Anyone Else Tired of Self-Important Critics Complaining About the Death of Self-Important Criticism?
by John NolteNo one should take any pleasure when someone else loses their job (Dan Rather being the exception), not even elitist, left-wing newspaper critics. At one time or another, most of us have had the employment rug pulled out from under us. It’s a traumatic experience to say the least, one that transcends politics. We all have a monthly nut to crack and a family to support. That said…
I’ll tell you what I could do without, though: all the self-important lamenting that spreads throughout the critical community each and every time another critic loses his or her job. When Todd McCarthy was let go at Variety, if you didn’t know any better you would have thought the Pope died. And now that “At the Movies,” or whatever they were calling it this year, has been put down, we get 1600+ words from one of the show’s co-hosts, New York Times film critic A.O. Scott.
He asks himself (and us): Is criticism still important? Do critics still matter? Does anyone care? Should they care? But the fact that Scott spends 1600+ words in the New York Times asking those questions makes them all but rhetorical. Oddly, most of the blame seems to be directed at the Internet as though it’s impossible for writers to find success and a living online.
However, almost by accident, Scott does manage to offer up a near-insight:
I don’t go back into the archive of Siskel and Ebert’s reviews to find out how they voted, or for consumer advice, but rather to hear the two of them argue.
As someone who is fortunate enough to get paid to both watch and review films, the simple truth that no one cares (or should care) what I think about a particular film has always been my guide. Why should anyone care what I think? There’s no right or wrong when it comes to taste. What makes my opinion more important than the Walmart cashier or the barber just looking for a little cinematic escape on payday?
Nothing.
Does the fact that I’ve watched more films than the average American, that I’ve read more about film history, give me some sort of special standing as a decider in the what-is-and-is-not-worth-ten-bucks department?
No.
As a matter of fact, it gives me less standing because this passion and profession of mine sets me apart from the workaday folks who not only keep the world turning but make up a vast majority of the movie-going public. It’s just true that for every year that passes where I’m fortunate enough to make this living, it means that I have even less in common with those who don’t. I’m thrilled to get paid for this, but when it comes to film recommendations my parents are much more qualified. My mother’s a school teacher and for fifty years my father’s kept your cars on the road and various nursing homes up to code. Not only do their professions matter more than mine, so do their thumbs up or down.
And that’s what A.O. Scott and his brethren don’t understand. It’s not about the “criticism,” it’s about the person writing it. In the good old days, before he declared war on me and mine and exposed himself as an elitist jerk, the position of Roger Ebert’s thumb still meant nothing. In all the years I followed him, never once did I make a personal ticket-buying decision based on his or any critic’s recommendation. What I did love about Siskel and Ebert was watching two interesting guys talk movies.
Then Siskel died and Ebert turned ugly towards 70% of his audience, and maybe, just maybe this is where the dying critical community needs to take a closer look at themselves. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but very few of us ever cared about your opinions. What we used to care about was you. We liked your style. We enjoyed reading what you had to say, even if we disagreed or had no intention of following your advice.
A critically reviled film making a ton of money is not a new phenomenon. What has changed over the last couples decades, however, are the critics. Not all, but too many have lost complete touch with their audience. The same political and cultural bias, the same snobbery and elitism killing the MSM is what’s killing the critical community. Word of friendly advice: when you have more respect for Roman Polanski than your readers, maybe it’s time to take a step back.
And the bottom line is that this horribly unattractive entitled mentality manifesting itself in an ongoing, years-long Critical Class obituary is only one more symptom of the self-important bloat that’s the real disease.
Maybe a stepladder should come with the pink slip in order to help these people get over themselves.
But the movie gods always have the last laugh…
It just so happens that on the very same day A.O. Scott spent 1600+ plus words completely missing the point on why his profession is dying, Hank Stuever in the Washington Post delivers the answer with this viciously smug review of last night’s Fox News special hosted by Sarah Palin: [emphasis mine]
The debut on the Fox News Channel of Sarah Palin’s “Real American Stories” Thursday night turned out to be like one of those shows that’s on when nothing’s on and yet there is air to fill — like infotainment you sometimes see on empty channels in hotel rooms, or the stuff that’s playing on the little TV screen at the gas pump nearest the rental-car center. What are we watching exactly? (A commercial? News?)
I dunno, but hush: The mother of the dead Marine is talking about the day a naval destroyer was named after her son. The millionaire is about to give away millions to send underprivileged minority kids to college for free. The loyal service dog is going to help the sweet little boy walk again. A woman is about the save a man from a burning tanker truck. Toby Keith is singing about patriotic veterans. Flags are billowing. A piano is playing.
Forgive me for being crass on Good Friday, but fuck him.
Wrapping the words “mother of” and ”dead Marine” around snide snark makes you about as low a form of life as this planet has to offer. If I were Hank Steuver’s mother I’d be asking God for a refund right now.
But even if you remove that part, you’re still left with a sneering attack — in a major national newspaper, mind you – on those things most of us hold dear. So…
It isn’t that criticism is dead, it’s that we no longer like most of the people writing it.
Why?
Because they don’t like us.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
139 Comments
2 thumbs up.
Is criticism still important? Do critics still matter? Does anyone care? Should they care?
The answers are:
Sometimes
No
No
Some do
No more so than when anyone else loses their job.
"Because they don’t like us."
That's OK.. I like them even less. Hence your point of course.
Forgive me for being crass on Good Friday, but f**k him
This is the difference between a critic and normal people.
Loathe the politics and personal behavior of most Hollywood-Americans but man some of them sure are good at what they do. As Mr. Moriarty so aptly said, "I Have Met Many Great Artists But Very Few Great Men"
For example, I enjoy watching Alec Baldwin work but I can separate that from his political / social views.
There are some other actors or actresses that I would just watch if they were reading out or the phone book, even though I know they are loathsome human beings.
Apparently critics can't.
Absolutely, positively spot-on. Ebert has been irrelevant for the better part of the last 10-12 years. But I disagree with you on one item – if Ebert says he likes it then there's a very high likelihood I will not see it because he likes crap. So he still has some impact on my thinking.
Here's my amateur psychologist analysis: Ebert writes reviews in order to keep a vehicle to bash traditionalists and political conservatives. He thinks he is a libertarian lefty, but his arguments are establishment statist with a twist of Libertine culture bias.
Well, of course they will interpret your closing statement as proof of a closed mind, fearful of dissent.
However, most folks welcome a good argument of the facts amongst people of good will. And there's the real problem: the paternalistic attitude and ill will displayed toward. . . everyone else. Do they think they're hiding it well, or do they just not really even see it?
Trouble is, John… the solid majority of those "workaday folks" DON'T read criticism – don't read hardly anything outside of the Us Weekly by the toilet, really – for pleasure, they DO read them as "what should I go see" consumer guides. You can spin that as "well, the hard workin' folks don't have TIME for such things, 'specially under Obamacare!", but it means the same thing. Not for nothing was the tagline "Thums up!" as opposed to "Siskel & Ebert had a really compelling back-and-forth about it!"
Did the critics get too "snooty" for the audience, or is it the audiences that got dumber? Y'know who might know the answer to that? Michael Bay. Tyler Perry.
I mean, good lord man… you just admitted you enjoyed watching two people discuss something that wasn't NFL statistics! Don't you realize that to the "average" American that practically makes you FRENCH??
Here's how John Nolte would have rewritten it if a libtard had his way:
The loyal service dog is going to help the sweet little boy walk again. A woman is about
to save a man from a burning tanker truck. Toby Keith is singing about patriotic veterans.
Flags are billowing. A piano is playing. Slaves are working in the field. Smell of chicken
and the taste of watermelon on a hot August afternoon. The by gone days of the Republican
Party!
Obama must go or we'll get more of the above!
Ok, this qualifies for the Billy Madison quote:
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul!
"Slaves are working in the field. Smell of chicken
and the taste of watermelon on a hot August afternoon"
And then libtards wonder why normal people hate them!
Boffo!
I never forget what one of my film school professor's referred to what Siskel and Ebert provide: consumer advice. What A.O. Scott does is not criticism (and we have Pauline Kael to thank for all of this), it is a discussion about a movie among like minded individuals. I'll take a look at certain critics just to get feedback on whether a movie has any particular bias (Michael Medved is good for this) and whether I'll want to see it. The only use contemporary criticism provides is historical context. It is a record of what occurred not critical analysis.
http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/keith-toby/the...
He gets up real early on his mornin drive.
Down to the office for his 9 to 5.
He drives a 94, 2 ton, economy car.
Loves to tell the local bands down at the bar that he's The Critic.
Yea, I can hook you up, I know everybody, in the business.
He flunked junior high band he couldn't march in time.
He tried to write a song once, he couldn't make it rhyme.
He went two or three chords on a pawn shop guitar,
He just never quite had what it took to be a star, so he's a critic.
I work for the Gazette man…I got a real job.
He did a 5-star column on a band he never heard.
He did a bluegrass review about an unkind word.
He thought it was time to ask his boss for a raise,
His boss said I can't even tell if anybody's even readin your page.
Yea…
So he thought…and he thought a little more.
He caught a young hot star headin into town,
And then he hid behind his typewriter and gunned the boy down.
Here come the letters, the e-mails, the faxes,
They raised him to 20,000 dollars after taxes.
He's a happy critic…
He's rollin in the dough…
Hank,
Next time you reply it may help to have read the article first. I was using satire to point out how liberals view republicans.
I don't think I would call it paternalistic, because to me that infers some sort of adult-child relationship, as in family.
This is just every day 'I'm cool and if you don't agree with me you're not so take that.' kind of attitude.
But otherwise, agreed.
On the contrary, most of the work-a-day folks I know are avid readers. Just a couple of years ago I learned Atlas Shrugged is both my two sisters favorite novel, even through they knew nothing about the politics of Ayn Rand.
My parents are ferocious readers. My wife, not so much, but reading isn't for everyone. Still working on my daughter.
And i have a Civil War library (inherited from my grandfather) that fills and entire book case.
I can also separate the artist from his politics, but not from his lies. Baldwin said on one of the late night shows during Clinton's impeachment that we should go to Henry Hyde's house and kill him, his wife and kids. Millions of people heard him, yet he's still out there flapping his gums. He's no longer welcome in front my eyes or ears. Beyond the pale. You betcha! Hanks is also out, not because he's a lefty, but because he told lies about the history of our country; Gregory Peck told lies in commercials about Bork. Lots more of them told lies about Bush, Cheney, etc.
To ignore that is to let them know, we care more about being amused than we do about ourselves and our country.
Odd isn't it that their faith in their lefty philosophy is so tenuous, they have to tell lies about us to make their point.
Criticism, who needs it???/ sarc…
Dang, I missed Sarah Palin's show? That lineup sounded way more interesting than anything that's shown up on 60 Minutes, Dateline, or any other network news magazine in the last 10 years!
Anecdote on criticism: Years ago, when Broadway-bound shows previewed in New Haven, my folks would go with another couple to see what might be the next big hit. The two couples would come out to the lobby at intermission and my mom and her friend would dissect what was wrong with the performances, the music, the costumes, whatever. My dad would look at the other fellow and say, "Gee, and I thought I was enjoying it!"
I'm thinking Steuver's mother should be asking about a 200th-trimester abortion, a la Ms Cartman…
Like Breitbart said: "It's not your business model that sucks, it's you that sucks." Damn straight.
"Did the critics get too "snooty" for the audience, or is it the audiences that got dumber?"
Oh sure. You hate the average American now but 20 or 50 or 150 years ago you wouldn´t have been an malcontent. You would have been right where you belong … except of course for that damned chip on your shoulder.
And yet all the film critics on this site spend most of their reviews lavishing loathing on those who do not share their own political views. How is that any less horribly unattractive than what you attribute to those critics you despise? I mean, aside from the obvious — you're the only real Americans in the country, and everyone else is evil.
I pay good money to get a total package from DirecTv. But when I get the chance to spend my time gel-ing in front of it I don't even go to the movie guide anymore.
Not that long ago I'd be stoked to find a movie that I didn't have to pay full price for and watch w/o commercials. And be able to pause it. When all I ever could see anymore is garbage from the "Subprime Years" who wants to risk 30-45 minutes to confirm initial suspicions.
Why do I keep paying for the movie channels?
"As someone who is fortunate enough to get paid to both watch and review films, the simple truth that no one cares"
Well I do. And whoever is paying this cat Nolte please take note. It's guys like Nolte that keep my DirecTv bill highly inflated for now. If the crop of films don't improve even John pimping the industry may not be enough to hold onto my dollars.
As for Hank Stuever…go f*** yourself you piece of S***!
"Forgive me for being crass on Good Friday, but fuck him."
I'll put an amen to that.
For starters, if I ever lose my job, I won't masturbate in long essays about the death of my own importance.
I'll simply be grateful what I had.
MovieBob — Do you ever read what you write? So smug and superior, like you know. You know nothing. Read US Weekly by the toilet?
Get over yourself.
Sage advice.
Ooooooooooooh! Good one.
Agreed. I remember seeing a re-run of the Tonight Show (w/ Johnny Carson) when he was interviewing either Glenn Ford or William Holden and Carson asked what they thought about Vietnam.
The answer was (words to the effect): "I'm just an actor. I don't think anyone cares what I think about Vietnam."
This was, in my opinion, a show of class and common sense. Two personal attributes sorely lacking today.
I've been both annoyed and fascinated with film critics ever since I became a gigantic movie buff. I could talk movies for days. I had a friend in college where all we did was talk about movies. We didn't have lists of the best movies ever made, but talked about movies that we thought were "awesome." He knew Oscar winners and elite movies…but his favorite movie of all time…the one he said was the best EVER made…"Double Team" starring Jean Claude Van Damme and … Dennis Rodman. There you have it. A guy who could talk movies all day with the most elite film critic put "Double Team" on an Olympic pedestal. That's what I loved about him, he didn't care and he was about individual tastes. Critics pick "Citizen Kane" as a "correct answer." My friend picked "Double Team."
My favorite movie is "Forrest Gump," (and I will add Hoosiers with the Mighty Gene Hackman and Goodfellas with the Mighty Joe Pesci to that list) because it just amazed me and it's a wonderful movie. I've seen it 30 times and it never gets old. Another friend I have believes the best movie ever made is "Fast and the Furious." My mom's favorites are "Radio" and "Sleepless in Seattle." My dad's favorites are "Quigley Down Under" "Smokey and the Bandit" "Road House" and "Open Range." And my brother likes all the Star Wars films (even the new trilogy).
When you hear film critics talk about their favorite films or the best films ever made…what do you hear? "Citizen Kane" "Casablanca" "2001: A Space Odyssey" "The Godfather" and "Gone With the Wind." Now I have nothing against "The Godfather" and it's an excellent film. But I've never understood the infatuation with it. I'm sorry I don't. I can understand the fanatics of "Star Wars" because it reinvented movies. But I don't understand "The Godfather" infatuation. Someone smarter than me will have to explain. On top of that. I don't understand the infatuation with "Casablanca" as the #1 love story. It's a fine film too, but far from the greatest, but it's my opinion. To me "Marty" is a better love story.
And someone please tell me what's so great about "Citizen Kane?" What is it? I don't get it. It was a quite boring movie and wasn't entertaining in the least…but my opinion. I think Mr. Nolte hits the nail on the head…who anoints these movies as the greatest? It seems to me that if your favorite movie is "Porky's" and not "Citizen Kane" or "The Godfather" or something of that nature….then you are stupid and unsophisticated. I think that's the whole point. They seem to favor a lot of films which are quite boring and if "normal everyday people" don't get them, then they are of higher intelligence.
A part of me believes that some of these critics find films like that boring as well, but they pick them out of pretentiousness and snobbery, to show higher standards. They "have" to pick "Citizen Kane" because it's the "correct answer." In their hearts, they like fun popcorn stuff like "Porky's" "American Pie" and your average Adam Sandler movie.
Another part of me believes that they are angry and disgusted with the American people in the first place. Maybe that's why they fetishly praise foreign films more than American movies because of their pretentiousness. That's why they praise Igmar Bergman…whose films are confusing and boring. I don't think they understand his work either…that makes it "brilliant" and makes them "brilliant" for liking it. But back to disgust with the American public.
Let's say on a given night in any town U.S.A., there was going to be two screenings of two different movies in the public square and they were screening "The English Patient" in one place and "The Wedding Singer" (or insert favorite guilty pleasure) in the other place, which one would people go to see more?
Critics also love lefty films way too much. Do you ever notice that when reviewing a movie like that (i.e. Fahrenheit 9/11), they tend to talk about the politics more than the actual film and storytelling aspect and technicality of it all. Read Roger Ebert's reviews of Michael Moore's work and "An Inconvenient Truth." Oh I have to say something about what the critics said on 2006 what the scariest film of that year was…and their answer was The Goracle's documentary…they said it was an important film that everyone needs to see and it would "scare you to death." The film was …. BORING and it was narrated by the most BORING MAN IN THE U.S. (maybe the world too).
I don't know how to end this post so I will leave it open for comments and let a better man or woman finish where I left off. And possibly make the argument better. I'm tired and I leave for Navy boot camp in 1 week and 3 days so as you can see my mind is all over the place.
It's hard to separate the satirists from the trolls. Rember your /sarc tags.
For every satirist who pushed the envelope of taste as far as his mind could go, there's a troll who's looking for the rich people that buy babies to have for breakfast.
And if you've never read "A Modest Proposal", you're probably a racist, elitist, teabagged lefty.
Nolte: 1
wr1: 0
Snobby much?
"Forgive me for being crass on Good Friday, but fuck him.
Amen to that, John. BTW, I deeply admire your attempt to alert Messrs. Scott and Stuever as to why their world is collapsing – but don't waste your breath. If those two people can torch the temple of film criticism and yet, while still holding the flaming match in their own hands, can't understand why the building is burning, than all of your eloquence won't help them to understand. The very blindness that led them to torch their credibility and integrity with their audience is the same blindness which now keeps Stuever still flicking his BIC at the viewers. They can't see because they won't see. Therefore – echoing the one critic I do trust – fuck them.
As long as movies exist people should critique them. I've always found reviewing a movie to be fun means of self-expression and I like to debate about movies with my friends.
The problem this article speaks to though is that professional movie critics suffer from the same left-wing illness as the rest of the media. I have ALWAYS thought Ebert was a moron, long before he openned his trap about politics. He, along with the rest of the "established" critics are self-important idiots who have no clue what they are talking about and usually write exactly what they're told by whatever elitist liberal group they're trying to impress. Ever notice how they all think exactly the same and their logic for what makes a movie good is in constant flux?
[...] tend to agree with John Nolte’s formulation (especially the part about why, even though they suck, we still pay attention to me them): Does [...]
to quote my 16 year old daughter "rotflmao" that was a awesome response JN
In the bygone years when i watched S & E. that used to be my make or break choice if i was going to see the movie. If Ebert gave it a thumbs up. i did not watch it. If he gave it a thumbs down, i was there. Only a couple of times did that formula let me down.
great points!!!!!
The great thing for these laidoff critics is they can use modern technology to set up their own online publication and reach more fans, and if said fans appreciate the work they'll be willing to pay the critic directly, or look at advertising put up by advertisers that will pay the critic directly.
(If).
But. Problem is there's lots of other people doing the same thing online … for free, and in many cases better. In their spare time. Which goes to show … movie criticism is now easily, and just as capably, done as a hobby. Kind of absurd now to think people getting remunerated handsomely and becoming celebrities for it.
A very funny episode of Friends had Rachel/Monica and Chandler/Joey in a contest to see which two knew the other two the best. One of the questions was:
Q: Rachel claims this is her favorite movie.
A: "Dangerous Liasons"
Q: Her actual favorite movie is?
A: "Weekend at Bernie's"
Your points are well taken. However, you and I part company on "Godfather." I've heard that women aren't supposed to like it, but I've seen it more times than I can count and can quote whole scenes. I also quite liked "Citizen Kane." However, I've never been able to stay awake for "Casablanca" and I'm convinced one has to be on drugs to understand or appreciate "2001."
Marty is a great film… why it's not recognized more is a crime.
Regarding your comment about how some films reinvent movies… that is the reason why some of those films are so often hailed. Jaws and Star Wars and such films, for better or worse, changed how movies were made. Citizen Kane changed how films were made. Same with the other films that are often put on the tops of lists.
Sure, that might not make them fun and great and effing cool in every generation, but they lend a hand in the standards or greatness of films to come.
Now, Smokey and the Bandit didn't really cover any new ground, but it was damn fun and managed to click with so many people around the country… it put a smile on hundreds of thousands of faces. Sometimes, critics don't get that. They are more concerned with the academics of film than they are with regular folks having reasons for parting with their hard earned cash for the privilege of 120 minutes of entertainment.
The question is, how are we going to steer the television/movie industry back to entertainment that we want/will pay to see? Hollywood and the networks are overrun with liberals. Once they have lost enough money, will they start providing us with entertainment? I doubt that they will simply go away and let real people tell stories that other real people are interested in.
Nolte, you magnificent bast…. …yeah, it is Good Friday….
…stunning arrogance on the part of Hank Stuever…
…stunning ignorance on the part of A.O. Scott…
…stunning humility on your part, John, placing your movie opinions as on par with the hoi polloi…
…and I'll be stunned if the whole rotted edifice of Lying Elitism doesn't crumble to dust by 2012…
I learned many years ago (more than 40) that there was a pretty strong correlation between what the critics write and my opinion. That is, the more the critics loved a movie the less likely I was to like or even enjoy the film.
I also learned that the more money spent promoting almost always was in inverse relationship to the quality of the film, proving once again that you don't need to spend a ton of money promoting a great product.
I learned the same lesson and that's why we seldom go to the movies anymore.
"What I did love about Siskel and Ebert was watching two interesting guys talk movies."
Well said. I think the real value of critics – the best ones, anyway – is that they have an infectious enthusiasm for the entire world of filmmaking. They tell us that movies are not just a way to kill a couple of hours – that they're fascinating subjects for study and conversation. Siskel and Ebert were fun to watch because no matter how they disagreed, they both loved movies. Unfortunately, too many critics seem to use their public platforms not to educate or inspire their readers, but for secondary purposes like pandering to or influencing fashions and attacking their political enemies. Good criticism is hard to find.
The review quoted in this article doesn't tell us anything about the quality of the piece being reviewed. All it tells us is that the critic doesn't like traditional expressions of patriotism. This information is useless to me as a television viewer.
I have to give you two big thumbs up for this article : )
The difference between Breitbart's site and, say, Ebert's is that part of Bighollywood's actual mission is to draw attention to leftist influences in movies and television. There's no question of anyone sneaking political commentary into an innocent-looking film review. BH's politics are right up front.
Another difference is that the reviewer quoted above works for a major national newspaper. His opinions (at least in BH's view) represent the dominant mindset of the major media today. They have the money, the political influence, the cultural clout to push that mindset on the rest of the population and to ignore any ideas that differ from theirs. BH is acting as a counterweight – trying to restore some balance to the situation.
It may be ugly, but it has to be done.
John Nolte you are on a roll this week…first was the post on the substance or lack of substance in current films and now this post on film criticism, both thought provoking and enjoyable. Plenty of film critics today talk to each other and unfortunately most of them think in unison. It's the same old left of center points and endorsements of films ,which reflect political and social issue positions this Hollywood embraces.All in all boringly predictable.Some film critics do ,"tabloid reviews", giving readers their take on the lives and looks of actors , actresses and directors. Lots of times these critics are just plain wrong….they don't ,"get" a movie or over praise some auteur du jour's tedious offering or they are trying too hard to be hip. Some movie reviews can be great..Ebert wrote a review of "Master and Commander", which was outstanding, but then Armond White writes reviews ,which are bizarro. This is a profession?
It's tough as an average moviegoer to extract anything useful from an MSM review. Since most everything, including the type of dish soap you use, has been made political, all movies will inevitably be judged on the basis of whether or not they conform to the particular political biases of the reviewer. Thus, you often have to first penetrate the critic's biases, then determine how much the critic is able to leave the biases at the door, and, finally, in most cases, you must try to reverse engineer the review to determine if the reasons the critic doesn't like the movie will be reasons you will like it. It's often a hard slog, but, unfortunately, there are not just bad movies out there but movies that have been designed to be disliked by the kind of people you are. They ought to come with a warning label!
You are forgiven for being crass on Good Friday. That was the most appropriate way to say it. Kudos.
No film critic working at the moment is more entertaining than the BBC's Mark Kermode. Even when I disagree with him, I still have a ball of a time listening to him rant and rave about films he loves and films he hates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61UolzFTVPI
John got you with the zinger, but I'd like to add something.
The difference is the attitude. When a Conservative reviewer gives his opinion on a movie – e.g. Nolte, Douthat – they sometimes focus on politics. But they will generally explain their position in a straightforward, reasoned manner. A good example of this is John J. Miller's article about vampire movies:
http://www.heymiller.com/?p=1078
He explains his position clearly but in a friendly manner. Douthat's review of Avatar is the same way. So even if you disagree with them, unless you're an ideologue you can read what they have to say and not feel insulted.
Now, take Ebert, the prime example of a film critic turned wanna-be-political-hack. Even in his earlier reviews (before Siskel died) he frequently brought up social/political points; he and Siskel would sometimes have animated conversations about the issues. And these were fun to watch, either because Ebert was more controlled then, or his editors were. But now he's just unhinged. Every day he browses HuffPo and re-tweets any offensive, unfounded allegation or negative story he can find about Conservatives/Republicans. He posts quizzes and gives authoritative answers to try to make Conservatives look stupid. He repeatedly used the slur 'teabagger', then pretended he didn't know what it meant. He pens entire essays whose only purpose is to ridicule and debase Conservatives (or, in his language, the 'right-wingers!').
But even more than that, it's not that Ebert is ideological, per-se. He's partisan. Nolte, Douthat, Miller, et al are Conservative. Ebert's a big-D Democrat, through and through, and an Obamaniac. Having recently split with a few friends who are just the same, I'm pretty sure that's the root of his illness. Anybody who latches permanently onto a political party and never finds fault with them has a mental problem.
There is a difference. It's the old argument: superficial similarity is not sameness.
2001–great film, provided you miss the beginning and duck out before the end.
"It isn’t that criticism is dead, it’s that we no longer like most of the people writing it.
Why?
Because they don’t like us."
You hit the nail on the head, John. I don't like most of their smugness and elitism. I remember when Rex Reed, as I recall a rather smug critic, starred in his only movie, that blockbuster Myra Breckenridge. Tells you about his judgment and talent. It has IMDB's lowest rating I've seen..
To tell you the truth I am generally a contrarian towards the critics and have rarely been disappointed. If I am interested in seeing a movie and the usual suspects loath it, they validate my decision. I will go. Which fits in with your contention of the fact that the critics generally dispise us.
I did see Hurt Locker and Dear John based on reading BH reviews and wasn't disappointed in either. I know we disagree on the Hurt Locker, and the reviews by those who really matter, the GIs in the field, according to Michael Yon are validating John's opinion.
Wonder how the "critics" will review the upcoming A Team. Regardless I will see it.
"A part of me believes that some of these critics…(pick films) out of pretentiousness and snobbery, to show higher standards. They "have" to pick "Citizen Kane" because it's the "correct answer." In their hearts, they like fun popcorn stuff like "Porky's" "American Pie" and your average Adam Sandler movie."
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! You are absolutely correct. Maybe once upon a time in the past, film criticism was actually about films but now it's all about the critics, their egos, their reputations, etc. And since the essence of egotism is being different than others, that difference is proven by the critics liking films we don't. I swear, if all of us marched into 'Last Year at Marienbad', the critics would run screaming to 'Porkys'. It's all about being different than us. Thank the Lord, however, the critics get to numb their butts and brains watching "Marienbad" (so god awful boring it induces a coma just thinking about watching it) while the rest of us are free to pork out on popcorn and Coke in front of Elvis Presley's 'Girl Happy' for the umpteenth time.
IMHO, the thing that's really killed the critics is the fact that they can no longer prevent feedback. In the past, their bloviations were always singular – i.e., every person pissed off by their pretentiousness felt he or she was the only one cheesed off by those jerks. But the 'comments' section – and awesome sites like 'Big Hollywood' has changed all that. There's nothing that liberates one from a critic's bull shit more than discovering that so many others share your distaste for that same BS. Yep, the 'comments' are finally bringing chickens home to roost for the critics – and that big fat egg they're laying is finally splattering on their own faces for a change. Oh, I love me some Schadenfreude. When the last critic finally leaves, tell him to shut off the light himself. I need darkness to watch me some Elvis.
Citizen Kane will never be my favorite film or anything close to it. But – and this might not go over well here given the Ebert bashing – I watched it recently with Ebert's commentary and I got quite a lot out of it, he does an excellent job of talking about the movie and why he likes it so much. I did help me appreciate the movie more than I had.
See, I can't not watch Casablanca. And to whoever said it, Marty is a fantastic film.
However, neither holds a candle to Goonies.
"It isn’t that criticism is dead, it’s that we no longer like most of the people writing it"
John, this is extremely well put. Nowadays, I rarely read critical reviews anymore (Big Hollywood notwithstanding), because no matter what a critical review says, it is just the opinion of the person writing it. I would much rather see the movie or TV program in question for myself, and formulate my own opinion on it, instead of reading someone else's.
No one cares about film critics especially the leftist critics who seem to inject their own leftist idealogy into their reviews. Believe me they work hard at it. As for critics themselves I usually don't care for what they think is great but rather what I think will be or is great and therefore never saw or didn't see a movie because of a film critics review. I would think if one saw the biggest boxoffice hits many if not the majority got mediocre critics reviews that pretty much settles the issue of "do we need critics". The answer is no unless the newspapers or magazines need a filler.
Forgive me for being crass on Good Friday, but fuck him.
+1,000,000. If he didn't like the show, he's entitled to his opinion, but to express it in the way he did is obscene.
"For example, I enjoy watching Alec Baldwin work but I can separate that from his political / social views."
If you completely ignore Alec Baldwin on the news or any other form besides acting…then he's quite enjoyable and funny. So you're right on the money with that one. I do admire Baldwin in the aspect that he re-invented himself. I remember he was a leading man at one time and drama was his game…but then he moved to supporting roles and actually does comedy much better. I've been able to separate him from politics, but he is one of the few and even that is hard.
The argument is, people shouldn't mix politics with entertainment because you will discover the actor you love doesn't share your views and you will then be crushed. So the audience should ignore it or don't try to mix it. But the audience are not the ones doing it. It's them. I remembered at one time I enjoyed Matt Damon and Tim Robbins and even George Clooney. However, they've danced around the media and forced their politics upon us. Then they moved to insult us. Sean Penn is a perfect example of how they are mixing entertainment and politics. James Cameron is another example. I hope people understand what I mean when I say that Hollywood is the culprit, not the audience. All we want is some good, solid entertainment once in a while…no lectures or insults…but that's what movies have become today…well the critical darlings anyway.
John, great reply to Movie Bob. They really don't read what they write. I've heard it so many times trying to say they're NOT smug and superior, but the entire posts/articles/monologues/whatever, are completely smug and superior.
They have absolutely ZERO self-awareness.
I second that amen.
Patrick-do read the above posts again,if you really mean what you're saying. The Ebert 'bashing' is about his very ugly and unabashed habit of treating those he disagrees with in a very nasty and poisonous manner.
If a film critic can give an intelligent and thoughtful discourse on why a film is or is not good-or, as in this case, why he believes it is worthy of its reputation-well, it's a shame that's *not* the Ebert we see these days, or film criticism and commentary would have a much better reputation than they do.
And jbhdva- God bless, and be careful.
I almost never listen to critics for these exact same reasons. They all seem to turn out to be mega DB's. In fact the only people I listen to on film reviews is John Nolte and the rest of Big Hollywood. Another reason I don't really listen to critics too much is that most of the time critics and I have different tastes. What a critic thinks as absolute garbage I might think of as absolute brilliance. So what do I do? I use Netflix to see if the film is good, if its good I'll buy it, if its not then I send it back and it becomes out of sight-out of mind.
That's pretty much it.
Your posts were spot on! I agree. Just because something is popular doesn't mean that it automatically sucks. Just because something may be silly and make you laugh a lot doesn't mean that it sucks. It's all pretty much opinion. Sure, opinions can agree and when the agreement is high, then I guess one can say that something is "great". And when opinions agree that something sucks, same thing.
But I absolutely hate when people decide that everyone that really likes something is stupid: Harry Potter, Twilight are more recent examples. Even Stephen King. He's a liberal mouthpiece now, but his old stuff is GOOD. I mean, I read IT in 2 days and it's over 1,000 pages long! I could NOT put it down.
That is what I call good – it entertains me (makes me laugh, makes me cry, etc), it keeps my attention.
I can see "serious" movies as well (I still want to see Soraya M.), but for the most part, I want to ESCAPE from the real world.
I'll miss At the Movies. i watch it every week now that it's Phillips & Scott instead of Ben & Ben.
Yep that's right RueTroll (I say that because you are the Rue Paul of Trolls)
Damn those GOP ers in the Civil War…. Why if it warnt for the good work of Jefferson Davis the country would be divided and Slavery would still be going on today…………..
Oh Wait!…………………………………
I just couldn't agree more, from A to Z and everywhere in between. Definitely including your comment on that WashPo politically correct, utterly condescending sneers at Sarah Palin. Which come to think of it is why I … and clearly a lot of other folks … like Sarah Palin so much. She clearly cares about things that a lot of us care about. Just the opposite of so many critics. Why should I read someone who just trashes things I care about? Thanks but no thanks. Guess that's why I read Big Hollywood. I don't always agree, but I always but always come away feeling like I've been hearing you John Nolte and others talking about things I care about, and caring about things I care about. Keep up the great work.
Agreed. Come to think about it, although ordinarily a high critics' score at RT won't prompt me to see a movie, if I see a bunch of excerpts from reviews dumping on a movie that my gut says "Go see", I'll just be more likely to see it. So I guess I can be influenced by critics, tho not the way they seek. But now I do like to hear and see folks just plain kicking around a movie and saying what they think and what they liked & didn't like and so on. But I'd trust an IMDb board any day of the week over an RT critics' quotient. The IMDb boards are riotous, to say the least, but they're also (mostly) honest opinions of real live moviegoing mortals like me. But now I'll definitely be seeing A Team whatever anybody says about it … !
Here's the difference woorooone
We criticize them when they purposely make insulting vitriolic attacks that have no basis whatsoever for their own political vanity. You make a moivie like the GReen Zone and state is why all military gus are working for evil rich Republicans we'll come after that. You take Sara Palin's show which is nothing but positive stories about heoric people and the attack it because you hate anything nice said about Americans and think we should all be serfs like they are Europe. We'll come after you.
Essentially what you are doing is saying "Hey I can get in people's face and attack Republicans for their very existence and if they answer me they are the ones being hipocritical.
I'd give you an F bomb in answer but only Nolte can get away with an F bomb on Good Friday!
An intended absence of needless humility is frequently mistaken for "smug."
"People with jobs read an awful lot because well they want to keep their jobs. This is what is so idiotic about your leftist meme that all the GI's are high school dropouts and felons avoiding jail."
I'm willing to let everything slide save for outright lies, sir. If you can find a SHRED of proof that this "leftist meme" is "mine," or that I've even ever said that GI's are dropouts or felons, I suggest you post it. If you cannot, in fact, find such I'd politely ask that you appologize.
I don't take many things seriously, but my respect for the armed forces is one of them. And I'll not stand for even an implication otherwise.
Michael Phillips also contributed a sniveling whine-fest to the Chicago Trib regarding his second gig being unfairly yanked out from underneath him.
I stopped taking him seriously years ago when I realized that he could be reviewing anything from an obscure Japanese anime to a Madea movie and inevitably a hidden symbol or message or analogy would crop up that would give him a reason to bash George W. Bush. I think ultimately he just gave up on trying to justify it and his movie "reviews" basically morphed into anti-war, anti-Bush and anti-conservative rants.
John is right. As soon as I lost respect for Phillips as a professional who is able to focus on the task at hand, reviewing current films, and began to dislike him as an unrestrained Ideologue, I stopped reading him and moved on to more congenial hosts for such information.
Scott and Phillips: You might have saved your lucrative TV gig if only you'd learned to shut up and critique, gentlemen.
No civilization that embraces the idea that cultural scholarship and experience are of equal or even lesser import to the random observations of the "ordinary" man on the street will be a civilization for much longer.
Remove the "elite" and install the "average" in their place, and soon enough you'll find the "below-average" looking to unseat the NEW "elite." And so on and so on. And there's only so many turnovers before outright barbarianism reigns over all. "Idiocracy" is right around the corner, and it comes to thunderous applause.
This reminds me of an essay by Richard Corliss of Time Magazine I read some years ago, when he was discussing what made a "good" movie critic — in essence, it wasn't the critic's opinions or tastes that made a good review, but things like the quality of the writing, the knowledge of his subject the writer showed, how much "food for thought" the article gave to a reader, etc. The best critics would strive to make their writings themselves a "cultural event". As Corliss put it, "…an opinion is the easiest, and least essential part of a review…[A good critic] doesn't try to make the film he's reviewing a 'must see'. He tries to make his writing a 'must read'."
Funny how many so-called "critics" fail at this basic premise, instead choosing to deliver polemics and talk down to their readers. And they wonder why their "profession" (along with the rest of the MSM) is failing…
This reminds me of an essay by Richard Corliss of Time Magazine I read some years ago, when he was discussing what made a "good" movie critic — in essence, it wasn't the critic's opinions or tastes that made a good review, but things like the quality of the writing, the knowledge of his subject the writer showed, how much "food for thought" the article gave to a reader, etc. The best critics would strive to make their writings themselves a "cultural event". As Corliss put it, "…an opinion is the easiest, and least essential part of a review…[A good critic] doesn't try to make the film he's reviewing a 'must see'. He tries to make his writing a 'must read'."
Funny how many so-called "critics" fail at this basic premise, instead choosing to deliver polemics and talk down to their readers. And they wonder why their "profession" (along with the rest of the MSM) is failing…
"You know nothing."
I know that I've had to live, work, shop and travel among "the average man" my whole life up to this point, and the experience has not been pleasant – in fact, for long stretches it was close to a living hell: "Punishment" metted out by the "normal," the "average" and the "ordinary" for the crimes of not BEING normal, average or ordinary.
You romanticize "the average joe" as surely as James Cameron romanticizes tribalism. My reaction to the deification of "the average man" is a reaction to cruelty and ignorance endured at the hands of the "average man" and a society that throws the extraordinary to the dogs in order to better worship the "normal." You can call it "smug" if you like. I'm come to call it survival.
Ooops…meant to post this as a reply to Monster From the Id above.
You are absolutely correct! I can't count how many times I've gone round and round with our oldest about movies. She'll watch anything by Tim Burton or with Johnny Depp because her teen/fan magazines tell her those people are the best. Thus to her "Tim Burton" is the correct answer. I keep trying to get her to watch a John Carpenter film- she won't do it. He's not cool and hip anymore.
Just wait until August when the critics will unleash an immense assault on the summer juggernaut that will be "The Expendables".
I shall give no criticism this day. Instead, I shall give the 21 Harrumph Salute to all the critics who shall be paid for their critiques no more:
Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph.
God speed, my poison pens. God speed.
With all due respect you are going to sit there and argue with a straight face that this is not a leftist meme….. your is a plural possesive pronoun…
Are you really this much of a jackass……. . I was giving an example of what liberals who sit around worrying about people who read newsweek sitting by the toilet think. If you are so thin skinned that you do not understand the difference between an example of that kind of thinking and a statement of what you personally said then you probably have a problem interacting with people. MAybe that is why you tink every other average person hates you or is out to cause you hell or whatever???. Where did I say you said anything. If I meant that I would have cleatly stated that wouldn't I. Trust me if I got something to tell you I got no problem saying it clearly. Jesuz Caramba!
This is the problem you liberals have you spend so much time fantasizing about what you think people are really meaning that you forget what is actually being said. Seriously you need to get away from those star bucks with theie pretentious out of work actors ……..,…. just for a little while maybe it'll clear yor head.
Great Peon EdSki
If movies (we are really talking about expensive blockbusters) have gotten dumber, one major reason is likely to be foreign audiences. Why write witty dialogue if it doesn´t translate into 20 languages? As late as the 1970s and 1980s, most movies had to break even on the American market. Since them foreign markets have become vastly more important. Hollywood is a global industry.
Alice in Wonderland already took more abroad than domestic and it hasn´t even been released in Japan yet. Avatar? The split is an astounding 28% domestic, 72% foreign. MovieBob´s beloved Japanese – which he considers to be smarter – are lapping up this stuff
On the other Hand, Watchmen – which MovieBob happened to like – made 58% of its money in the dumb old US.
At the same time, you find more good writing on television, where US audiences still determine what is a hit.
Let´s say for the sake of argument that Americans have gotten dumber. What could be the reason? I´d say major candidates are a breakdown of social order (the nuclear family), liberals ruling the education establishment, an emphasis on self esteem and youth over rote learning and tradition.
All things MovieBob supports because they are not conservative.
I love "Roustabout" w/Miss Barbara Stanwyck myself. You're right there ain't nothing like a good Elvis marathon.
MovieBob
Clueless as ever……….
The people reading US Weekly by the Toilet don't work and never will. Thanks to welfare you can go your whole life without ever working.
People with jobs read an awful lot because well they want to keep their jobs. This is what is so idiotic ablut your leftist mem that all the GI's are high school dropouts and felons avoiding jail. IF you don't have a good gpa and a high school diploma you can't even be considered for enlistment in the arny today. The weapons systems rely on too much technology. Have you ever spent any time wahtsoever outside the Starbucks in LA' where the out of work actors hang out. You'd might like to try it sometime.
HERE WE ARE BEING CRITICS, OF CRITICS.
And this has happened to which civilizations? And define "Idiocracy." Interesting theory, snob, but it needs a few facts to back it up.
Yah, we're totally postmodern!
[...] Hollywood’s John Nolte has something to say about today’s cultural critics … and he doesn’t mince his [...]
I really enjoyed that article. I am not an expert in evaluating movies but I did enjoy good reviews. I use to watch Siskel/Ebert. I don't recall when it first happened, whether Siskel was still alive or not, but I noticed a pointed political insult torwards a person/group I like. I ignored it at first but then as it continued on next show I simply could not take it. It simply ceased being interesting to me. Later as I read more of Ebert elitest comments I simply intentionally avoided anything related to him.
The same thing is creeping into everything. It is not just the politics. It is the nasty elistest insults. When I see some sports reporter insulting Tiger Woods becuase he hired Ari Fleisher who "helped W lie us into a war in Iraq" I feel the same way. If you look political elitest snarks now infest sports commentary. It is like Howard Cosell (sp) x10 now infect the sports world. I HAVE TUNED THEM OUT.
There is little left to retreat to. I hope someday, someone in control of this realizes the movie reviews should be movie reviews and sports commentary should be sports commentary.
Sarah Palin's audience was over two million. What kind of readership does this critic (I won't bother to learn his name, since he'll be laid off soon) have? What kind of audience does the "critic" Jon Stewart have?
The irony of all this–the only reason this nameless critic has a job at all is because college students desiring to go to professional school buy Kaplan's courses to help them review their calculus.
The Washington Post is a poor relative, unable to support himself and has to live in the basement.
AzzhOle Scott is the very reason no one listens to critics anymore. I don't need to spend my scarce disposable income on fluff that reinforces my political beliefs so as to ally typical white man liberal guilt (Roger Ebert revels in this kind of finger waving) rather I actually look to be entertained not proselytized to.
Agreed!
You must be logged in to post a comment.