Film Critics Writing with Their Thumbs, The Sorry State of Film Criticism Options

[NoSex]

WHAT WE DON’T TALK ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MOVIES by Armond White

Movie commentary was a media rarity in those days and relatively principled (even the Times’ Arts & Leisure section used to present a forum for contrary opinions). And then the television series At the Movies happened. Its success, moving from public to commercial broadcast (who can tell the difference anymore?), resulted in an institution. Permit an insider’s story: It is said that At the Movies host Roger Ebert boasted to Kael about his new TV show, repeatedly asking whether she’d seen it. Kael reportedly answered "If I want a layman’s opinion on movies, I don’t have to watch TV."

Although I can't possibly entirely agree with White (especially in the case of his film taste), he does, however, have much to say about the state of film criticism in today's world. I think he makes several salient points (starting with the commercialism of criticism with "At the Movies"): the overpowering idea that film should not be taken seriously (i.e. it's only fun/entertainment), the expanding information age, and the commercial and financial incentive to non-academic criticism to name a few.

Films are more important than just a thumb up or down. They reflect our lives and the lives of the people around us. They are a window into our cultural collective - a history present, past, and sometimes future. They are complex fantasies of artistic vision that require more technical finises and expertise compared to any other form of artistic expression. We would all be doing ourselves a disservice if we did not support and seek-out more academic principles of movie-going. Of course films can be fun, but... there is a great value (sometimes hidden) in a film being painful, being anything other than popcorn-fare.

Popcorn for thought - while you're watching movies.