HOLLYWOOD—I hate to say it, but I’m going to say it, movie critics can be annoying. I feel the days of actual film criticism has died as we take those scholars out the window to usher in a generation of people who ‘LOVE MOVIES’ and they give their critical analysis. People ask me all the time; do you ever take the advice of a critic when it comes to see a movie?
The simple answer is: NO! Film is subjective, it is based on one’s opinions and personal tastes. It is art, and simply put, people are always going to have various opinions about art, especially when you get into the realm of TV and cinema. There are indeed films that are classics, but that is another column and another time and date for us to truly get into that argument.
Unlike many of the actual movie critics out there today, I labored myself as an undergraduate through film school, actually taking classes all about cinema from introduction to film, to film history, film criticism, film theory, studies in film gender, screenwriting and so much more. I was in the trenches and when I say my criticism and theory course challenged me in ways I never expected, jeez it would be an understatement.
You’re talking about a person who analyzed Alfred Hitchcock’s “The Birds” so much it took the actual enjoyment out of the movie, once I was able to decipher what Hitchcock was actually saying about his leading lady in Tippi Hedren, whose character was in essence sexually promiscuous. Most viewers might not see it, but there are a ton of scenes I could show and explore for you where you will understand it much more, explaining why the ‘birds’ flocked to this town and were attacking.
I deciphered “Mildred Pierce” so much for a critical essay, it felt like it was going to destroy my love for film noir because I was constantly rewinding and analyzing scenes in that movie that highlight the film’s title character to her portrayer, Joan Crawford, and the idea of stardom. It seems like a stretch, but my oral argument wowed, not just my classmates, but my professor, and that is not me simply tooting my horn.
A true critic digs deep, they go beyond just that troupe of liking the movie or not, or explaining why it entertains versus why it doesn’t. Your goal is to figure out with precise detail(s) as a movie critic what this movie is trying to say to society or about society, and the general public as a whole. I know that may sound crazy, but even some of the worst of the worst, and movies that should have never been made, have some odd message. It might be a message about depravity, sexuality, violence, narcissism, hatred, racism, environmental destruction or something outlandish you never expected like self-loathing.
I am not the critic that is simply going to agree that a movie is great because all the critics out there loved it. I will call a spade a spade, as much as it may pain me sometimes to actual do it. I’m a fan of horror, but Rob Zombie’s “Halloween II” was easily one of the worst movies I watched in 2009. Was it the worst horror movie ever, no, but it was an absolute failure, and I enjoyed the previously flick, even though it was too focused on nostalgia instead of delivering something fresh and new.
I hated the 2010 flick “A Nightmare on Elm Street” which followed similar troupes of nostalgia instead of bringing something fresh and new to an iconic villain and idea. “Get Out” was NOT my cup of tea, it was an enjoyable movie, but it was not the horror flick everyone touted it to be. IT WAS NOT HORROR PEOPLE, that was a psychological thriller! They are not the same thing, so please stop grouping those categories together like there is no difference.
This year’s Best Picture winner “Anora” was ok, but it didn’t punch me in the gut like “Conclave” did. Also just look at Oscar’s history when it comes to praising work that deals with the sex industry. You get movies like “Klute” and “Cabaret” winning Oscars for Best Actress, as well as “Monster” in 2004 that delivered Charlize Theron her Best Actress victory. There are trends out there that people don’t always pay attention to, but if you look closer you can see them.
I think sometimes critics are afraid to say what they’re really thinking because they get to see all these advance movie screenings without actually having to pay for them. Well, the studios can easily stop that and force them to pay out of pocket, like I do when I see a movie, and I do a critical analysis of the film. If I have to pay $12-$20 to see a movie, those ‘critics’ and I QUOTE that for a reason, they should be doing the same. It sometimes feels like you have those who are just in the room to be in the room with the others, and that elitist crap, who cares.
Being a critic of cinema doesn’t make you any better than the everyday person. Yeah, you might see and decipher some things others don’t, but let’s be honest how many critics actually do the work to make that happen, really?
