The Future of Film Criticism
Published May 18, 2006
No, the fact is we don't know what the new economic model will look like. And that's why it behooves us to start asking serious questions about the very nature of film criticism itself.
This one Duke University study about the way Americans read film criticism was flawed (read criticisms by: David Poland, Mark Caro, and Roger Ebert), but that doesn't mean the idea of empirical research into film criticism is inherently doomed to failure. Let's research the criticism reading habits of the American movie going public. Let's consider the connection between positive and negative reviews and a film's eventual box office.
We should also begin to question some of our basic assumptions about criticism. Before we can argue that there should be paid film critics, we should first know what they do and why we have them.
I want to address my fellow young Turks. In the comments section of Kehr's Bernard post Luke Y. Thompson (LYT Rules.com) defends his qualifications as a film critic. But I don't know that it's just about qualifications any more. Let's go back to the beginning and ask questions like, What is the primary function of the film critic? "Consumer guide" to movies? Initiator and facilitator of discussion about film and individual films? Reporter about movies as events?
Let's go back to the silent era and ask where film criticism came from, starting with the first question of them all: What is film criticism? Let's first build a case that there should be professional film critics, if there's a case to be made, and then and only then let's make the case that it should be us.
We should try to make ourselves useful to the larger film community at every turn. Are there too few video game or DVD critics? Let's do that! Do we need people to sift through the thousands (millions? I dunno) of hours of short films now available online? Let's do that!
And let's keep an open mind to the fact that maybe, just maybe, we're all going to have to work for a living and do this in our free time. Cue the violins, folks: let's always remember that at the end of the day we're doing this not for money, but for love.
- The Future of Film Criticism
- Published: May 18, 2006
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Video: Film and TV Business, Sci/Tech: Internet, Sci/Tech: Blogging, Books: The Writing Life, Video: News
- Writer: A. Horbal
- A. Horbal's BC Writer page
- A. Horbal's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
Many bloggers post free articles, punditry, and criticism because they hope to showcase their work and thus "move up to the next level" and get paid for it.
But ironically, all this free showcasing makes it harder for anyone to get paid for it. Why should editors pay when so many writers are giving it away for free?
I don't if there's any solution.





You make a very solid point there. Do we really need critics to act as cultural guardians?
Well, let's examine this delusional elitism that emerged some 400 years ago. Geniusism. This idea that there are individuals who are brilliant and once in a generation.
Prior to this, throughout the whole of history, art has been done for personal and community purposes. It's only when you have an audience that it tends to professionalise. Take the shakespearian stage or Noh theatre for instance.
The best approach to film criticism is, in my view, a deconstructionist apporach. If the critic is to best serve the public, they need to enlighten and help people appreciate the artform.
Knowing how ideology and experiences have shaped the material is far more useful than the passive acceptance of someone elses standard of "good cinema".