Is movie criticism in the gutter? It seems the King of Gondor thinks so.
Viggo Mortensen spoke with Vanity Fair. They asked him “How closely do you pay attention to things like reviews and media coverage?”
His response: More and more these days, what passes for critical thinking in terms of reviews is pretty poor. In terms of the reviewer having some understanding of film history, how movies are made—the level is really low. There are some good reviewers—some really interesting conversations are had from journalists in terms of their reactions to films—but it’s not great. As a director, certainly as a director-producer, I pay attention. It matters to me more, a lot more than as an actor because the fate of the movie, whether it’s going to be distributed well, whether it’s going to be seen in movie theaters—a lot hangs in the balance as to how it’s received critically.
This is a pretty fascinating conversation for me. I became a film critic because I disliked so many reviews. I’d go further than Mortensen and say the issue isn’t just with critics but with “review” being the predominant form of film criticism.
Why?
Because a review essentially boils down to “I liked the movie” or “I didn’t like the movie”. Anyone can do that. A movie is, ultimately, literature interpreted by actors and crew through the medium of cinema. Ideally, a film critic has some background in, understanding of, or can speak to literary, thespian, production, and/or cinematic technique. Some expertise or perspective that makes their judgment relevant enough to elevate above the opinion of others. Because it’s one thing for a non-professional to write a review on Letterboxd or RateYourMusic or r/Movies. That’s valid and fair. But for a professional? Someone who is paid to do this for a living and has that evaluation promulgated by a respected publication? You would hope their qualifications amount to more than simply “I’m a journalist who likes movies so got this position at this company.”
Do they know basic things like the difference between a pan and tilt? Can they explain what separates a hero from an anti-hero from a villain? Personally, I know nothing about acting, to the point of not even being able to think of an acting-centric example that fits with the previous examples, so I try not to critically, in a professional capacity, evaluate anyone’s acting.
I hope that, in the years to come, we move away from film criticism dominated by plot summary followed by a pithy verdict. And more towards giving the title of “critic” to those with thoughtful, dynamic, experienced views on filmmaking and its myriad aspects, from page to screen. Maybe one day.
