Movie critics become an endangered species

Chasing the buzz
McCarthy cited a troubling pattern: Many publications seem to be chasing the buzz, and thoughtful examination of the cinema doesn’t qualify.

“It’s striking that magazines such as Newsweek and Time, with a long tradition of having very, very good film reviews, have stopped for the most part unless there is a celebrity tie-in or a trend or something,” he said. “I think that’s an unfortunate turn of events.

“It’s a pandering thing, a devaluation of things cultivated over time. Why now? Part of it is the influence of People and Entertainment Weekly, who believe that only something with buzz is worth covering. Unfortunately, editors have caved in and now that’s true of a lot of newspapers, too. They should have held the line and give people what they need. Instead, they’re pandering to the lowest common denominator.”

Perhaps the decline of the traditional film critic can be traced to another source entirely. Said USC’s Jewell: “There’s a sense today that we really shouldn’t even be thinking about one type of artistic expression as being better than another.”

“As a professor,” he said, “it’s part of my responsibility to point out exceptional work as opposed to mediocre or bad work. There are a number of works that have come out in the past 10 years that are what we used to call exploitation or schlock cinema … that now gets as much attention as Ingmar Bergman.

“This is part and parcel of the whole attempt to tear down the canon, the notion of the great works, that the educated person should be knowledgeable about these works. But in academia, that stuff is out now. We’re not supposed to privilege one director or one movie over another. It’s all part of popular culture — that it has just as much value, so we should study it all.”

And perhaps that trend is affecting the survival of the movie critic. If every opinion has equal value, then why can’t I weigh in about the plight of the American farmer even if I know nothing about farming? Why shouldn’t I tell my neighbor to ignore his doctor, that in my opinion he doesn’t need gall bladder surgery?

Why should people listen to the 2,000-word opinion of a film scholar and historian with years of experience when they can find out about “Lars and the Real Girl” from a high school geek writing on an iPhone?

The proliferation of online critics has been described as a “democratization” by many who enjoy getting their movie information from various sources throughout the land. Kevin Koehler runs a site called pretentiousmusings.com, which is included in rottentomatoes.com’s roundup of critics. He has a different take entirely. He feels most movie critics have written their own obituaries because they’re just not very good. He is not a fan of most of the film critics found in traditional print publications.

“I think most movie criticism is terrible,” he said. “Most of the best criticism now is online. For instance, I really like Walter Chaw, who writes for filmfreakcentral.com. Another is James Kendrick. Now because of the Internet, a lot of movie critics feel threatened. ‘Why aren’t people listening to us?’ It has to be the audience’s fault. Nobody ever says that maybe they should write better.”

Whatever the reasons, the fact remains that a dwindling number of educated voices in any kind of criticism translates into a smaller number of educated.

MORE FROM MOVIE OPINIONS

At the movies, funny is where you find it

At the movies, funny is where you find it Will Rainn Wilson go big and go home? ‘Thunder’ mocks Hollywood racial profiling Test Pattern: Fresh faces on film ‘Dark Knight’ won’t sink ‘Titanic’ record Test Pattern: Movie future's so blight Comic-Con 2008: The empire strikes back Who, what, where, when and ‘W’ Movies that will loosen your corset Anderson, Duchovny greater than the sum of X   Add Movie opinions headlines to your news reader: