Why Critics Don’t Make Movies

“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new.

Last night, I experienced something new, an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau’s famous motto: Anyone can cook. But I realize that only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau’s, who is, in this critic’s opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau’s soon, hungry for more.”

- Anton Ego, Ratatouille

I tried and tried to come up with exactly what I wanted to say here, but I think that this quote from Brad Bird’s masterpiece more than tells the tale.

Critics are often able to be harsh on their judgements. They don’t have to risk hardly anything, because they can say their piece, and are lauded as brilliant, when in fact they usually don’t have to do much. Now, even in saying this, I know I’m largely being hypocritical, because I review and critique things all the time.

But I feel that, especially when it comes to film critics, they largely base their own critiques on just their own opinions, as opposed to the quality of a film. A critique should be based on fact, not opinion.

“Now wait a minute, Kyle,” you say. “Critiques are opinions.” That’s not entirely true, or at least, it shouldn’t be.

Any film can be analyzed through the use of techniques that aren’t necessarily based on opinions. Every story, be it about a single mother, the rogue hero, or two young lovers, or an older man finding his way home – they all have certain things that qualify them as full, complete, and usable stories.

I once took a class on text analysis, with this specific goal mind – the analyzation of scripts and text. This class helped me immensely, because instead of simply saying that “I didn’t like” a movie, I could finally tell you why the movie didn’t “work” or even why it did.

My personal belief is that critics don’t make movies because they wouldn’t know how if they tried. There may be exceptions, but I would bet money that the average critic couldn’t tell you anything about story analysis. But you don’t need to take my word for it. Read a gamut of reviews of a certain movie, and take note of how many things are all about opinions.

“The acting was dull,” they say, or “I just wasn’t convinced.” It’s always about opinion.

From now on, I’m going to do my best to avoid, or at least, identify the opinions in my reviews and critiques. Please, help me out. I’ll still provide my opinions on movies and ideas, but I’ll also try to support it with actual analysis. If it all works out, then the critiques will be more informative.

But then again, I guess that’s just my opinion.

- Kyle

~ by Kyle on Saturday, 17 November, 2007.