The Problems with Film Criticism

As a lover of entertainment and an admirer of art, does film criticism still hold a place in the world of cinema with box office into account?

In the topic of film criticism, I am beginning to experience a revolution in the subject, one that you may agree or disagree with but certainly find interest in.

With the talent and scale of film criticism continuing to grow and on occasions dominate the success of films and influence the public whether or not they should pay their hard earned cash to see the film or not, I have a problem with film criticism. Let me explain.

For decades, since the late 1800’s film has been considered an art form and so it should be. A platform where creative individuals can articulate beautiful imagery on the screen, but then comes the story and characters and more importantly the idea of what exactly audiences want to see. It’s these factor that has made film distribution and sourcing a film hard, but exciting.

Whether how much talent there is behind a film, if the audience don’t click with it, they won’t see it and if they don’t see it, the film either won’t be made or will flop. For example, Blade Runner 2049 was a fabulous testament to the talent of Dennis Villueave abilities to create scope and scale, yet the film flopped hard and audiences generally speaking didn’t click with the film. Film critics loved the film and saw it as both artistic and engaging.

In contrast, the cinema of Michael Bay has produced millions every time or at least most of the time when he directs a film. I’am not a huge fan of Michael Bay, yet audiences generally find his films entertaining. What this may come down to is how you define art. Are Michael Bay movies pure cinematic art or just entertainment?

I’d argue that his films did what cinema should be to fulfill what audiences want to see. In this, there is a distinguishing line between utilizing the cinema in all its senses and glory or to produce material that audiences like and there is a difference. Romantic comedies usually don’t utilize cinema in all it senses, mainly because they don’t need to. The hard part is to combine both, cinema that utilizes technical qualities as both an art form and a thrilling narrative.

Chris Nolan’s cinema has been a consistent example of this theme as he produces thought provoking material with beautiful imagery, where he clearly thinks about the storytelling aspect and understands what audiences want to see. To put it clearly, he can establish new and original ideas to audiences, without it making it too pretenious.

With all this said, where do film critics fit into this topic?

The cinema was meant to be for audiences not critics, as the audience’s dictates the success of the film by how much money it makes. Therefore, the cinema was made and built for the audience experience and not exactly for the critics.

This doesn’t mean that art house films and through provoking indie films with low budgets don’t do well with both audiences and critics, but the answer remains clear, which is a film studio has more of a chance of being successful when they make the film for the audience and not the critics and that has been true for a long time.

I love film criticism and well written reviews that deeply analyszs the talent and the orchestra behind a film, it takes hard work, research and love for the industry and its great, but I am starting to believe that the film industry is an audience picture.

The fast and Furious films have sky rocketed to financial success and don’t represent film as an art form, but I guess it depends on how you define art in cinematic forms and that questions takes a bit of time to think about.

Sometimes when you want to make a film entertaining and for audiences, then you cant exactly construct the film that satisfies the critics, or at least, this is very hard to do. If the film does’nt satisfy the critics, then I think this does’nt mean that film does’nt contain talent. As ridiculous as the Fast films are, you cant deny a level of technical efficiency.

On the whole, I think audiences just want to relax and be entertained when watching a film, after a long hard day at work or a weekend break. Yet again, the majority of audiences who actually pay their money are’nt critics, only a small fraction are film critics.

To be a film critic, who can understand film making takes time to develop. You have to know your history and watch a lot of films, most audiences don’t have time to do this and fair enough.

Maybe, it doesn’t matter what a film critic thinks and maybe its impossible to successfully and accurately dictate if a film is good or bad, when and or if the film succeeds at the box office and is liked by audiences. To further this point, being a film critic goes against the whole idea of film being a completely subjective medium.

If there really was a right or wrong way of making a film, the effect of that would become subversive. Cinema should be a creative form where individuals around the world can give their say essentially and bring audiences and professionals together. I believe that cinema should be celebrated and you should never be limited by only one type of film.

I enjoy all films or least try to. Its great to watch oscar material and thought provoking narratives like Nolan’s cinema, but you know what, its fun to be immersed in all stories or at least be open to all films without the subject of film criticism weakening the experience.

In industry terms, making and producing a film doesn’t always involve art, it usually involves a series of well thought out financial motives to ensure profit. This process can be prioritized over the actual art involved in the filmmaking. This can be seen mostly in franchise building sequels, where the art of the moving image is usually abandoned for financial choices, although this is’nt always the case.

I don’t like Michael Bay films, but I will still give him a shot when his new film Ambulance comes out and even Roland Emmerich’s Moonfall, which I am sure wont be perfect, but you know what, its great to have fun.

The only few occasions when I think calling a film bad is appropriate when the film crosses moral boundaries and becomes offensive.

All in all, cinema should be everyone and I think film criticism is starting to limit this idea, but I am not in any way arguing against film criticism, I love it and I believe it says strong for generations. This article are for the audiences who love reviews and critics. On this topic, my faveourite critics are Marc Kermode, Richard Roeper, Roger Ebert and several more.

With all this said, do you really read film reviews before seeing a film?

Author Bio

Sam is a content writer. He loves all elements connected with film and writes with passion, always. You can find him on Linkedin, where you will be able to read more articles. When he is not writing, you can find him practicing football