Becoming a Good Film Critic

In order to talk about the qualities that make a good film critic, one first has to discuss the qualities that make a bad film critic. A bad film critic is a viewer that never goes outside of his comfort zone; that is never flexible. He is consistently sure of himself; that is, he can never like a film if it doesn’t pertain to his subscribed notions of life. This viewer invariably goes into seeing a film with preconceived notions of whether he will like the film. This is the genteel form of seeing and discussing a film; yet there are dire pernicious consequences that result from such naiveté; hence, the importance of film criticism.
A good film critic is a rebel of this fuddy-duddy approach to aesthetics. (Well, if this film is advertised as merely being an action film for teenagers, then it can’t be any good!) Yet, this is the most popular approach to film criticism; if a film that’s being reviewed doesn’t have any marketing buzz behind it than newspapers editors will frown, and there’s nothing more horrifying in a film critic’s eyes. (Pretty soon an editors merely sneezing could be construed as an indication of the apocalypse). What a critic needs to combat fear, what any artist needs because after all film criticism is an art form, is to have complete confidence in their convictions providing that they have thoroughly analyzed the film. The film critic shouldn’t be afraid to analyze a film in an honest contrarian way. If no critic did so, then the profession would result in every review looking like a clone of it self. This is what I like to call advertising. It takes true dedication to write what you truly feel, especially in this p.c. minded age. Perhaps the p.c. approach to art is what has ultimately made everyone truly afraid to express the way they feel about something.
And for God sakes, have some humor in your piece! This profession has become a night of the living dead of solemnness. A good critic should show that they are a very active viewer, no matter how bad the period they are writing in is. I think Pauline Kael once said that the critic’s job is to get the audience to the movie theatre—period. If we have such a negative opinion of the profession that we are writing about, then why are still writing? We don’t just go to the movies to see good movies; its fun to see and think about bad ones as well. When did we become such a dignified culture that we can’t even bear the thought of seeing a bad movie? (Another rule: Come up with some good topics for an essay or two, which will hopefully stir the pot a little bit. Isn’t that the ultimate aim of criticism: Having some kind of positive impact on the movie industry?)
I think the question should be asked: why does one become a film critic? The answer must surely be that as David Edelstein
rightly stated: film critics become film critics because they have to establish themselves against people, “…who dismiss critics…” The problem with dismissing criticism is that, “…(one) is implicitly saying that a work of art ends the moment it has been consumed—that it’s not supposed to have any kind of after-life. That’s not just wrong: When you’re dealing with a medium as powerfully manipulative as cinema, it’s also dangerous” (Cineaste, pg 33). I feel that Edelstein nailed it right there.
Critics are ultimately fighting against ossification, which is what is leading to the decline in all the arts today. A critic should never forget this important role that they have. A critic should never forget the sensory pleasures that derive from fighting that battle.


Works Cited
1. Edelstein, David. Editorial from Cineaste magazine. New York. 2000.