like to have a full detailed discussion, not just a 2 second intro and outro. i mean i dont want to say "movietok" creators are all bad, esp since i havent really engaged with them directly. but i just cant imagine that tiktok could do anything justice. sorry not sorry, a min is not long enough to have an actual conversation abt anything, esp not films that tend to be 2 hours long... just common. if you actually want to fully discuss something that long you have to give it the time it deserves
A minute only allows you to say if its good or bad and give a few details.
Exactly the same here. My favourite music UA-camr does YT shorts... I get nothing off those, what is even the point to them? Although I think TikToks may be slightly longer (2 mins opposed to 1 min on YT shorts)
The medium is the message. Short-form video can only ever communicate short-form ideas.
This video has inspired me...to rewatch the clip of Siskel and Ebert panning Three Amigos to Chevy Chase's face.
i think a lot of it just has to do with the broader overall trend that people aren't reading as much these days. reading books, reviews in the newspaper, whatever- all of that used to be extremely extremely normal and now with social media, young people are never going to go out of their way to spend the time to read a longform movie review if its not immediately available for them, or not something they're already interested in, or anything like that
First of all, Doug Walker does provide analysis in his reviews. Now, to the point of film criticism.. the truth is that a lot of people just do not go to film to think. They go to movies to shut their brain off and be taken away from reality. Or they just don't consume enough film and discussion to understand what they're looking at. And people bring their own political/social beliefs and personal experiences to the screen, which impacts how they see certain details. Those of us who enjoy film criticism and more detailed commentary can still find it. There really is no right or wrong when it comes to talking about film anyway.
What a great video! Thank you so much ❤
My introduction and passion for film criticism came from podcasts. If you did a film criticism podcast, where you discuss movies and shows with others, I would totally subscribe. Wisecrack's "show me the meaning" is where it started for me.
While there is a lot of thoughtful criticism online like your channel I feel that many reviewers fall into the trap of click bait reviews of “This (insert movie title or popular IP) is the Most Overrated/Worst Thing of All Time” written by someone who’s only seen a handful of movies made before the 1990’s. The mainstream film criticism I miss is the nuanced and balanced reviews. Trad critics who would review a handful of movies a week, giving them poor, average, good and glowing reviews. They wouldn’t just zero in on a film they hated for the week, they would review more than one so you would get a better understanding of where this critic is coming from and what their taste in movies is. Does it match up with mine? If so, cool. If not, I’m curious to know why.
The Nostalgia Critic and his consequences have been a disaster for the film criticism world
I cracled up when doug walker appeared for a microsecond. Nostaglia critic is a film critic as banquet meals are edible. Just barely.
The Nostalgia Critic is still better than this and 99% of channels rehashing the same stuff over and over again.
Rob Ager is the best film channel on UA-cam though.
Hi! I just wanted to say firstly, that I really love this video, and it was a pleasure to listen to while being a night shift janitor.
There are a few things I would like to add to the conversation on why film criticism is being charged right now.
I am from the most recent generation to have had access to the Internet, and I have seen these two factors unfold in time.
1. You mentioned the “angry white man reviewer” era briefly but I think CinemaSins, Channel Awesome, ScreenJunkies, and others have negatively contributed to not only film culture but the negative perception of critics themselves as just “whiny and nitpicky” Cinemasins in particular I think contributed to movies and shows over explaining everything in the plot to “make sense” bc god forbid audiences think for themselves.
2. Something I’m surprised you didn’t bring up in the conversation. Ghostbusters 2016 and several films afterwards have created a hostile environment for criticism. On the one hand you have nasty hateful fans who hate anything new and go after positive feedback or even after the cast themselves. On the other hand you have studios creating a narrative that if you don’t want to see this movie you’re just a racist misogynist. It’s an example but there’s an inherent politics to how we talk about movies now. We have to like the right movies and hate the bad ones to make ourselves look good. There can be a movie with good representation but we find boring. Or it can cause us to look back at movies that received high praise with a new lens and give it negative criticism due to new historical context or humor that hasn’t aged well.
Complaining about “angry white men“ is racist, misandrist, and tone-policing. It is literally singling out a single demographic for scapegoating when this demographic has legitimate concerns, especially when it comes to marrying each other.
A lot of pretentious snobbery and condescension from critics for decades helped create their lack of importance in film and tv culture.
This is great to watch just as I start my own journey with film criticism (studying film theory at university, personally thinking of going into archives or records management but love engaging with film in my free time as well ^_^).
To me it makes perfect sense that critics tend to be more negative than the general audience just because the nature of their job makes it so that they can't self select for their demographic. Most people only go to movies that they already believe they will like and only when they feel like seeing a movie, so obviously that's going to be much more likely to be a positive experience than someone who has to watch a wide variety of movies as their job. Just like how a baker probably doesn't personally love every recipe they make because they have to bake for a wider range of tastes than their own, as opposed to a home baker who only bakes apple pies because those are theif favorite. That doesn't automatically mean the home baker has more love for baking than the professional baker
BKR and Broey collab? Is this real life because it feels like a dream come true to me!
My problem with critics is art is in the experience between the object and the viewer. It's a deeply personal experience. For example, look at the reviews of "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me" from when it came out. Critics, vast majority cishet white guys, hated it. Yet it has become a cult classic, along with the rest of "Twin Peaks", because it speaks deeply to so many viewers. And more modern critics, like Mark Kermode, have seen the artistry in it. Still the most insightful and illuminating writing about TP or Lynch in general has come from fans on the internet. It's come from people who have a deep personal response to the work of art. You just can't get that from someone who's job it is to review or critique film after film ad nauseum. The non-critique can be more open to the experience than someone who has to come up with something to say, be it because of deadlines or egos.
I feel like we need more humanism in film criticism. Everything is so cultural or analytical like the film is a puzzle. Or worse its like sports commentators ie blank check.
The fandom part was kinda weird ngl because every fandom is usually super divided with subfactions and cant ever agree on anything.
@lrigsnart6821 exactly I dunno about the bond thing but look at how varied the view on Johnson is.
I truly agree fandoms are always arguing!
I think that UA-cam and other video based platforms are actually better for film criticism than writing. While there are obviously issues w censorship I think it is way more impactful to see a small clip of a film in a review than to hear it described. Some one can describe Ludwig Goransson's music in Oppenheimer but playing a little clip of what they liked gets me closer to understanding what's in their head.
As a critic just a little over a month away from graduating college, this is such an important video for me right now. your videos have been favorites of mine for a long time now and it just feels so full circle to feel a sense of pride and community but also realistic awareness within film criticism before I finally enter the "real world". thank you
In my younger days I was an actor and producer of theatre. I experienced a wide array of critical response and my relationship with it varied a little depending on the context. I was part of a play that was absolutely savaged in a prominent spot in the Chicago Tribune (and we deserved it). Sometimes we were lucky to get a printed review and were in a position where even if we got lambasted it was better for the box office than if we got no review at all. I often found myself curious about the responses my fellow actors, directors, and producers had to the reviews. It's not fun to be on the receiving end of harsh criticism, but if you want to pretend that a critic knows nothing when they say bad things about your show, then you're going to have to admit that they know nothing when they praise your next show.
Mostly I was of the opinion that the perspective of a stranger who came and saw a show on one specific night was almost completely out of my control and kind of none of my business. Making a piece of theatre is a challenging job and if I let a review change in a few moments what I had been working on for weeks or even months then I had no business doing the work to begin with. Push forward, continue doing your best work in your current circumstance, and don't let someone who's not involved in the work intrude on it. Publicly pushing back against a critic always seemed foolish to me. You clearly have a vested interest in the project in question, so of course you think it's wonderful. If you can't bonce back quickly from criticism then maybe you just shouldn't read it, because that can get in the way of you doing your actual job.
Today, we feast! So happy to see a new video on the channel 👏🏽
Love this video! But just a little correction, The Auteur theroy wasn't invented by Andrew Sarris but François Truffaut. Sarris ''adapted'' and introduced the theory in the US and coined the English term.
I miss reading film criticism - newspapers & mags. However, I stopped letting them decide if I would watch a movie in the cinema (Village Voice review of The Aviator by Scorsese). It's fun to compare what you feel, like & appreciate in a film with critical responses - many forget this or frankly don't/can't indulge in it. And I love a long in-depth written review/retrospective or vid-essay. A good, great, enticing, voice with intelligent content, humor and passion is a wonderful thing. Broey should be one of the voices of the people 🌼🍸
I was not expecting to see the Berghain queue in a Broey Deschanel video on film criticism.
The “film critic” is dying because we decided that social media makes everyone’s random opinions equally valid while making any authoritative commentary trivial. Just look at Letterboxd and see how many popular “reviews” are one-line jokes or shallow emotional responses, with no critical analysis at all. Just as social media has destroyed trust in journalism, science, and policy-making, it has dulled interest in insightful and experienced film analysis.
The good news is that “criticism” as a scholarly practice is very much alive, and most people who have gone to college will learn this practice to some degree. The general public is not that interested in it, but there are still some good forums and websites around. So in the sense of being an esteemed cultural (and marketable) force like in the heyday of Siskel and Ebert, yeah, film criticism is dead. But we also still do it, so it’s also not.
Michael Eisner is partly responsible for this. When he was at ABC, Paramount, and especially at Disney since that’s what he’ll be remembered for no matter what else he does with the rest of his life, he was the primary proponent of the mentality that everything had to have a sitcom style one-liner attached to it. There is a reason that kind of humor works in sitcoms: they are only 30 minutes long. Even when sitcoms try to expand into movies (hello, *Facts of Life;* you too, *Family Ties,* and especially you, *The Simpsons* ), they feel like multiple episodes stitched together to justify calling it a movie. As a result, the plots feel padded, and the same number of jokes are still there, but over a longer period of time. There is a time and place for it, but it becomes tiresome, generic, and a cop-out when it is used for everything. Disney before Eisner got there also had a similar problem of ending too many movies with car chases involving organized crime.
Another way marvel ruined everything
I have always enjoyed reading film criticism and reviews, even when I don't agree with them. I remember reading the famous or infamous review of 'The taste of cherry' by Roger Ebert; he panned it hard. Even though it is one of my all time favourite film, I found the review pretty enlightening.
I think this video raises a lot of great points. I find myself, however, completely disagreeing with those most of those points. I think all of my issues with the contents of this piece are this - the passion isn't gone, for every Pauline Kael there are 100 nameless critics who don't understand the soul of film or critique. This is still the case for more easily enterable spaces of discussion. I actually think the passion is more apparent in some cases. I can count the times a print critique has moved me to tears on one hand, Tim Rogers has managed to do this in just about every review or essay he has published. It's all about finding the right people, just as it always has been. I think Saffron Maeve is an incredibly important critical voice at the moment, but how she discusses current trends in media analysis comes across as entirely elitist and out of touch and I feel her perspective will only suffer from this narrow-minded approach to what voices matter.
Fascinating works as usual. It occurred to me watching this that film criticism and media criticism in general might be an excellent avenue for community engaged journalism. Critics can only be as smart as the school's, culture, and broader population around them allow them to be. This makes every critic have a vested interest in bringing everyone along with them. Social media has been the main avenue for this, but I don't think that avenue plays to a film critic's strengths. Academia, public education, local radio etc are where critics can help nurture the audience they need to survive.
“nobody’s reading criticism anymore” because nobody’s reading anymore. it’s just plain anti-intellectualism it’s not anything unique to film criticism
They were honest? About what? Ebert despised _Blue Velvet_ because of some drama he made up in his mind regarding Isabella Rossellini's role, which Rossellini herself felt entirely different about, giving the movie 1 star.
He had an odd thing against Bruce Willis, not only trashing _Mercury Rising_ due to supposed plot holes that the movie directly addressed (if he had actually watched it), but also gave e.g. both M. Night's _Unbreakable_ and _Sixth Sense_ 3 stars -- the same rating he gave _The Happening._
He gave _Swing Kids_ 1 star because he wanted teens during the rise of the third reich to be outspoken rebels against the party, and not what every teen is during every sociopolitical upheavel: confused and looking for fun escapism.
He also gave 1 stars to movies that made him unconfortable due to not having a particular message like the _Texas Chainsaw Massacre,_ which is such a BS argument in order to dismiss the horror movies that made his stomach churn.
He was honest in saying that his experience was terrible. If he stated how awesome the film was, while being miserable in the viewing, he would be dishonest. Ebert was writing as a newspaper writer reporting on what he felt and believe while watching the film, and inform whether the audience should find enjoyable. It is not his job, to set a standard for film, as the newer critics believed his role to be.
I disagreed with his reviews at least 60% of the time, and 90% in his later years. But he had his code of ethics. That's more important.
The quote from Nick James from 2012, about how critics should tear down the ordinary and present the more stimulating films is interesting. He is saying that critics should try to wield some influence. Certainly it seems that there is less criticism, blogging etc., that is evangelical for art house cinema nowadays than there was ten and twenty years ago. In fact, it's hard to imagine an art cine-vangelist publication, i.e. not just a blog or letterboxd profile, with any kind of readership today. Cinemascope is pretty much an academic publication, and unfortunately I find the very personal, uniquely slanted approach to talking about a film that appears in other publications named in the video, like Reverse Shot and Mubi Notebook, rarely enlightening. Film Comment used to have a section which was called Film of the Week (or something) which was a review by Michael Sragow, but the tone of this more basic reviewing clashed somewhat with the more narrow, specialist focus of the rest of the magazine, and this section no longer exists. But it's the weekly reviewers, who want to do it as a job for life, who build an audience. Nowadays, Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian is one of the best critics, simply because he's reliably there reviewing everything.
I really really thought this video would win me over, but it has this "powerful elite critics need to maintain their power or the culture will die" conservative bend to it that seems antithetical to both film and its criticism. Critics ARE often too negative towards movies for entirely personal taste reasons that only serve, as Saffron said, to "express disdain." And if you express disdain for something that someone likes, they aren't going to just deferentially give you power to control the narrative that Barbie deserves to be gawked at or the Avengers is uncinematic filth.
Weaponizing of the word “conservative“ and distorting its meaning to turn it into a slur is not the flex you think it is. Some things should be conserved.
@@Attmay Do you know what a slur is? Conservative is an adjective.
Just speaking to the democratization: I think a big element at play here is what you pointed out about the gatekeeping that exists in film criticism right now; it's so saturated with older white men. When I read the title of the video, the first thing I thought about was that critic's review of Turning Red wherein he admitted to his own perspective limitations and the internet got (rightfully) annoyed at him for his inability to see himself in the story the way POC have had to imagine themselves in the stories of white protagonists forever. I agree with your positing that traditional film criticism needs to expand, but not just in terms of age, but all forms of perspective.
'Rightfully annoyed' You mean harassing someone for mild disagreements? Isn't that a point that was talked about in this video?
@@teamblue2431 no, I meant what I said. I didn't know about anybody harassing him and it's not what I was talking about here. this comment is about folks discussing their frustrations with the limited perspectives that have mainstream platforms. hope this helps!
This is a really interesting video and I do agree with it it for the most part, but I also think this anxiety that young people are learning film appreciation in a superficial snarky way through TikTok is probably not as portentous of the end of good film criticism as some people seem to fear? If these are kids or young adults just starting to engage with film then like, yeah for some it might be a passing fad and their criticism is never going to go further than that, but if they're truly developing a passion for cinema then they're probably going to mature out of the superficiality as they watch more and read more widely and learn more and just live more. They're young and inexperienced, and experience will hopefully make them better critics. I know when I was a teenager I was far worse than I am now at meaningfully dissecting and discussing texts, but a decade on and I've gained new perspectives and ideas around criticism and engagement with art, and they probably will too. And I know the video pins a lot of it on the limitations of online platforms and general internet culture as well but let's all just chill out about the youths for once lol
I'm sad when how I think how CinemaSins has done to people watching and giving criticism to movies
in case anyone's missed out, one of my favourite film critics for the last decade now has been film critic hulk (especially the older essays)
I remember how a lot of professionals were laid off because Facebook said that videos were better than print and it turned out they were lying?
It’s the same with every creative medium. So many people want something for nothing and every artist in every medium is expected to work for peanuts for the supposed love of the craft. Peanuts don’t pay the rent. My landlady is not an elephant.
Hi Broey, love your analysis into topics that affect film on a regular basis, I agree with the sentiment of corporatism and public opinion influencing a shift in the perception of film criticism. I will say I think the wording in this video can be a bit too suggestive sometimes. The elitism is really one thing that usually turns me off to traditional film criticism and onto videos like yours or folding ideas, princess weekes,etc. You guys share your honest and heartfelt opinions on these films in the most accessible way possible. The generation of today are discovering themselves, and I think as someone growing up in an increasingly regressive world, it does feel harsh to be told why something you love may not be as good as you think, without the language and diction to understand why. I personally think the elitism should’ve been covered longer I feel that’s one of the biggest contributors to being disliked. I fear using the language of “teenagers” and focusing TikTok influencers may lead to a different discussion. One where “THE YOUTH” is the problem and film critics are the last bastions against the “uncultured” youth of today. If we view them under this light, no one wil ever pay enough attention to young cinephiles based on the fact that kids just want TikTok and twitter. It’s a problem, but one that I think needs to be more addressed from the critics side in my opinion. One thing that immediately turned me off to Roger Ebert was his opinion on video games as an art form. While they aren’t cinema, I do believe they have the power to tell subversive, creative, and unique stories you can’t find in any medium. And seeing his critique didn’t feel like a disagreement. It felt like a denouncement. He didn’t dislike one game or two or multiple, it was the whole medium he didn’t respect. And that sucks. To hear a famous critic denounce a WHOLE MEDIUM feels monumental. Add on to the fact his worship has only increased in death and his opinion is still something that persists that makes. Video game critics to this day quote him and I just get a sour taste that someone so revered in one artistic space would tear another space down. Without giving it the chance to thrive and evolve. I love film criticism, but arrogance and lack of a cultural perspective puts me at odd sometimes. Because it’s hard to watch a fun, trashy black comedy, and not feel like the critic who loathes it lacks the nuances to even articulate why they hate it. I’d rather have someone disagree with me on a film who has the cultural knowledge than someone who doesn’t. I understand their motives, i just think more effort should be done to engage with the public more directly and I honestly think people would understand. I immediately vibe with a negative review when I know the person who’s making it understands the language of what they’re engaging in. And while film critics basically made the language of film criticism, it’s never a dull moment to widen your sensibilities. Show why you disliked something with the respect of the culture that it resides in i.e. horror movies, video games, romantic comedies, etc. I don’t think exacerbating the distance between film critics and the public won’t help ultimately. As much as it may be hard to hear, engage with those mediums that you feel conflicted about. Just like how the public should deepen their horizons and indulge in more niche genres, we should indulge in these new spaces (ones not being primarily used for profit and marketing and build them up. If we can congregate and pull casuals towards these places, then maybe we CAN widen the film language of the public in a meaningful way. I even see room for discussion between casuals and film critics about the state of the movie industry and critics can discuss with people aren’t educated about the bigger pieces in play that negate fim criticism like corporations, companies monopolizing and galvanizing smaller companies to become big “content” machines. Overall, your video is amazing. Personally I just feel these would help to highlight some of these issues in the video to greater detail. Please feel free to disagree 👍🏾
All I know is I am open to all forms of "constructive" criticism. But if I see the word "WOKE" in the thumbnail image of a UA-cam video review, then that lets me know what your objective is all about.
I hate leaving comments like this, but this is an amazing video! I hope this bangs in the algorithm.
This video reminds me a lot of “Milton Babbit’s Who cares if you listen?” In my opinion, people in nicher parts of an artform tend to overstate their importance in the overall space. The implication that moving towards audio/visual over written criticism will tarnish its poetic stylings seems really hyperbolic and a weird point to wrap up on.
I agree. I think there's much to be said about the general move towards audio/visual media, especially in the realm of criticism, but they offer a different set of tools for articulating one's ideas. Would like to dig into what Saffron means by 'poetic' in this case.
"The implication that moving towards audio/visual over written criticism will tarnish its poetic stylings seems really hyperbolic and a weird point to wrap up on."
You bring up an excellent point. Sure- clickbait-ey, low-effort video essays and reviews are a dime a dozen on the internet; but one also does not have to look all too hard to find legitimately well-thought-out, clearly structured and engaging criticism. Sure, the means of distribution may be different; but a critic will go to the platform that they feel most suits them, where the cultural zeitgeist is, and where they think they can find a potential audience; and right now that's the new media, not The New York Times. A film reviewer is no more-or-less valid as a critic just because they choose to publish their work online rather than in print.
I’ll always appreciate your defense of discourse
They lost trust . Everyone has an easier time letting you know a movie was bad when you think it might have just been you and the critic seeing differently . Critics praising Rings Of Power as some milestone of story telling when 75% of people hated it so much that they didn't bother finishing it. Many other shows or movies are the same. Critic and audience scores are almost never close.Idk if critics are bribed with access or just cash but they are lying for one reason or another and everyone sees it much easier now
If the superhero-type massive products are meant to be critic-proof, then perhaps that's why the focus among the populists has shifted to culture wars. Anyway, wanted to opine that one of the worst things a critic can do is rate a film from 1-10 - even worse than that if they also claim that 10/10 would be a film made by God.
thanks for the fundraiser I knew I could trust u broey