In the good old days, you used to run out to get your newspaper to read about the upcoming films in theaters. Normally, you’d go to your local film critic’s article and read it from beginning to end, where that person would discuss the film and give you an educated opinion. Nowadays, you go to YouTube and listen to talking heads, normally barely out of high school, spewing their “hot takes” at the camera, complete with silly computer effects. Legendary film critic Leonard Maltin has taken notice of this, and is sad with the current state of film criticism.
Speaking to Screen Daily, Maltin says, “There’s no shortage of good and intelligent film critics. There’s a lack of interest and there’s a dilution of criticism in general because of the internet and social media.”
While some modern film critics may look at this and scoff, the truth is he is absolutely right. It’s hard for people like Leonard Maltin to stand out in the crowded online film world when he’s outnumbered by tons of amateur critics. “On one hand one has to applaud the democratization of communication. There are no gatekeepers, so everyone can… write as they please. But the flip side of the coin is there are no standards being upheld, that’s risky, that’s dangerous,” he continued.
So, if modern film critics aren’t a great representation of what film criticism used to be, then what’s missing? Maltin answers that by saying, “When people ask me what qualities critics should have I have a stock answer, it should be equal parts passion and knowledge, and the knowledge comes from experience. If you’ve never seen silent films, or foreign language films, if your education with film begins with ‘Star Wars’ then you’re handicapped.”
There used to be a true art to film criticism, but now it seems as if everyone only cares about a Rotten Tomatoes score to determine the worth of a film. Instead of reading Leonard Maltin, or someone along the lines of the late, great Roger Ebert, we watch people in front of a camera only loving or hating films, instead of providing nuanced discussion.
Thoughts? Hit up the comments section below and let us know.
You put Maltin’s “no gatekeepers” blurb in the article twice. Maybe this is what Martin is talking about
He has a point.
However, I’d argue that each consumer needs to find critics who suit his/her needs in film. If you are the dumb action movie consumer, your go to critics will probably be the same.
If you love artistic cinema and enjoy movies on multiple levels, read critics who understand the cinematic language and film history.
First a few caveats, I don’t go to the theater for every movie that I’m interested in seeing. I don’t have the time or the desire. I use streaming services like amazon prime, and netflix a lot both of which I’ve had long before they became more famous for their streaming services and original programing. I also buy a lot of physical media, usually used or on sale in lieu of going to the theaater. There are a lot of movies I’m going to go see regardless of whatever critics say like say Spider-Man Homecoming. Having said all that I try to seek out various reviews of a movie before I decide to watch it.
There’s nothing wrong with your film education beginning with Star Wars, so long as it doesn’t end there.
Absolutely right. However, even most of the “professional” critics simply don’t have the knowledge that Martin cites as necessary. Much of the time, there’s a passing acknowledgement of a philosophical or political or religious theme in the film, but it’s as if the critic thinks that just acknowledging that theme passes for engagement. It doesn’t. So many of them don’t have the philosophical or religious knowledge to deal with the big questions that important films raise, and so can’t say anything beyond the banal, when they even deign to acknowledge the presence of those questions. Many also tend to get stuck in viewing everything through a political filter, and if that filter isn’t relevant, they’re lost – take, for example, the reviews of Scorsese’s Silence that only talked about colonialism, and had no idea what to do with the theology. It does no good when they have so little knowledge of the canon.
I don’t know how somebody can call him/herself a competent critic without having read Matthew Arnold or T.S. Eliot on criticism, but I get the sense that so many critics think that their job involves reporting on rumours or providing a plot summary instead of that engagement.
The other major problem it that too many critics are more interested in looking smart (by being snarky) than in being smart. Giving a sarcastic dismissal doesn’t make them look like they have such great taste when that fundamental knowledge is missing.
If found that films that split critics and audiences are usually the most interesting ones and are more likely to stick around. He’s right about silent and foreign movies, to watch them is to love them,you cannot appreciate film completely without that scope. The thing is though,genre films are the ones that really last,above any other kind,Casablanca,Citizen Kane and Gone With The Wind may indeed be great films,but do not inspire lifelong passion the same way The Bride of Frankenstein,Metropolis or even The Wizard of Oz do. Like it or not,Sci Fi,Horror and Fantasy create more long lasting fans than anything else.