Variety's Peter Bart Blasts Movie Critics For Stating Their Opinions
Filed under: Action, Comedy, Box Office, Comic/Superhero/Geek
The divide between critics and audiences has been growing stronger and stronger. This very site has done several reports of late about how studios and directors think critics are snooty, snobby, and out of touch with what the public wants. It seems more and more movies are not even being shown to critics prior to release. That practice used to be reserved solely for the worst of the worst, but now big-budget movies with big stars aren't being submitted for review. In light of recent evidence, critics' opinions don't really seem to have any effect on business at all. These past few months have made for some shocking revelations come Monday morning box office report time, with such critically panned movies as 300, Norbit, Ghost Rider, and Wild Hogs all doing huge business.
Now Peter Bart at Variety has chimed in with a new article on the subject. He says that critics "may be shopping around for a new line of work," and states that they "should consider a sabbatical until September, when movies aimed at their quadrant magically reappear." Huh? Bart suggests, "if the established media wants to stay relevant, should their critics make a passing attempt to tune in to pop culture?" Well, what does that mean exactly? Does that mean hiring a quote whore to just write about how he or she adores every steaming pile that comes down the chute? Why should critics' tastes have to sync up with what makes money? To me, reading a great film review is like having a conversation after the movie. It's a kick to read an in-depth analysis of something I just saw, whether the reviewer agrees with me or not.
This whole debate has gotten out of hand. Audience poller Cinemascore reports that all four of the aforementioned movies were not just successful financially, but at least reasonably enjoyed by audiences. Is anyone who laughs at Wild Hogs an uneducated hillbilly idiot? Of course not. Does Norbit's success mean that all critics are dumb and should quit their jobs because they personally didn't like it? No way. The old "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" rule doesn't, shouldn't, and can't apply to film criticism.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-17-2007 @ 1:44PM
Brody said...
300 isn't considered critically panned.
Reply
3-17-2007 @ 2:06PM
Patrick Walsh said...
Bart's article focuses on critical pans of "300."
Reply
3-18-2007 @ 12:26PM
Gilbert Davis said...
To me the key word here is entertainment. Entertainment is why most folks go the movies, not to be educated about this good cause or that good cause or to be swayed to the political or personal beliefs of the critic. Movies can be powerful and yes indeed the political movie critics compared the movie 300 to the work of Leni Riefenstahl and Nazi propaganda or saw some sort of plot comparing the characters and story to some sort of George Bush in Iraq allegory. I just shake my head. On this site I remember Mel Gibson's Apocalpto movie being eviscerated with the focus on Mel Gibson's racist meltdown rather than the qualities of the movie being reviewed. Okay, you hate Mel Gibson, I get that, what about the movie? Those critcs wrote polemics, not movie reviews. Just a couple of examples of the endless trend I've seen.
Those critics with inflated views of their own self worth and who write reviews that sound like they could have been translated Communist Chinese political screeds from the Cultural Revolution do need to find some other line of work. It's not entertaining and it's not movie reviews. Those critics who, regardless of the denials by Patrick Walsh, do call those who disagree with their 'educated' opinions - idiots, hillbillies, boobs, noobs, hicks and my favorite - unwashed masses, also need to find some other line of work.
Write something that is entertaining, write something that doesn't insult people who don't agree with your opinion, write something clever and tell me something about the movie so I can factor your writing into the decision of whether or not to go see the movie. Simple.
Reply
3-18-2007 @ 1:30PM
Bomma said...
Nicely said, as soon as I see the critics start interjecting the personal political views into the review and get off the movie I turn the page.
Reply
3-19-2007 @ 1:33AM
David said...
Maybe it's just me but I thought critics were paid because their opinion of a movie helped the public decide if it was worth seeing or skipping or waiting for dvd. If critics pan movies that the general public wants to see then are they doing their job? Is the job of a critic merely to state their opinion or to provide a useful service to the public, I don't know kinda like most other people's jobs.
I agree that critics don't need to quit their jobs but I think it's obvious we need more voices in the field to provide a more balanced view. Their are a lot of people out there who enjoyed Norbit who obviously don't have a critic they can look to who shares their taste in comedies.
How do you become a critic anyway?
Reply
3-19-2007 @ 10:59AM
elessar said...
I believe that to become a professional movie critic, one needs some background in journalism (or at least that's the case w/ better-known critics like Roger Ebert).
I think this whole debate is not only silly, but lacking in perspective. Soon enough, there'll be movies that both critics and audiences will enjoy (Spiderman 3, given the quality of its predecessors, stands a good chance of doing this), and disputes like this will be forgotten--especially late in the year when studios beg for good reviews in hopes of snagging some awards. Most likely, it's just that time of year, when opinions appear to diverge between critics and audiences only to coincide later in the year. I, for one, applaud critics for slamming the movies they have: it's saved me more than a few hours of my life that could have been wasted on movies not even worth $1, let alone $7 for a ticket.
Reply
3-19-2007 @ 4:56PM
JJ said...
There should be room for all types of movies. With that said, I'm not sure why movies like ‘Wild Hogs’ do so well. I have a hunch that some of the audience is made up of people like me: An almost 30-year-old American male who wants to shut his brain off for a while.
I listen to NPR and WABC, I read all the papers from the NY Post to the NY Times, and I've watched it all, from Lou Dobbs to Jon Stewart (oh wait he's not a real broadcast journalist he’s a comedian who makes fun of the real news, blah, blah).
My wife and I went to see ‘Norbit’ the other night. I looked at my wife after the preview for ‘Shrek-3’ and said “OK, let's shut-off our brains." We shutdown and we chuckled a few times and left theater. The next morning we turned our brains back-on - Hello McLaughlin Group!
Personally, I'm looking forward to ‘300.’ It looks like an underdog story with good guys and bad guys - lots of blood and guts, and I bet the good guys win. AWESOME.
OK, got to get back to working for ‘the man.’
Reply
3-20-2007 @ 5:09PM
Matt said...
Peter Bart is really dense. He seems to think that there is a correlation between the quality of a movie and how many millions [or billions] it makes at the box office. He cites a fact that there were no positive reviews for Ghost Rider yet it made gobs of money. Huh? He can't see that marketing a movie and putting it in every theatre from LA to NY makes instant viewers. That doesn't mean that these viewers liked the film. It meant that they bought the marketing.
I notice an odd comment here about critics and chinese communism or some such silliness.
A critic is paid for his or her opinion. They are not paid to tell you what you want to hear or to be the right hand of aHollywood marketing department. [Although some fit the bill]. Critics also serve a function of turning viewers onto movies [sometimes older or foreign movies] that you may not already see.
Reply