This project will consider the problem of the professional film critic's decline as a result of the growing popularity of the online amateur film critic. Blogs, discussion forums, and websites have all made self-publishing accessible to the public at large, and consumers commonly turn to more "readable" reviews in favor of potentially esoteric, elitist, and overly-intellectual ones. Films shape our ideology and serve as prominent points of reference and influence in society, and what we think of films is crucial to how we form our common perceptions, biases, and shared experiences. This stems from the fact that film critics are an integral part of the process of "making" a film, that is deciding whether or not the film will ever make it to a wider audience, and once it does, what that audience's reaction will be. Film critics who work for newspapers and other forms of media generally review newly released films that haven't yet had a chance to gather a following. A bad review can ruin a film's chance of ever developing a dedicated audience by convincing people not to go see it, and likewise, a good review can suddenly direct the limelight towards an otherwise obscure film that may never have stood a chance with the public.
Roger Ebert claims in his blog, Roger Ebert's Journal, that the disappearance of the film critic is potentially indicative of an even larger problem. Ebert argues, "We are being trained not to think. It is not about the disappearance of film critics. We are the canaries. It is about the death of an intelligent and curious, readership, interested in significant things and able to think critically" ("Death to Film Critics!"). On The Guardian Film Blog Ronald Bergan-while not going so far as to lament the disappearance of an "intelligent and curious" readership-does make the distinction between "reviewers" and "critics" ("The Film Critic is Dead"). Bergan suggests that the problem with critics uneducated in film history and technique is that they are limited to "narrative" and cannot comment on "narratology" ("The Film Critic is Dead"). Consequently, it is much easier to cleverly critique a bad film than to dissect the qualities of a good one.
How does this evolution in film criticism change how we decide what is a "good" film? A blog allows for a higher level of interaction between the reader and the reviewer, but do we also lose something in the process of changing a monologue over to a dialogue? Is it through being made public that film criticism becomes film criticism? Does it have any impact on the type of films that are made/are successful/are nominated for awards? Does it have a positive, negative, or negligible effect on the gender disparity in film criticism? What ultimately makes someone a "critic"? And is it necessary to demarcate between who is a critic and who is not? What happens when anyone can be a critic as a result of new technology such as blogging, and what does it mean for both filmmakers and audience members alike?
For this project, I would like to explore these questions in a research paper that would include a series of interviews from filmmakers, established film critics, and amateur online reviewers to give a wide survey of different schools of thought on the topic. The end result would be an amalgamation of film criticism; commentary on the profession, society, and the academy; critical self-portraits; and my own research on the subject. I think a project that deals in film critics' own reflections, considerations concerning the impact of their work, and general research about the field is pivotal in projecting the future of film criticism, film, and as a result, popular culture and ideology.
Bergan, Ronald. "The Film Critic Is Dead. Long Live the Film Critic." Weblog post. Film Blog. The Guardian, 7 Apr. 2011. Web. 12 Oct. 2010.
Ebert, Roger. "Death to Film Critics! Hail to the CelebCult!" Weblog post. Roger Ebert's Journal. Chicago Sun-Times, 26 Nov. 2008. Web. 12 Oct. 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment