Dumbing Down ‘At the Movies’
by S.T. KarnickThe decline of the mainstream media—a very good thing—is the real story behind an interesting L. A. Times article about Ben Lyons, a film critic on the syndicated TV show At the Movies. Critics and informed movie buffs alike both have nearly universal contempt for the 27-year-old Lyons, son of former host and newspaper film critic Jeffrey Lyons.
Jeffrey Lyons was never any great thinker, or even a good one, but Ben Lyons makes him look like the great Samuel Johnson by comparison. To say the least, the younger Lyons strikes the viewer as very uninformed about movie history, aesthetic standards and the producers of At the Movies clearly made an awful mistake in hiring him.
Apparently they hoped to get frat boys and other Sports Center fans to watch the show, which only further confirms the major stupidity of At the Movies producers.
The hiring of Lyons thus exemplifies the cluelessness of the mainstream media and their failure to connect with their audience. Both of these are outcomes of decades of arrogance brought on by a lack of serious competition among the oligopolists who own the mainstream media outlets.
Instead of realizing this, however, the L. A. Times writer sees the Lyons hire as part of a huge, general “dumbing down” of society caused by the loss of brilliant gatekeepers, such as Lyons’s father:
[All of this] would be of hardly any consequence were it not for the drastic transformation of film criticism. Long gone are the times when a vaunted single critic such as the New Yorker’s Pauline Kael could inject a film into the national consciousness with a single positive review. These days, moviegoers are just as apt to check a movie’s rating at Rotten Tomatoes, the popular movie-review aggregating website, as to read an actual review from a major news organization.
Worse, with readership plummeting, newspapers and magazines have had to drastically thin their ranks of critics. In recent months, the Chicago Tribune, New York Daily News, Newsweek, Newsday, the Village Voice and The Times, among other outlets, have let critics go. Meanwhile, movie marketing has never been more pervasive, and many studio summer blockbusters are now described as “critic proof,” meaning that negative reviews do nothing to affect the box office.
In this light, Lyons’ ascension to the “throne” of televised film criticism has come to represent something more than just the changing of the guard—many view it as yet another example of the dumbing down of media and of celebrity triumphing over substance.
Personally, I’m delighted that the odious Ms. Kael and her demon spawn are no longer able to dominate the discussion of movies and other important subjects. Their hold over the American culture was uniformly deleterious.
If the alternative is that Ben Lyons will be hired to run At the Movies the rest of the way off of television while people make their choices from a wider variety of sources such as Big Hollywood and The American Culture, then I endorse that alternative enthusiastically.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
33 Comments
I despise Lyons (as a critic) as much as everyone else, but personally I felt a bit upset reading the venomous paragraph in which you are "delighted" that Kael (a "demon spawn"?) is no longer with us. Regardless of her political opinions, Kael was a marvelous and influential film critic and her texts are always an interesting read, even the texts in which I disagree with her (Straw Dogs, A Clockwork Orange) are interesting read. I am always moved by her rather personal text on De Sica's Shoeshine.
What exactly did Kael to label her a "demon spawn" and to have us celebrate her departure? Oh, she was a liberal who integrated her liberal views into her texts. Not very different from conservatives who integrate their views into their texts, which I believe is the basis here at Big Hollywood.
Let's not forget she was one of the few critics who initially praised Bonnie & Clyde.
Siskel and Ebert set the standard and educated the audience to film criticism. The trivial wanna-bees that have followed have only embarrassed themselves.
I liked Siskel and Ebert, and I continued watching Roeper and his alternate co-hosts, but I’m not watching the twentysomething critics.
It seems the only way you can get to be a Film Critic (or a Sports Comentator or a TV News person) or anything else in the media unless you the son / daughter of someone famous.
In seems that those of us without the correct DNA don’t have a chance.
Sort of like the “Jedi Knights”
Sorry, I can’t endorse ignorant commentary.
Say what you like about Pauline Kael, she at least WATCHED movies. She thought about them. Ben Lyons is apparently barely sentient.
An informed reviewer can say whether a film is good or bad, and can make a case for saying so.
If you can’t make a case for judging the quality of a film’s content, then all you have is opinion reviews; someone who’s only criteria for reviewing movies is “I liked it.”
Pauline Kael was wrong on a lot of things. Don’t miss her and her ilk at all.
On the other hand, most “reviews” you’ll find these days are AICN fanboy rants or old schoolers like Ebert or the elder Lyons.
Maybe we don’t really need film critics after all.
I decide which movies I want to watch. I don’t depend on anyone else’s “critique” because in the past I’ve always disagreed with them anyway. I only see a couple of movies a year anyway because I cannot stand the idea of putting money into Hollywood coffers any more than I have to. The main person who influences my decision on which movies I will watch is ME.
I’ve always thought it was a waste of good money to pay some schlub to watch movies for a living and write a column of his/her own personal views of said film anyway. Hopefully this profession (and those of the MSM) will go the way of the buggy whip maker. It was never relevant and is even more irrelevant now with the blogosphere and internet websites taking over this little chore. If you want a review and don’t want to take a chance then go to a good website like Rotten Tomatoes.
He couldn’t be any worse than Ebert who found Blade Runner “confusing.”
I took a course in college where we were required to read Pauline Kael’s reviews. I was always grateful to her for obviating my need to spend the precious few dollars I had to actually go to see a movie as she would invariably put so much of the plot of said movie into her reviews, that I didn’t need to go. More money in the pocket and more study time for this library rat pre-med.
That’s the spirit, BigHollywood crew. Never mind that often a critic might make you aware of a smaller or more offbeat film that you might not have EVER found on your own or through RottenTomatoes. A GOOD film critic doesn’t just give their take on the big blockbuster or populist offerings at the Megaplex, they also tell you about a smaller film that they feel is worth your time.
Joe Morgenstern at the WSJ is quite good at this, in fact. He was one of the biggest early champions of Slumdog Millionaire when it was still doing the festival circuit. Roger Ebert has been invaluable in writing film histories and helping to revive the reputations of erroneously overlooked films.
I echo the other sentiments about the unneeded jabs at Pauline Kael (seriously, “demon spawn”?), she was opinionated as hell, and was right as often as she was wrong. But she fostered real debate over the CRAFT and ART of movies. I’d rather read opinions like that, even if I disagree with them, then some pull-quote jockey like Pete Hammond who simply raves about everything.
In fairness to Ebert, the original studio cut of Blade Runner was confusing and decidedly inferior to Ridley Scott’s later cuts.
Siskel and Ebert were the ones who identified the Coen Brothers’ “Fargo” as an unqualified masterpiece LONG before anyone else, and their efforts to keep the film’s buzz up arguably helped its campaign for the Oscar. If not for Fargo, the Coens’ career might have been over after the Hudsucker Proxy debacle.
These guys are obsolete. There’s no need to pay critics anymore. Thousands of people will gladly do the “work” for free, as a hobby, and do it just as well or better.
Slumdog Millionaire is a horrible film, filled with unrealistic depictions of human behavior and stupid messages. Because it has Bollywood actors people fawn all over it, but the central message is profoundly stupid — be the “nice” beta guy and get the girl of your dreams after she’s the discarded mistress of a gangster.
Wow. What a film!
Meanwhile, films about something, like World’s Fastest Indian, get ignored by critics and particularly Morgenstern. He’s typical of the rich yuppie class of critics who lack any emotional or real connection to ordinary people. Anything from Bollywood or the like gets fawned over, stuff about racing or motorcycles gets ignored.
Matt,
I think I would disagree with the notion that the internet has necessarily broken the floodgates down when it comes to making film criticism more “democratic” or “populist”. There’s a lot of really asinine stuff on internet movie sites that passes as criticism, ie. the AICN-style fanboy hyperbole gushing over hyperviolent Tarantino trash or the elevating of TDK to Citizen Kane’s level. What I fear about turning over film criticism from the capable and educational hands of Ebert, Morgenstern, and others to the Wild West of the internet is that we might not see the cream rise to the top of the “marketplace of ideas”.
Not to snark too heavily on this site, but I’ve noticed that many of the film reviews here seem to obsess too much on the PERCEIVED political messages of the film, judging the artistic merits exclusively through that prism. That poor guy who actually praised the Che movie as an artistic success (despite his own personal feelings about Che) was crucified by the posters here. Fanboy hype of any ilk isn’t real film criticism, it’s just noise.
Film education is a very important thing, and I think that even tacitly encouraging people to view this art form from a purely parochial, insular, political viewpoint cuts off one’s nose despite the face. It makes this site no better than the very worst of the Cahiers du Cinema auteur crowd in my opinion.
Ebert’s politics have always been there if you read his reviews from the beginning of his print career. No matter how you feel about his political sniping at Team America, it still wasn’t a particularly successful film on its own merits.
Wow, Whiskey…so many things wrong there in your post.
1. You do realize that the film is meant to be a romantic fantasy, no?
2. The visual presentation of the film was a technical masterpiece with a jaw-dropping use of real locations and amateur actors. It’s on par with City of God, the Brazilian film that deserved a MUCH bigger audience.
3. Bollywood films traditionally aren’t that well received by American critics, but of course Slumdog was made by a British Director, and the lead actor was British.
4. I seem to recall that Morgenstern actually liked World’s Fastest Indian. The movie suffered from having a bad title and an indifferent distribution pattern.
5. Considering Morgenstern is at least in his 60’s, it’s probably not fair to call him a “yuppie”.
Frank said re Pauline Kael:
“Let’s not forget she was one of the first critics who initially endorsed Bonnie & Clyde.”
Yep. Demon spawn is about right.
So, endorsing Bonnie and Clyde makes Kael a “Demon Spawn” why exactly.
Hey, I liked “Slumdog Millionaire”.
Dear Demon Spawn:
Simple. Because Bonnie & Clyde was demon spawn.
Let me see if I understand the gist of this post: We have crappy movie reviewers writing crappy movie reviews about crappy movies. The only difference between now and then is that now there are a lot more of them than there were then.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along, move along.
Ebert may have been a good critic at some point, but for the past few years, his standards have declined he has replaced film criticism with social (read liberal) commentary. In his written review of “Boy in the stripped pj’s”, he compared the Nazi’s with execs at Enron (read big business). After making that comparison, he disclaimed, I’m not comparing the Nazis with execs at Enron. Except he just did.
Ben Mankiewicz is no better. In one of their non-review segments on the “At the movies” website, he was frothing at the lips to defend “W” from evil conservative detractors who couldn’t wait to point out inaccuracies. From a movie made by Oliver Stone, whose brought us the universally ridiculed “JFK”. He also inferred the president was “indefensible”. Can you elaborate?
I still think movie critics have their place. I wish they offered Michael Philips one of the positions. He may be liberal as rain, but I sure couldn’t tell from his reviews. When a movie was poor, he had no qualms saying so.
[...] the rest here: Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Dumbing Down ‘At the Movies’ demon-spawn, ebert, Entertainment, hollywood, media-criticism, movies, News, roger-ebert, [...]
I have never cared much for movie critics. But as a starving student in Berkeley in the early 1960s I met Pauline Kael who owned the Northside Theaters at the time. I caught her attention at a re-run of an Ingmar Bergman film. I can’t remember now if it was Virgin Spring or Wild Strawberries, but she noticed me because I kept giggling through the whole miserable movie. She asked me why I was laughing at such a serious work, and I told her it was because I was a Lutheran, and nothing that happened in church was nearly as unintentionally funny as the films of this former Lutheran pastor. She was considerably more tolerant of dissent at that time, and although we were never friends, we were at least tolerant acquaintances. She would actually ask my opinion of some of the newer films, and could laugh at my college-student reviews of films she loved and I hated. She seemed to lose that tolerance after she left Berkeley for New York. And I still think Bergman films are hilarious, except for the comedies. The newer critics, whether I agree with them or not, have never been as witty as Ms. Kael.
“Dumbing down” of society? Well, hell yes, look who they elected president.
It’s no surprise that you’re against Ms. Kael. You sir, are an idiot. And by holding idiots in such high regard, you further the Republican agenda of dumbing down this nation. Fortunately, we, as a nation are waking up. So enjoy your Double Shot at Love, and your Real Housewives while you can. There’s a wind a blowin’…
LOL. This thread is too funny. For starters, a critic criticizes a critic. Then the chorus chimes in how it hates Pauline Kael because she was not right about certain movies. LOL. Way too funny. If movies can be reduced to right and wrong, I can’t say much for the movie, or to the person who views things with such a restricted lens. But the complete belly laughs are saved for the commentators who consider Roger Ebert a serious critic. LOL.
I didn’t always agree with Ms. Kael, but she always made me ponder her point of view. (e.g. I really like Blow Up which she thought was a poor excuse for a movie.) But most of the posts here are outright absurd. It is as if the poster was told by his mother what is right in a movie, and unless that one thing comes shining across the silver screen, the movie is wrong. But what can you expect from the absurd situation of a critic criticizing a critic? LOLOL.
“No single statement has ever revealed the depth of contempt film critics feel for their audience than this statement of Kael’s.”
I’d love to see a source for that Nixon statement Kael allegedly made (there isn’t one, it’s apochryphal nonsense)
Is this new phrase “smart up” be the perfect opposite of “dumb down”?
It is also another way to telling people to “grow up” (be mature, decent and intelligent).
We’re having a population that is half dumb-down that will soon crowd out the smart ones and we may end up with a society very much depicted in “Idiocracy”.
Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. LOLOLOL.
I think the “demon spawn” comment about Pauline Kael was probably over the top, but the overall point still holds. The original article we’re discussing was a lament for the days when Kael’s review alone could determine the success or failure of a film. If the article is correct that she had that kind of power, then for that to be a good thing, she has to be right almost all the time. Therefore, various comments about how she failed to judge some movie correctly are perfectly valid.
If on the other hand, Kael wrote occasionally insightful reviews but was wrong as often as she was right, then the current system is better: we get the opinions of the elites, but also a whole spectrum of opinions from critics who are a little further down the food chain. Based on that wealth of information, we can make better decisions.
“These guys are obsolete. There’s no need to pay critics anymore. Thousands of people will gladly do the “work” for free, as a hobby, and do it just as well or better.”
Bravo! Why would anyone read a film critic, even a good one? Just show the clips, or at most give some idea of the plot and tone. No one’s opinions of a film interest me, not even my friends’.
Mr. Karmick,
Thanks for pointing to the LA Times article. The passages you reprinted in particular raise an interesting conundrum. On one hand the loss of smart critics, on the other hand a rather dismissive attitude toward rottentomatoes and its ilk.
I find that a high average score from a poll site tends to be closer to my feeling about a film than the review of any particular critic. When I’m deciding to see a film, I visit metacritic.com and take the average between the critical score and the audience score (almost always lower than the critical score except in cases of films made for really specific audiences like the Tyler Perry films). My impression after seeing the film almost always jibes with that composite average.
I guess it’s a round-about way of saying that, philosophically, it’s no coincidence that I find collective wisdom to be more persuasive and in any every way preferable to elite opinion.
As for Ben Lyons, he was previously the “special correspondent” for his father’s local NBC show in NYC, “Reel Talk.” His segments were always fawning interviews with beautiful starlets. They reminded me of those SNL sketches where Chris Farley interviewed celebs like Paul McCartney and asked, “remember when you wrote Abbey Road? That was awesome.”
I’m not one to start a website to get someone ousted but I’m afraid all that criticism of Ben Lyons is warranted. He clearly represents the down-side of nepotism.
Hopefully the market will put “At the Movies” out to pasture.
I don’t ordinarily reply to posts but I liked this and wanted you to know it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.