And this, I propose, is the cardinal sin of film criticism. To put it in the form of a commandment: Thou shalt not make specific critiques based on erroneous information about the film in question.
First, if there's really a problem with the film significant enough to warrant mention in a review, it's probably unnecessary to use an example that's less than 100% certain. If, for instance, Inside Man has logical holes punched through it at "regular intervals," than Mr. Lane could have chosen an example that he could verify.
If there's any doubt about the veracity of the complaint it should be left out of the review. If the makers of American Dreamz are genuinely cowardly, afraid of hurting their box office, or of invoking the wrath of the Bush administration by mentioning the Iraq war in a less than flattering context (a fairly serious charge), then examples should abound of this cowardice. But if not, if this is simply one isolated "cowardly" act, does it really merit a mention at all?
It is easy, perhaps necessary, for a film critic to forget that every film is a human endeavor, one that represents a substantial investment of time and money for all involved (and there are invariably many involved). Critics traffic in opinions, and they are not beholden to anyone in this regard. But we do owe it to the filmmakers, to our readers, and to ourselves to make sure that our review is reconcilable with the film we're reviewing.
Because film is such a human endeavor it engenders strong emotions. Negative comments about a film often invoke hurt or angry responses, there's nothing to be done for this. As long as the critic is true to him- or herself and true to the film, this isn't even undesirable. Disagreement can lead to discussion, which is beneficial for all of the parties involved.
But when we make criticisms based on incorrect information we do a great disservice to ourselves and our readers. We inflame passions, hurt feelings for no productive reason. We put ourselves in a rhetorically indefensible position, and we undermine our credibility.
It is, in short, a bad move. The one bad move to be avoided at all costs. The cardinal sin of film criticism.
Article comments
1 - Steve C.
Good article, dude. But does anyone actually hold Anthony Lane in high esteem? I always thought he was more a punchline than a critic.
2 - A. Horbal
This is one school of thought!
3 - Steve C.
I guess he must impress people - after all, the New Yorker obviously likes him... :-)
4 - Iloz Zoc
Whew! Glad to know that I haven't made any mistakes like that.
Hey...wait a minute...oh bugger!
5 - Rodney Welch
Lane is one of a handful of film critics whose reviews are worth reading (rather than scanning) all the way through.
6 - Baronius
Giving away the story is a much more serious sin. Reviewers do it all the time, albeit sometimes in subtle ways.
"a lighthearted ending that seemed too simple" (it's going to end the way you think it will halfway through)
"makes you think about the way film tells stories" (contains a deceptive dream sequence)
"characters appear and wander off at random" (the killer is someone we don't meet until the end)
"far too reminiscent of X" (same plot as X)
"a tired sequel" (same plot as the original)