Hollywoodent

This is a 4 star blog post. I give it an A , and two thumbs up!

A star, a thumb, a grade: this is the state of cinema.

So we’re doomed.

Again.

Maybe.

“‘When you can’t fully cover a presidential campaign, a movie critic might seem like a luxury,” says Carrie Rickey, film critic, 22 years, Philadelphia Inquirer

That’s right, if you haven’t heard, film critics working in newspapers are finding themselves outsourced, bought out, or straight up fired as publications no longer have the funds, or desire, to keep them on board (check out this manifest of the unemployed and over-informed).

Instead studios and news publications are finding that internet review sources are the current go-to’s, where the opinion pool may be wider, but not necessarily deeper. Moviegoers use metacritic.com and rottentomatoes.com: sites that scores films by averaging the ratings of critics and users alike.

This begs the question(s): What is the role of the critic anyhow? Is it their job to promote films, as trailers, tv spots, and billboards seem quite adept at doing? Or is it the job of a critic to dissect a film and to bring to light its subtexts and implications? And through all this, how are audiences, and their corporate puppet masters, dealing with (and shaping) the context and content?

So let’s go back to the first time we were doomed.

Dooming #1: Academic Pandemic

Actually, let’s go back to The First Time.

It used to be a moving picture. It was a train pulling into the station. It was a magic photograph, like one of those moving waterfall plaques in the mall.

But then some filmmakers wished to push this new form beyond, to make it an art, to have a political identity. In 1928 Sergei Eisenstein vocalized montage. This was not only a tool but also a philosophical approach- if image = idea, then two images = new idea.

“We have discovered how to force the spectator to think in a certain direction. By mounting our films in a way scientifically calculated to create a given impression on an audience, we have developed a powerful weapon for the propagation of the ideas upon which our new social system is based” Eisenstein

Then it was over. The train was a runaway one, and on it the architects of cinema: formalism, D.W. Griffith, realism, Bazin, Kracauer, semiotics, depth of field, mis-en-scene etc. etc. etc.

However important these theorists were, they were publishing for each other, not for the popular public sphere. Film’s presence in newspaper was minimal: a short blurb of who was in the film, who directed it, and a brief expression of the plot. The author could have been (and often was) a sports writer.

It was not until the 60’s and 70’s that film writing really got hot. This was the New Hollywood, the 3 quarter century renaissance. Marx and Freud had inspired interest in the psychoanalytic society and the arts were now being filtered through these lenses.

“They introduced such fresh considerations as the way that films reveal the underlying social attitudes and ideologies of the cultures that produce them, the ways films manipulate audience beliefs, and the ways they raise, exploit, and seek to satisfy audience desires” Marsha Cohen Film Theory and Criticism (xvi)

The country’s most popular critics, Pauline Kael of The New Yorker and Andrew Sarris (?) were engaging in this level of discussion in a national scale in the form of an infamous feud, which started over France’s auteur theory and extended outward.

Essentially Kael was arguing that to give credence to such a theory actually dulled down film, because if a director’s “stamp” was noticeable, then his work was trite and predictable. And Sarris believed American criticism to be anti-theoretical, and “saddled with moral obligations”; that style should be considered more heavily, stylistically, as film is an art form.

Sarris- For purposes of discussion, early American film-reviewing leaves a great deal to be desired. American criticism, like American cinema, is eminently pragmatic and anti-theoretical. Almost from the beginning, the cinema was saddled with transcendent moral obligations that converted critiques into sermons. It was as if movies had been born to serve society and cure its ills. Stylistic analysis was often neglected for the sake of presumed realism and social significance. Too often the road to bad movies was paved with good intentions. Consequently, the paradoxes and contradictions of the medium were developed more fully abroad where film-making and film-watching were intellectually fashionable at an earlier stage of the cinema’s evolution.

Their feud brings up two very important distinctions that still lurk and are important to the Hollywoodent quest. Are movies entertainment? or Art? Either? or Neither? Both? Are movies meant to be felt? or thought? Screened through Past, present, or future? Instinct or intellect?

Pauline wrote from her gut, she used the words of the people and wasn’t afraid to offend anyone. Sarris, on the other hand, wrote with his highly educated intellect that tried to place films within the “Pantheon”. Films were about immortality. She wrote about films the weekend of release, and only watched each one only once. She was immediate and visceral.

Perhaps he was a critic, and she a reviewer. Marxist? Capitalist? Regardless, their legends are forever intertwined and the fact is that the public was asked to choose sides.

So did they?

Dooming #2: My Blood, My Brain, My Money

This leads me to the next step in the evolution of maybe-doom, and it comes with a rather personal revelation . And that is:

The piece of art that brought me to the cinema, destroyed the medium with its success.

Dooming #3: Bruce the Shark, Boob Tube & Ebert the Weatherman

I speak of Jaws, my favorite film of all time, and I speak of it as the postmodern cherry popper. That is to say that for all its good intentions, it left our society with a flock of retarded babies and a battered uterus.

The hyper saturated mass marketing approach to film advertisement began back in 1975 and has been relentlessly bombarding our information stations since. Spielberg wasn’t acting alone here, he had the help of media conglomerates to ensure that the film would reach as many screens as possible. This has since translated to the ancillary markets, including magazines, newspapers, tv stations and internet.

Is it likely that Entertainment Weekly is going to trash a film that is produced by its baby daddy Time Warner? No. But EW gives grades, not any real commentary.

Speaking of simplistic reviews and television, let’s address Chicago’s world famous duo of Siskel and Ebert. For two thumbs up, you only have to impress two dopey little dudes, which seems easy enough, except that these two dudes are really smart, and well informed. And with a television show hosted by such cineastes, dense and intelligent (but accessible) film commentary should be their M.O. To bring the commoner to a place of awe and understanding of this the art form of the masses. Check it: (note: Roger Ebert=Ed, Good Burger=Hollywood)

Jean Siskel and Roger Ebert spend 3 of the 5 minutes per segment showing clips and explaining the plot of the film which seems counterintuitive to the experience of movies. Why would a viewer want to know the whole plot before going in? Why bother then?

In my searches I discovered that the questioning of the role of, and likewise the responsibility imbued to, the popular critic is nothing new. Inspired by criticism’s move to television, Roger Ebert and Richard Corliss went at it publicly. Corliss wrote for magazine publications Time and Film Comment and Ebert was of Siskel and Ebert & The Movies and also the Chicago Sun Times. Ebert’s book Awake in the Dark (2006) has the essays these giants exchanged (1990-1991) and what follows is their talking.

I’d like to thank Roger Ebert and Richard Corliss for coming on the program. Welcome. Richard let’s begin with you. Originally you were excited for the move to tv criticism. You were quoted as saying, “The next step would be to analyze films on TV. Then you could literally see what we were talking about. And we could finally make good on auteurism’s unfulfilled promise of mise-en-scene analysis. No more reliance on fault, fractured memory–you could study a film as you would a painter’s oeuvre, frame by frame.” How do you define the current situation?

Richard Corliss- …in less-is-all TV, the reviewer hardly has any time for the basics: synopsize the plot, introduce an excerpt, and then (if he hates the movie) make a joke or (if he likes it) invoke the five W’s—warm, winning, wise, wacky, wonderful. Traditional considerations of directorial style, social import, and the film’s place in film history are luxuries unobtainable in a no-frills review. (395)

Roger Ebert- Let’s face it. The sad fact is that film criticism, serious or popular, good or bad, printed or on TV, has precious little power in the face of a powerful national campaign for a clever mass-market entertainment. (415) Are the movie critics on TV preempting the audience for such writing? No. They serve a different function, for a different audience…(Ebert 414)

Corliss- Isn’t everyone in a hurry? Tv certainly is, and tv sets the pace we live and think by. The nightly newscasts are offering more but briefer stories: not news in depth- news in shallow.(396)

Ebert- This is not deep criticism–it is informed and sincere opinion. (408) The program’s purpose is to provide exactly what Corliss says it provides: information on what’s new at the movies, who’s in it, and whether the critics think it’s any good or not. (408)

And how would you compare the analysis you do on the television and the ones you do in print?

Ebert- No art form is covered more completely and at greater length in today’s newspapers than the movies. All of this film criticism has not resulted in a more selective North American moviegoing public, nor has it created larger audiences for foreign or independent films or documentaries, it exists in a time when alternative films, theaters, and audiences are in disrepair. (407)

Corliss- The long view of cinema aesthetics is irrelevant to a moviegoer for whom history began with Star Wars. (396)

Ebert- The bottom line is that mass-produced Hollywood entertainments dominate American movie exhibition, and most moviegoers seem to like it that way. (405) Reviewers, after all, can only offer their opinions on a new movie. Some like it, some don’t, and together they do not have the impact of a well-coordinated national campaign that lands a popular star simultaneously on the covers of a People-type magazine, a newsweekly, several glossy monthlies, and the talk shows. Hollywood has never been more star-drive than it is at this moment, and publishers and producers have never been more eager to get their piece of the star of the week. (411)First the star sells the medium, and then the medium sells the star and his movie. Around and around. (414)

Corliss- The only solution, if a critic is both to speak his own mind and act as a bellwether of audience whim, is to write about a film, “It stinks. You’ll love it” (417)

Ebert- What is happening here seems to be endemic in a lot of American journalism: people read the papers not in the hopes of learning something new, but in the expectation of being told what they already know. (432) Writing daily film criticism is a balancing act between the bottom line and the higher reaches, between the answers to the questions (I) Is this movie worth my money? and (2) Does this movie expand or devalue my information about human nature? (431)

Corliss- I hope there are still readers with the vigor, curiosity, and intelligence demanded of filmmakers and critics. We’re in this fight together. To understand pictures, we still need words.

Ebert- The best movies are usually made because one person or small group have a story they believe must be told, because it strikes a chord in their hearts. It can be a comedy, a musical, a drama, a polemic–the important thing is that they feel it. The worst movies are made out of calculation, to reach a large audience. There is nothing wrong with a large audience, nothing wrong with making money (some of the best films have been the most profitable), but there is something wrong with the calculation (436)

Corliss- “My job isn’t to predict what movies are going to be popular; that’s what studio executives are paid for. And it isn’t primarily, meant as a consumer service. It’s to enlighten the reader through my knowledge of movies and entertain him with my play of language. (417)

So whose opinion can we trust? One of these men regards us, the audience, as subjects with whom to intellectually engage, to the other we are consumers, hobbiests, fellow enthusiasts. One seeks to challenge or confirm our brains, the other seeks to ease the burn of wasted money and time.

Dooming #5: Ebert the Weatherman

But the names Siskel and Ebert still pack a punch, so when Ebert gives Transformers 3 stars, this a great selling point for an ad. What’s odd though is that his written review for the film painted it dour and at times incoherent.

I saw the movie on the largest screen in our nearest multiplex. It was standing room only, and hundreds were turned away. Even the name of Hasbro, maker of the Transformers toys, was cheered during the titles, and the audience laughed and applauded and loved all the human parts and the opening comedy. But when the battle of the titans began, a curious thing happened. The theater fell dead silent. No cheers. No reaction whether Optimus Prime or Megatron was on top. No nothing. I looked around and saw only passive faces looking at the screen.

So what is it about an audience’s overwhelming indifference to a film’s climax that earns it 3 stars? Mixed messages such as these are commonplace with the tightly packaged opinions of review indexes like metacritic. Transformers received a 61 of 100, but it is coded green, saying the film has “Generally favorable reviews”.

Generally, a 61% is hardly favorable.

But where is the meat to support any of these numbers? On metacritic the votes are divided into two categories, Critics (a 61 by 35 critics) and Users (a 7.0 by 552 votes)

The metacritic staffers take care to explain their scoring, but it is so complex, I would doubt that anyone (including myself) has the commitment to filter though 5 sections of math. Curiously, some critics are weighted more than others, which confuses the democracy/equality of the system.

When selecting our source publications, we noticed that some critics consistently write better (more detailed, more insightful, more articulate) reviews than others. In addition, some critics and/or publications typically have more prestige and weight in the industry than others. To reflect these factors, we have assigned weights to each publication (and, in the case of film, to individual critics as well), thus making some publications count more in the METASCORE calculations than others.

Rotten Tomatoes does a better job of eliminating the hierarchy by polling all the votes together (57% on 200 votes) but this number is still empty.

Or do voices even matter in an age when media blitzkriegs make people susceptible to impulse buys and group mind?

Studios like the “critics” who blast words like “SUPERRADULAR!”for films like Big Mama’s House 2. (I believe that was Dolores C. Tucker of the Philadelphia High Submariner)

One of the draws of the newspaper is the sense of community they promote. This may be a local community, like the Spokane Gazette, or a national community, like USA Today, or even international, like the International Herald Tribune.

But it would be entirely unfair not to actually laud some of the blessings that internet reviews have brought to us.

• The community is way bigger
• And dumberer (this is a good thing, because it shows critics that the majority of people out there have no idea what they are talking about, and perhaps, this will inspire them to reach their now jobless hands into the pool of dumbitity and give a little yank up.)

So is the conversation being lowered and niched the intentions of raising itself up to an intellectual and socially relevant status? Maybe, that’s up to the real critics to decide. Or have films simply lost credibility in the eyes of the public? Reliable Sarris thinks that we are in something called popcamptrivia.

Audiences assume a guise of sniggering superiority to anything that appears on the screen. Movies that are unambitiously bad are preferred to movies that are ambitiously good. It has made us demand more fun in our art and more art in our fun. It has inhibited critics from making fine distinctions between marginal movies for fear of condescending cackles of the “in” crowd.

At the opening of this post I thought I would be disgusted by such blatant disregard for the sovereignty of such a powerful art form, but then I thought about something.

Salvation: Al Gore and his love child

The medium has finally come full circle. The internet has freed cinema, and sure, it’s simple, and maybe a little cruel, (think America’s Funniest Home videos cruel) but EVERYBODY IS DOING IT. And some of these people are bound to go deeper, to fall in love with the process of making films, and maybe having little knowledge of their predecessors will allow for a creative and artistic freedom that comes from an average dude. The youtube rise of the middle class? hahaha

The catch is that it is going to be much more difficult for people to make money off of these things, to make a career from their work. But isn’t that what got us into this mess. Maybe our aesthetic standards will be lowered to such a degree that a scenic can be an electrician

With no need for distributors, there’s no need for critics. The comments on youtube are hardly worth spending time on, why read it, when you just watched it, and can watch 50,0000000000000,000 more?

Theories of postmodernism dictate a return to the familiar in a time of uncertainty. And while this is comforting immediately, it creates a gap between the progressing members of society and those presently reliving a past they never lived. While one furthers towards death, the other remains stagnant, begatting stagnance, begatting stagnance.

Heavy and detailed film criticism will always be available to those who wish to engage in it and even for those that don’t. Just in doing research for this essay I was linked to at least 30 blogs discussing this issue.

If being in film school has one perk (and it might not), it’s that it teaches that the road to enlightenment begins in black and white: that by understanding the history of a medium, its present and future grow richer. This is why I find this article by USC cinema Prof. Anne Thompson to be so hilarious. She (to the Daily Variety!) admitted that none of her students knew the name of a single film critic beyond Roger Ebert. (I don’t know anyone who has taken a class with this)

My USC film criticism students — who are film-obsessed and hardly representative of their non-cinephile peers — can’t name a working critic other than Ebert, and that’s thanks to his TV fame. Anne Thompson

The point is that we, the “educated elite” have no clue, or interest, in our academic approved, we’d rather be engaged Apparently we have less use for opinions codified by highbrow elitests than we used to, we’d rather listen to our friends.

This morning my roommates and I shared a picnic breakfast, munching on eggs and juice, and passing around pages from the Times (none the film review section). But all I could think about was the blinding glare of a laptop in the sun.

So, 4 stars? I’d settle for a chuckle. And maybe a C+.

P.S.- If you, too, need reassurance that people can live for 100 years and be sane, humorous, and good looking as ever, watch these two Reel Geezers talk about penises and period blood. You can trust them, they get it, they gave Hollywoodent two penises up!