So yesterday my hero Hugh Laurie besmirched my entire
profession, how was your day? :(
Obviously now I’m feeling a little defensive.
So allow me to defend:
Let me start by saying, we film critics mostly use our
powers for good.
Critics have directed people to all sorts of
films—documentaries, indies, back of the rack stuff— that otherwise might go
unwatched or unnoticed.
And while I can’t substantiate this with data, I feel quite
strongly that negative reviews rarely deter a viewer (I wish!), but a passionately
argued, rave review can encourage someone to see a film they might otherwise
not see.
Okay, now let’s get to the meat of his gripe: The fact that
film critics generally only see a film once (or at least have usually only seen
the film once before they post their review.)
I mean, that’s just logistics, right? It’s kind of the
nature of the art/commerce intersection that film has always awkwardly rested
on. A certain number of films are released on Friday, we watch them, we write
reviews on deadline. It’s a living.
But here’s a non-logistical argument: Reviewing a film after
seeing it just once is perfectly acceptable, because that’s how people watch
films.
Yes, the film may have untold layers, a depth of meaning or
purpose that only gradually reveals itself after multiple viewings, but on some
basic level, it just has to work that first time around. With film, the
initial impression is meaningful, because it’s the only impression most people
will get.
(Same was true of Shakespeare, too, back in his day.)
That being said, some films, even great ones, really only do need to be
watched once. They’re not trying to be anything but good, old-fashioned whiz-bang entertainment.
They are meant to be digested, enjoyed, and tossed away with that empty bucket of popcorn, not painstakingly poured
over and analyzed.
Have I been wrong about a film? Sure. Plenty of times. But I
like to think that if a film is ambitious, I acknowledge that in my review,
even if I didn't like the end result. I try not be dismissive. A lot of times an impassioned pan can actually encourage someone to watch a film.
They might say, “Wow. That sounds horrible . . . in an intriguing way” or even
“Max sure hated that film but it sounds right up my alley.” (Critics don’t
mind when that happens; we actually encourage that kind of reader/critic
engagement.)
And yes, great filmmakers (like Scorsese) deserve the
benefit of the doubt. We give them that, but not to the point of being
sycophants. Even great filmmakers make the occasional dud of a film. (See Coppola’s Jack, Levinson’s Toys, Spielberg’s The Terminal, and 1/3 of the films
that Woody Allen cranks out.)
(My thoughts on Cape Fear, for what it’s worth:
Brilliantly acted and directed, but I bristle at any film where sexual violence
against women is brandished as a means to punish a male protagonist. . .But I suppose that's grist for a whole other blog post.)
And finally, Pauline Kael?!? Thems fighting words, bub. Sure she
had her peccadilloes, but she was a trailblazer. One of the first to treat
popular film as art. Her “I got it”
arrogance gave her writing energy, bravado, commitment and, yes,
weirdness. Some critics are flat out fun/edifying/inspiring to read, no matter
how wrong-headed their opinions might be. Kael was definitely one of them.
Okay, end rant.
p.s. Hugh's Twitter account is awesome. You should all go follow it.
