Hardly anyone cares what critics think about a movie, and it’s only going to get worse.
But why is that?
Decades ago, when you wanted to know if Friday’s movie was going to be any good, you waited for the newspaper review, or you grabbed your copy of Playboy (people read that for movie reviews, right?) or even waited to find out what Siskel and Ebert thought about it. These guys mattered. They knew what was good and people took it to heart.
Then the internet happened.
Now, I’m not going to be one of those out of touch assholes who lament the loss of the old guard and blame their technical shortcomings on the internet. Fuck that, I’m not a Congressman. The internet is awesome.
What it does change is how we get our information. The fact is, most people in our society would rather look for information that agrees with them rather than ‘waste their time’ on something that isn’t in their worldview. This is why critics are fast becoming obsolete.
Sure, Roger Ebert is still respected. But he’s in a clear, ever-shrinking minority of film critics, and his opinions are carrying less and less value with the younger generation. Most critics nowadays are just there for gee-whiz reviews, used more often by people who want to double-check what the plot is or get a general idea of how entertaining the film could be.
Where’s my proof?
You hear more and more often about films coming out that are ‘critic proof,’ right? Every month or two, a film comes out and gets excoriated by the media, but still takes #1 in the box office? Well, some people did actual studies about it!
Here’s one I found after 3 intense seconds of mind numbing, hardcore research: http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/157/Old_Projects/kennedy.pdf. In it, Mr. Kennedy reveals a few things I expected and something that I honestly didn’t see coming. First, reviews don’t seem to have much of an impact on overall gross. No big surprises there. However, there was an exception when taking into account long-term gross. It seems like movies with positive reviews last longer and make more solid returns over the long haul.
What the hell does it all mean?
It means critics are pretty much fucked. Right now all they do is, scientifically, predict whether or not a movie is going to have staying power. That’s right, a critic’s review will predict that a movie will be #1 for 5 days and then get bumped off by the next big thing. Crap like Jack and Jill ignored the 3% Rotten Tomatoes score, made a ton of cash in the first week and then tanked quickly. It’s obvious the critic’s reviews didn’t stop it from making 25 MILLION DAMN DOLLARS in its first week. All the critics were able to do was predict that it would quickly tank after opening week.
So here’s where I come in. I’m going to play prediction guru by breaking down the three types of critics who might actually thrive in today’s world of instant information and gratification. As a bonus, I’ll even tell you which one will come out on top.
First, there’s the old guard; the respected, beloved critic who still matters. These guys are going to be fewer and fewer as the golden age of movies slowly fades into the background, to be replaced by a year-round summer blockbuster season. I already mentioned the most obvious example. Roger Ebert is probably the most respected film critic alive, although there are others out there writing for magazines like The New Yorker. Unfortunately, that’s half the problem. Who the hell reads The New Yorker before deciding whether or not to watch the latest Eddie Murphy shitfest? It’s very likely that these well-respected critics are not going to be replaced as they retire or pass away. A best case scenario would be a replacement of 1 new guy for every 3 or 4 old guard.
A second way to be a successful critic in today’s world is to pander. I’m not saying it in a negative way, I’m simply implying that the pandering critic can enjoy their run by finding his/her ‘crowd’ and pleasing just them. If, as a moviegoer, an aspiring critic absolutely loves Asian dramas and can dissect the ever-loving shit out of it, they should write about it. Don’t try to be a jack-of-all-trades critic; don’t try to write about categories you don’t enjoy, such as South American horror films. You’re going to be miserable and nobody is going to care.
You don’t really see a person advertising that they’re a ‘pandering critic’ in that they pimp themselves as such, but an example would be someone who just loves the shit out of horror movies getting hired to write reviews for Fangoria. These are guys who are willing to focus their attention to one area or genre and let their love of a topic speak for them. In the process, they write for a much smaller crowd, but one that is potentially far more appreciative of their work.
Finally, there’s the entertainer. This is a person who doesn’t necessarily get people to read their reviews because they’re informative (but hopefully they are also that). They get people to read their reviews because they’re entertaining. Now, this category is pretty broad because the entertainer can take man different tacks, from simply try to be chuckle-inducing to straight trolling their readership. I consider the movie reviewers at Something Awful to be entertainers. They throw in far more humor and off-the-cuff commentary into their writings than most critics, but they still fit a genuine review in there.
I can’t think of a film version of the ‘troll’ critic, but if I were to offer up someone who has mastered the art of being informative and entertaining while also inflaming some of his viewers, I would offer up Jim Sterling. His reviews usually contain actual facts about gameplay and graphics, but they’re wrapped up in absurd and oft-indefensible comments that deliberately incite a sub-group of readers.
Like it or not, entertainers are the real future of movie reviews. People are going to care less and less what a stodgy old critic thinks, but they still want to know what other people think of a movie. Eventually there will be no more deference. People will say "well, I hear so-and-so didn't like this movie, and I trust his opinions" less and less. If you're lucky, you'll get the occasional "so-and-so didn't like this movie, and we have similar tastes."
No comments:
Post a Comment