csmonitor.com - The Christian Science Monitor Online
 
(Photograph)
Fan favorite: 'Ghost Rider' is among a group of films panned by critics but popular with audiences.
Courtesy of Sony Pictures Imageworks

In defense of film critics

The Monitor's movie critic weighs in on why viewers and reviewers don't always see eye-to-eye.

Page 1 of 2

Why do we need film critics? It's a question that movie executives, publicists, and even readers often ask around this time of year, as we edge into summer, and the studios haul out their extravaganzas – the types of films often panned by reviewers.

The Wall Street Journal recently featured a shoot-out between its critic Joe Morgenstern and Variety editor Peter Bart on this very question. USA Today recently compared the boffo box office of critic-denigrated films such as "300" and "Wild Hogs" to the lackluster performance of lauded films such as "Zodiac" and concluded, "It's been a tough year for movie critics." The temperature may be rising on this debate, but it's not exactly news that movie critics and the mass audience don't always agree. Why should they? If all I did was rubber-stamp the verdict of the box office, I would indeed be unneeded.

Movie critics are held to a different standard than other critics. If a book critic were to pan a Jackie Collins novel, or a food critic were to point out that the Whopper isn't Kobe beef, they wouldn't be called "out of touch." Film critics, however, are expected to be cheerleaders.

But criticism – reasoned, informed, independent-minded criticism – is truly the only thing protecting the consumer from the seller in the movie marketplace prior to a film's release. That's why studios try to marginalize serious critics – the ones who can't be counted on to gush over every piece of product that skitters off the assembly line. The marginalization usually takes the form of withholding preview screenings until it's too late for the film to be reviewed on its opening weekend. Newspaper and magazine feature editors may discover that their access to movie stars has dried up if the house critic is too tough. Movie ads may be pulled.

The rise of the blurbmeisters, who can be relied on to provide snappy quote lines for ad copy, is in direct proportion to the marginalization of serious critics. Even critics who should know better have been getting blurby – it's how they please their bosses, elevate their own profile, and brand their outlet.

I love seeing myself quoted – accurately – in the ads for a movie I admire. But if I'm ever quoted saying something like, "Look out for 'The Lookout' at Oscar time," I'll know it's time to fade away.

Page 1 | 2 | Next Page

Get Monitor stories by e-mail:
(Your e-mail address will be protected by csmonitor.com's tough privacy policy.)

Photos Photos of the Day
The best photos from July 23, 2008.

ELECTION '08 Patchwork Nation
The American voter beyond red and blue

FISHERIES Empty Oceans Series
The sea is no longer so vast.


Daily podcast

Monitor Reports

Pat Murphy hosts today's podcast with Monitor reporters from around the world.


Today

Pat Murphy

In today's podcast, we focus on the Monitor series "Cuba: Winds of Change." Pat Murphy has a conversation with Monitor staff writer Matthew Clark.




Today's print issue
Today's Issue of The Christian Science Monitor