Ever since the
formation of the motion picture industry in the early 20th century,
there has been a role for film critics. Early critics were in charge of setting
the precedent for the profession, or, in the words of Alistair Cooke (as cited
in Miller, 2012), could “define the movies with no more misgivings than Aristotle
defined tragedy.” Over time, film criticism emerged as a respected journalistic
pursuit and became entrenched in popular culture through the work of critics
such as Pauline Kael, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. The advent of the Internet
has signalled a shift in the traditional model of film criticism. Now, films
can be downloaded illegally on peer-to-peer file sharing protocols such as
BitTorrent. This means that anyone with an Internet connection can download a
film before a qualified critic attends a screening of it. The immediacy of this
technology places film critics at risk of becoming redundant, as people may be
less inclined to read a review if they are not being charged to watch a film.
The rise of online film criticism has created much conjecture over the validity
of published content, considering plenty of it is unpaid and
independently-produced. It is worth considering if a tweet is as informative as
a review, and if top 10 lists are as newsworthy as thorough analysis. This
golden age of citizen journalism could spell the death of print critics, as
those looking for an opinion of a film can wade through a morass of online
content without having to peruse the Sunday paper.
Traditionally,
film critics who work in print are paid to see and critique a movie just before
it is released to the general public. These reviews are published in
newspapers, magazines and even academic journals, just in time for film
enthusiasts to weigh up the pros and cons of an upcoming attraction. Peer-to-peer
file sharing protocols, while completely legal as a technology, are frequently
used for illegal purposes. One of these purposes is the distribution of
copyrighted films. It is common for a film to be released on a different date
in several countries, and this has a major implication for the discipline of
film criticism. A film may be released on DVD in the United States two months
before it is given a theatrical release in Australia. Anyone in the United
States with the adequate technology can rip this DVD and upload it to a
BitTorrent index such as isoHunt. A person in Australia can perform a search
for this film on isoHunt, and can download it once they find it. They may be
too impatient to wait for its theatrical release, forgoing the insight of a
seasoned critic in order to be immediately sated. Once this person has watched
the film they have downloaded, they have the opportunity to share their
thoughts on it through a personal blog site or even something as minuscule as a
tweet. In this scenario, the established Australian print critic is not the
first person to present the verdict on the film. The professional has been
usurped by the everyday citizen who has obtained the film via illegal means.
This should not deter that citizen from checking his or her facts, as "speed
comes at a price and quality; clarity and creativity are oftentimes the
currency." (Brannon, 2008, p. 109). The eagerness of a reviewer to get
their opinion out into the blogosphere first may jeopardise how insightful
their review is. Not only are people resorting to illegal downloads for
purposes of immediacy, but consumers of filmic information are turning to the
Internet for this same quick fix. Nick James (2009) does not believe that
amateur bloggers are to blame for the downgraded importance of the
commercially-influential print critic. Rather, he champions the view that
saturation marketing is responsible for this shift in authority. It is the
countless viral marketing campaigns, fan sites and extensive festival reportage
that “makes much professional consumer guidance seem dispensable.” (James,
2009). The contemporary film buff is attuned to a culture where information is
readily available as the result of a quick Google search. Considering the vast amount of films being
made and released each year, and the numerous platforms they can be viewed on,
it is hardly surprising that newspapers and magazines are no longer the first
port of call for film enthusiasts. It is simply a case of print critics not
adjusting to the rapidity and reach of the digital age.
It is not only the
channels of dissemination that have changed over the years, but also the type
of content being produced. Print critics write to fill a designated space in a
newspaper or magazine, whereas online critics are given more lenience. In the
case of independent bloggers, the individual has complete creative control.
With more autonomy over what is written, a critic can lose sight of what a film
review should accomplish. Critic Giles Hardie (2012) believes the two key
qualities of a good film critic are perspective and explanation. Thus, a person
who shares their opinion of a film via a tweet is not providing the same
thoroughness as critics who judge the worth of a film by arguing a particular
viewpoint. In the digital age, opinion is not enough. It is informed opinion that will stand out
amongst the swath of pithy judgements. According to Taylor (2011), a dichotomy
exists between film critics. The traditional print critics view online
adherents as “amateurs, fanboys, and obscurantists,” while those who have made
the transition herald our time as the golden age of film criticism, and label
print critics as guilty of “jealousy, resentment, and Ludditism.” Taylor (2011)
observes that many young (and often male) web critics write for each other
instead of informing an uneducated public. These novice critics write “articles
that analyze sequences in terms of lighting and editing and even shot length,”
and present them with the “deadly seriousness of a doctoral dissertation.” Hence,
they are straying from the traditional convention of writing as though the
reader is unfamiliar with the facts. The duties of a film critic have long been
debated, and while each individual critic may bring their subjective goals to
the profession, there are several features of film criticism that are
championed by both traditional and contemporary critics. Nick James (2009)
contends that a film critic has eight distinct roles:
(1) saying if a film is worth seeing, (2)
championing good unknown work, (3) giving a wider historical perspective, (4)
offering the insights of technical knowledge, (5) conferring useful prestige
and kudos upon producers of good cinema, (6) earmarking the best works for
future historians, (7) counteracting marketing untruths, and (8) opposing the
retrograde.
This illustrates
that the function of the film critic is no longer merely arbiter of good
cinema. Critics are becoming more journalistic by not only critiquing films,
but writing about the industry in general. Online critics need to distinguish
themselves in a space where the amount of content is overwhelming. They are
more likely to be successful if they discover obscure works, or, as Harris
(2012) writes, if they are “truffle pigs, unearthing the undiscovered delights
buried among the mass of mediocrity and rubbish.” Hence, we are moving towards
an era of film criticism marked by acute analysis. Minute observations go
unnoticed in an age where virtually anyone can voice an opinion.
While many of the
journalists who work in online platforms are professionally qualified and paid
for their work, film piracy can encourage web-based citizen journalists to
emerge. While their reach may not be as profound as print critics or paid
online critics, they can still be influential within certain circles on the
Internet. Rosen (2006) describes citizen journalists as “the people formerly
known as the audience,” which implies an evolving news dissemination model. A
member of the public can write a letter to the editor in response to a print
critic’s review, but if this letter is published in the following edition of
the paper, readers may experience a sense of disconnect. They will see the
response but not the review it is in reference to. Whereas, in an online
setting, a user comment underneath a review can constitute citizen journalism
(Lasica, 2003), with an added element of reciprocity that is lacking in print
criticism. While print critics may exude a greater air of professionalism than
their online counterparts, Doherty (2010) argues that unpaid online critics are
“more independent, more honest, and more in sync with the mass audience than
the jaded sexagenarians,” as they are free of distractions such as press
junkets. It is interesting that independence is listed as a virtue of online
critics, as the nature of the medium suggests opinion that is informed by a
wide range of other sources. In her Master’s thesis, Online Journalism: The
Transformation of the Film Review, Holopirek (2007) deduces that online citizen reviewers often fail to
substantiate their views with any rationale, resulting in purely subjective
reviews. Their goal is simply to tell the reader whether a film is worth
seeing. For example, a review of Martin Campbell’s Casino Royale from the website Everyone’s a Critic (http://www.everyonesacritic.net/) illustrates the way subjective, declarative
statements supplant thorough analysis. The reviewer writes “His [Daniel
Craig’s] performance is the best we’ve seen since Sean Connery,” (trevor22, as
cited in Holopirek, 2007) without making reference to a single scene in the
film. Thus, while citizen critics can take advantage of the opportunities
afforded by the Internet and cater to a niche audience, their expertise and
knowledge of film history may not be as vast as critics who are paid for their
work.
The democratisation made possible by the Internet is undoubtedly posing a
threat to the profession that is film criticism, and it is worth examining the
consequences of the online shift and whether film criticism will eventually
descend into a hobby instead of an occupation. Nick James (2009) notes that
much of the discussion about the future of film criticism was sparked by the
fact that, over a two-year period, American newspapers had culled over 30 film
critics without replacing them. Between 2006 and 2009, Salt Lake Tribune critic Sean P. Means compiled a list of film
critics who had lost their jobs at American print outlets. By the time of his
last entry in May 2009, the list had amounted to 55 names (Matossian, 2011).
The dwindling number of print critics does not necessarily signal the death of
film criticism if quality work is being produced online. Roger Ebert (2010)
believes we are in a golden age of film criticism, and that Means’ list does
not account for the number of talented critics who are currently working
online. He concedes that film criticism is no longer an occupation, but that it
still functions as a profession (Ebert, 2010). If the lure of making money is
not attached to the profession, it follows that those who write about film
without being paid for it do so out of passion and enthusiasm. The distinction
between ‘occupation’ and ‘profession’ is not the only one that needs to be
made. The function of a critic is seen as different from that of a reviewer.
Reviewers generally work for a weekly or monthly publication and offer their
thoughts on a film so it is edifying for both acquainted and unacquainted
readers (Bywater & Sobchack, 1989, p. 5). Critics, on the other hand, are
more informed about the industry and critique films with greater perspective
(Bywater & Sobchack, 1989, p. 5). Cardullo (as cited in Holopirek, 2007)
views criticism as a “branch of scholarship” and reviewing as a “form of
journalism.” Hence, new modes of film criticism have prompted reconsiderations
of the profession’s requirements.
In conclusion, peer-to-peer file sharing platforms and the Internet in
general are not forcing film critics into redundancy. Print media does not have
a monopoly on the profession, and many online critics, both paid and unpaid,
are producing quality content. Nevertheless, it is more difficult for this
content to be noticed if so many people are contributing, which is why
immediacy has become paramount in the digital age. The duties of the contemporary
film critic (or reviewer) are as basic as recommending a film and as thorough
as intensive, shot-by-shot analysis of one. Citizen journalists will naturally
take advantage of the ease involved in setting up a blog and voicing an
opinion. While some of these everyday film enthusiasts will reject objective
critique procedures, their opinions are not attached to a company and they are
not paid, resulting in more honest, passionate criticism. Print critics whose
jobs are terminated do not signify a decline in criticism, despite
sensationalistic reports. Many of these critics will resume work in the online
field, and their opinions will still matter.
References
Brannon, J. (2008). Maximize the medium: Assessing obstacles to
performing multimedia
journalism in three US newsrooms.
In C. Paterson & D. Domingo (Eds.), Making online news: The
ethnography of new media production (pp. 99-111). New York: Peter
Lang.
Bywater, T., & Sobchack, T. (1989). Introduction to film criticism: Major critical approaches to
narrative film. New York: Longman.
Doherty, T. (2010, February 28). The death of film criticism. The Chronicle. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Death-of-Film-Criticism/64352/
Ebert, R. (2010,
April 30). The golden age of movie critics. Chicago
Sun-Times. Retrieved from
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/the_golden_age_of_movie_critic.html
Hardie, G. (2012, August 1). Endangered species: Film critics. The Sydney Morning Herald.
Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/endangered-species-film-critics-20120801-23e5p.html
Harris, S. J.
(2012, June 13). Let’s drag film criticism out of the snark ages. The Telegraph.
Retrieved from http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/scottharris/100064232/lets-drag-film-criticism-out-of-the-snark-ages-2/
Holopirek, J. A.
(2007). Online journalism: The
transformation of the film review. Masters of
Science thesis. University of Kansas. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.
ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/304860009
James, N. (2009). Rip it up: Revitalizing film criticism. Film Quarterly. 62(3), 14-15.
Lasica, J. D. (2003, August 7). What is participatory journalism? Online Journalism Review.
Retrieved from http://www.ojr.org/ojr/workplace/1060217106.php
Matossian, J.
(2011, May 14). Reflections on the past, present and future of traditional film
criticism. NYCity Culture Blog.
Retrieved from http://nyccultureblog.journalism.cuny.
edu/2011/05/14/reflections-on-the-past-present-and-future-of-traditional-film-criticism/
Miller, H. K. (2012, January 17). The birth of
film criticism – 100 years ago today. The
Guardian.
Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/jan/17/birth-film-criticism-100-years
Rosen, J. (2006,
June 27). The people formerly known as the audience. PressThink. Retrieved from
http://archive.pressthink.org/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html#more
Taylor, C. (2011).
The problem with film criticism. Dissent.
58(4), 81-83.
