Thoughts from the Usher Podium: Why Criticism Matters

It seems today everyone is a critic. With the dawning of the internet age, people of all ages, races, nationalities and other persuasions and identities, who previously went unheard, can now take to cyberspace to connect and find comfort among like-minded people. The added bonus of relative anonymity has midwifed a democratization of opinion, a buttressing of lively discussion and a mode of self-expression that despite the occasional troll, yields untold dividends.

Nowhere is this democratization more evident than in the realm of pop culture, art and entertainment. Film criticism used to be firmly in the grasp of a journalistic elite. Now names like Pauline Kiel, Roger Ebert, Vincent Canby and Leonard Maltin might as well be garbled gibberish to the public at large. The era of the professional critic is over, replaced by personal blogs, click-bait Top 10's and other time-wasters that expose the collective id of our culture. So why do we even have professional critics anymore? Why listen to a cabal of supposed experts when we can get more meaningful recommendations from friends who share our values and interests?

Firstly, the very notion that you can get more meaningful recommendations from those who share your values is evidence enough that film criticism is important. After all, film is arguably the most widespread art-form the world has ever known. Cinema is not relegated to adorning the walls of lavish palaces nor made to be placed in public squares; cinema is accessible to nearly everyone on Earth. That being the case the themes, explorations and yes, even values we put in films inform our worldview.

There's a little more going on than just trite entertainment. Keep in mind some films are not meant to be entertaining in the strictest sense of the word. Some convey a larger philosophical point, evoke feelings of sadness and fright and sometimes they even rebel against the form itself. Much like a talented reporter covers a political rally or a peace summit, a critic records a movie as if it were an important event. Any critic worth his or her salt will give a synopsis of the film while trying not to ruin any story elements deems to be spoilers. They’ll also inform their reader with a context either calling back to, or recommending, other films that are similar in theme, similar in stature or exhibit the same cast or crew.

Being journalists, critics are endowed with a certain authority to commentate. That authority is gained through hours of watching close to everything they can get their grubby popcorn buttered fingers on. They then cement their thoughts on paper, on camera or on air, putting them out into the ether to be received by a wanting public. Their authority is far from infinite but it's informed by history and put into a context. They are not kings of celluloid but rather advisers who presumably have a wealth of knowledge on the film form. Yet despite their expertise and commentary they are far from infallible. The negative aspect of making value judgments is there’s always someone with a counterpoint.

This brings me to my next point. critics, truly talented critics comment with the intention of breeding discussion. Critical assessment is but one stage in a film’s life as a cultural timepiece. A lot of today’s irreproachable “Greatest Films” were far from critical darlings. Vertigo (1958) for example was coolly received by critics at the time of its release. Today Vertigo is considered the best film of all time by the infamous Sights & Sounds poll. The director of Citizen Kane (1941) the former “Best film” of all time was booed at the Academy Awards where the film received only one statuette for Best Screenplay. Just imagine what the critics of the time had to say about the embattled film.

Still insisting Symbol (2009) is a contemporary classic

A film review is but the first say in a conversation. A conversation between audiences, filmmakers, studios, academics and yes even critics. Thanks to the internet the annuls of film history are colored in by generations of film-lovers all of which bring a slightly different perspective on a particular film, a particular genre, a particular director etcetera etcetera. Are some opinions better than others? Well that's ultimately up to you though my answer to such a question brings me to my final point on why criticism still matters.

We in the west like to view the world as a dichotomy between old and new. For various reasons many cling to old traditions; some to preserve and curate the past so generations may appropriate certain ways, values and obligations. I for one enjoy classic films for this very reason. Others however are stuck in golden-age thinking, becoming increasingly bitter by changing mores and suspicious of new ideas. If there's one guiding light that I cling to it's a cautious acceptance of the new. Not just new technologies and fresh new blood in cinema but bold narrative experiments, audacious risks in visual storytelling and an appreciation for creativity over commerce.

Thus the reason I have and will continue to write extensively on the value of film is so I can continue keeping the conversation headed in the right direction in my own little way. A direction towards larger artistic frontiers buoyed by a constant exchange of ideas and informed by the past. I may not always be right but the constant search for great cinema that keeps us thinking, keeps us empathetic and keeps us hopeful, means I'm never wrong.

As usual, I make it all about me!