Roger Ebert is quite possibly the most recognizable name among film critics today. There are plenty of people who read and enjoy his reviews and watch his television show, but there are also those who feel he has mortally damaged the art of film reviewing.
Film reviewing for a daily newspaper is complex and personal journalism. The writer tries to accomplish a number of things at once, and serve a wide and varied audience. The intensely personal nature of reviewing is a weakness, but it is also a great source of strength.
Critic v. Reviewer
There are film critics and film reviewers. Most people use the phrases interchangeably, as though they mean the same thing.
They do not.
A film critic is similar to a literary critic. He or she writes essays about film, usually for specialized journals or magazines with sophisticated readers. These essays are assessments of films as reflecting social or artistic forces, as works of art, as examples of a particular genre. One reads them to better understand films, rather than for advice about how to spend Friday evening.
Film critics have a great deal of experience as film watchers and a sophisticated knowledge of the history and techniques of filmmaking. Their writings assume that the reader has, or aspires to, a similar level of interest. Rather than writing for the average movie-goer, film critics write for people who care deeply about movies as an art form.
Film reviewers, on the other hand, write for newspapers and large circulation weekly magazines, and their work is primarily read to help the reader decide whether or not to see a particular movie. A secondary purpose of a film review is to help the reader to appreciate film as an art. Film reviewers present their own opinions as a tool for others' use. They mix together raw information with a measure of enlightenment.
Film reviewing began shortly after Edison first projected flickering images on a screen, becoming more important as movies gained popularity. Early on, audiences needed the guidance of film reviewers on two levels. The simple consumer reporting aspect of reviews was vital, as actors were not identified in the movies themselves and reviews were a major source of information about films. At the same time, the art form was still very new and audiences were learning how to interpret the emerging syntax of film, so a professional assessment of a film was very enlightening. Although audiences have grown slightly more sophisticated, film reviewers are still necessary.
One Writer, Many Goals
Part of the difficulty inherent in film reviewing is that it is simultaneously a form of consumer reporting (what is the film about? who’s in it?), a statement about the worth of a film (is the movie good or not?), a teaching opportunity (how is this film an example of film noir?), as well as, ideally, a form of entertainment in its own right. When these things come together, the result is an article which enlightens, entertains and is useful in deciding whether or not to go see the movie this Friday. Each element, however, has its own difficulties and falls in a different place on the spectrum which ranges from "objective/scientific" to "subjective/personal."
The consumer reporting aspect is usually objective. In most cases, what the film is about and who is starring in it is clear. The technical details of who made the film are easy to obtain. Describing the plot, though, is a talent that must be cultivated. Many readers of film reviews base their decision to see or to avoid a film on the movie's story and tone.
Obvious as the story may be, and many movie stories are pretty obvious, describing it well is a more difficult task. Revealing too much will infuriate readers who hate having the surprises spoiled for them, but revealing too little is extremely unhelpful. The reviewer must select just enough of the most important plot points and present them in a way which makes the tone of the film clear. This is a difficult task, but not an impossible one.
The teaching aspect of film reviewing, while secondary, is also important, and inevitably less objective than the pure reporting element. It is also more difficult. As any student knows, there are both bad teachers and good teachers, and the same material can be taught well or badly. The challenge is to decide what is most important and how to present it clearly and understandably. A film reviewer must choose what to focus on for each particular film, because the unavoidable space limitations of journalism and the attention span of the average newspaper reader make it impossible to elaborate on every possible element of a film.
To make the film reviewer’s task even more difficult, they must avoid excessively technical language. Few readers of newspaper film reviews understand the jargon of film makers, or worse, film scholars.
The well-written review is enjoyable to read, and the informal prose of the good writer is as subjective as can be. Style is a remarkably personal element, and one which is due at least as much to personal talent as to technical skill. Entertainment lies more in how the information is expressed than in the information itself. Finding a film reviewer whose style we enjoy is a delight, and the acid test of a reviewer is whether the reviewer is worth reading after seeing the film.
Where many critics run into trouble with their readers is in the evaluative section of their review. Good or bad is partly a matter of opinion, but not wholly. Most moviegoers can agree on extremely bad or extremely good films so there is clearly some sort of distribution, a bell-shaped curve of opinions. It is in the middle that the personal element of film reviewing becomes a pitfall rather than an advantage.
Common complaints about film reviewers stem from disagreements with their judgment. Readers resent it when films they love are trashed, or when they read a glowing review of a film, see it, and think it is awful.
How does one determine the worth of a film? While it is not necessary to have extensive knowledge of film art to discuss a film’s artistic worth, it certainly helps. We read film reviews to get an informed opinion on the movie in question, but there can be more than one informed opinion on the worth of a film. Excessive authoritarianism ("I am right, and anyone who thinks otherwise is too stupid to be worth my consideration") frequently alienates the reader. Similarly, a review that does not allow for the possibility of other opinions of the film ("Everyone in the world will love/hate this movie") is singularly insulting to the readers who may not agree.
While there are no formal criteria a film must meet to be good, a value judgment is still possible. Reviewers stand or fall on the explanations of their judgements. A clear exposition of why a film is good or bad is interesting and useful even to those who may disagree, and can help the reviewer avoid seeming overly authoritarian.
The personality and personal preferences of film reviewers help make their work useful and enjoyable to read, but can also become part of why we may grow frustrated and disillusioned with film reviewers.
Looking Back
The work of most widely respected reviewers is thoughtful and intelligent, but also very subjective, personal, and often emotional. Their writing emphasizes the personal nature of film reviewing and their special sensibility, and that is a large part of what makes them enjoyable to read.
James Agee, who reviewed for The Nation and Time in the 1940s, wrote intensely personal and seemingly casual columns. His first column for The Nation set out his goals for the space:
"I would like so to use this column about moving pictures as to honor and discriminate the subject through interesting and serving you who are reading it… It is my business to conduct one end of a conversation, as an amateur critic among amateur critics" (Agee, The Nation Dec. 26, 1942).
Agee presented himself as a participant in a discussion rather than an authority laying down the objective truth about films, and that is part of his appeal. His columns read like a post-movie chat with a friend; they are the answer to "So, what did you think of the film?" More importantly, he saw himself as a devotee or admirer (the original meaning of "amateur") of film rather than as someone laying down immutable laws about what was good or bad. Agee presented himself as a film lover writing for other film lovers, not primarily as an arbiter of taste.
However, Agee was more of an expert than he appeared. As a highly educated man, as well as a screenwriter and film scholar, he knew significantly more about movies than most of his readers probably did. The fact that he did not let this get between himself and his readers is very much to his credit. Rather than pompously displaying his erudition, he set it aside to engage his readers as equals.
Pauline Kael, who was more of a film critic than a film reviewer, wrote for The New Yorker for more than twenty years. She was so passionate and opinionated in her reviews that for every person who adored her work, there was probably at least one who hated it. Her vehemence was part of her style, and her obvious intelligence and love of her subject make her writing very engaging.
She was very conscious of the personal nature of reviewing. In "A Sense of Disproportion" (reprinted in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, 1965) she points out that film reviewing is of necessity a subjective art: "There are not -- and there never were -- any formal principles that can be used to judge movies." The concepts that pass for rules, she goes on to explain, shift as films are made which violate those concepts.
Her focus in the essay is the shift in structural emphasis from films in which everything was carefully planned to those current at the time, in which a great deal of effort and spectacle went into telling essentially simple stories. Some critics (and many audience members) were left looking for more substance, trying to figure out what justification for the spectacle they must have missed.
Kael’s essays on the nature of film as an art are, like her reviews, full of intelligence and very pointed wit. They are still very readable now, decades after they were written, because her style and insight make them both interesting and enlightening.
The Present
What do today's reviewers think they're doing? Not surprisingly, there is no consensus, although a nebulous group of ideals can be seen in the overlapping of different critics’ goals. The goals of entertaining, informing, and enlightening readers come up again and again in one form or another in discussions of the nature of reviewing by film reviewers.
Wesley Morris wrote in a "Film Critic's Manifesto" in 1999 for The San Francisco Examiner: "Most people just want to know whether something is good or not…[but] a film critic should be the person who's able to get people thinking about what they're seeing." Morris saw himself as more of a critic than a reviewer, with the enlightening aspect of reviewing at the forefront.
Kenneth Turan of The Los Angeles Times says he tries to be interesting to read, provide guidance in choosing films, and give insight into the film as a work of art. "There is an element of consumer service," he says. "People want to get a sense of whether they want to see the movie or not. [But] if you're a good critic, you have an aptitude for seeing things in film, and that experience lets you offer insight to the reader." Turan has a secondary goal as well: to let the studios know that Hollywood should put out better films. "I am not a frustrated filmmaker," Turan says, "I am a frustrated audience member!"
Glenn Lovell of The San Jose Mercury News agrees that there's an element of consumer reporting, because newspaper readers want to know if the film is worth the nine dollars it will cost to see it. But, he says, "I tend to think less about those things. I try to write in an entertaining way about what I've seen." Lovell also includes background and contextual information in his articles, which he says has given him a reputation for writing "cerebral reviews."
The San Francisco Examiner's Jeff Anderson tries to get people to look at films as an art and not mindlessly follow the masses at the box office. "I like to think that part of my job is to be an educator," Anderson says, "It's more than just consumer reporting. I'd like to open [movie-goers'] minds a little."
In short, there are three goals here: to entertain, inform (about both quality and content), and educate the reader. Get them interested enough to read the review, help them decide whether or not to see the film, and broaden the way they look at or think about the film.
These are reasonable and good goals to have; after all, they're the things most people want out of a movie review. They are not easy goals to reach, however, and there are several difficulties reviewers must negotiate if they are to produce quality reviews.
The Problem Is…
The two biggest stumbling blocks reviewers must overcome are their different way of seeing films and the ever-present potential for becoming authoritarian in their writing. Reviewers see hundreds more films per year than their readers, which alters the way they respond to movies. This expertise is useful, and part of what enables reviewers to enlighten their audience, but it also makes it easy for reviewers to grow heavy-handed and seem to look down on their readers.
An informal survey, conducted over the web, asked respondents to detail their film-going and review-reading habits and solicited their opinions of film reviewers in general. Most of the 75 respondents praised critics whom they found entertaining and interesting to read, but complained about the disparity between their opinions of films and those of the reviewers.
When asked whether film reviewers are "in touch" with the average filmgoer, most respondents to the internet survey disagreed. Several explained that film critics have a very different way of seeing films, in part because they see so many and know more about film than the average viewer.
One female respondent, age 25, referred to the difference as one of personal preference: "I find that film critics tend to approve of and/or love things that are beyond the average moviegoer's taste." Film reviewers, because they have the dual advantage of greater knowledge and a greater wealth of viewing experience, can often appreciate films their readers may find uninteresting or overly difficult.
A similar complaint, from a 38-year-old man: "They seem to apply industry values to films, not average filmgoer values. As a patron, I want to be entertained." Several other respondents also mentioned entertainment as the primary quality they look for in a film. Reviewers may fault poor cinematography or an illogical script, but readers are often willing to overlook such flaws if the film is sufficiently entertaining.
Personal preferences and possible over-exposure to the medium were the two most commonly mentioned explanations for these differences. This is logical; after all, the person reading the review might like science fiction films, while the reviewer might happen to dislike them, and seeing several hundred films a year will give one a very different perspective from the average filmgoer, who sees only a dozen or so films a year, if that many. Reviewers' greater experience gives them a broader base of comparison, a larger cinematic vocabulary, and generally much less patience with formulaic stories. When one has seen the same plot line a hundred times, it is much more difficult to be interested in it. The average filmgoer generally does not have this problem.
Another bad habit film reviewers can succumb to, as mentioned earlier, is a dictatorial, self-important style. Reviewers who seem to be showing off their education and laying down the law about what readers should think make the readers feel insulted. Several respondents complained about this tendency.
Most of the comments on this subject were extremely vehement. A female respondent, age 25, wrote: "Let me put it this way. Most critics are busy being educated snobs instead of just enjoying the damn movie." A 40-year-old man agreed, adding that some reviewers appear to see their readers as too unintelligent to have valid opinions of their own: "[Some reviewers] are so impressed with themselves that they aren’t impressed enough by anyone else to consider what they think." Reviewers who seem to think very highly of themselves appear snobbish and are off-putting to readers. No one enjoys being made to feel unintelligent.
Reviewers who seem to think that no other opinion about the film could possibly be valid insult and upset their readers. Reviewers know that their readers look to them for guidance, but they must also remember that their readers do not want to be dictated to. Looking for information and a considered opinion does not make readers unintelligent or uninformed. Although it is easy for reviewers to seem pompous, that can be fatal to their credibility.
…Or is it?
Reviewers express varied opinions about the differences between the way readers of reviews see films and the way reviewers see films. Most feel that these differences are beneficial and part of why reviews are read, while a few feel that it is important to remember and allow for those differences.
Kenneth Turan is particularly vehement on the subject: "One of the reasons you read a critic is that they're not an average person!" In a recent article for the Los Angeles Times, Turan explained that he had to rely on his own opinions when reviewing, rather than tag along with the pack. The film in question was Amores Perros, which was being hailed as a brilliant art film by many critics. Turan found it unimpressive.
"I am who I am," he wrote, "what I like and dislike is what I like and dislike, and if from where I sat, Amores Perros was a tedious, irritating film, that's the way it would have to be. … Criticism is a lonely job, and in the final analysis, either you're a gang of one or you're nothing at all."
Lovell agrees. "I don't think [the differences between reviewer and reader] should even be factored in," he says. "You come off as patronizing. . . . Critics should not be on their guard against being too personal or too political." Lovell says he tries to write as if his readers have the same knowledge of and enthusiasm about films as he does, although he notes, "I know that's not true."
Not all reviewers feel the same way, however. John Scalzi, former film reviewer for The Fresno Bee, feels that it's easy for someone who watches films for a living to get "burned out," while the average viewer goes to the movies with a different mindset. "Most people," he says, "want to be entertained, and will cut a film a lot of slack if that goal is even marginally accomplished. As opposed to the critic, who, no matter now much he or she loves film in the abstract, still watches films for a living." While reviewers should not patronize their readers or change their own opinions, the differences between the professional film reviewer and the casual moviegoer should be kept in mind.
Neither the reviewers themselves nor the readers have a unanimous opinion on the issue, which is perhaps a benefit. Each reviewer is different, and of course their reviews differ as well. A reader can choose among reviewers for the most reasonable or sympathetic to his or her tastes.
It is becoming more and more difficult for readers to chose among different film critics, however, because many editors are using film reviews from wire services rather than reviews done locally. Wire service reviews vary in length and quality, and are written by a variety of people. As a result, the reader cannot get to know the idiosyncrasies of each reviewer, and learn whether or not their opinions and style are what the reader wants.
Reviewers themselves are not particularly happy about wire service reviews, either. Jeff Anderson of The San Francisco Examiner says they are "very impersonal, and adds, "I hate them!"
Glenn Lovell of The Mercury News (which makes extensive use of reviews from the wire) agrees: "I think it is really a negative trend, to keep shoveling in wire."
At many papers, however, wire service reviews are an economical alternative to paying reviewers themselves to attend screenings. According to Glenn Lovell, it is his newspaper’s policy to keep local writers for larger stories and use wire service material to fill in the gaps regardless of possible negative consequences.
Even so, most large papers have at least one reviewer on staff, and others, such as The San Francisco Chronicle have several. Finding a reviewer one can agree with is not by any means an impossible task for a reader.
In Closing
Reviewing is a peculiar form of journalism. At once objective and subjective, factual and opinion-based, it strives to deliver several kinds of information without the benefit of a commonly accepted format, style, or collection of criteria. While reporters have their inverted pyramids, leads, and other outlines to follow, the film reviewers must fend for themselves.
Film reviewing is an art that discusses cold facts and proffers debatable opinions. It is a highly personal form of writing, which is part of why we enjoy reading a good reviewer. It was said of Pauline Kael that her most dedicated readers seldom saw a movie. We read reviews for the same reasons we discuss films with friends. A film review is only as good as the reviewer writing it, and even the best reviewer will not be universally admired.
Readers don’t want to be preached to or patronized. They come to a reviewer looking to be informed and enlightened without being made to feel inferior. It is a fine line to walk, but one reviewers cannot avoid. To be a film reviewer is to serve many masters to the best of one's ability, knowing it is impossible to please them all.
Copyright 2001 Ealasaid A. Haas