There is a wonderful moment early in "History of the World Part 1," Mel Brooks' comic look at mankind's achievements, about the nature of criticism. When documenting the birth of art, he also included the "inevitable afterbirth," namely the art critic. When viewing a new piece of art, the critic scowled and gave a very biological opinion to the artist and the other observers.
Film critics are, at times, viewed with the same kind of scorn as Brooks' prehistoric art critic. Those that work for a major publication need a basic understanding of grammar, syntax, and sentence structure, but beyond that, there are no real requirements for the job besides attending early screenings of films, writing up a review, and doing the occasional phone interview with a celebrity.
A critic's credibility often comes under intense scrutiny, though. Professionals like Roger Ebert and the late Gene Siskel set the quality bar high when "Sneak Previews" first appeared on PBS stations across the country. It was the first time that many of us were exposed to well-versed and educated critics discussing movies that were due to arrive in theaters. In those early days, it also was great to see Siskel and Ebert vehemently disagreeing about a certain movie.
Unfortunately, other things have diminished the art of film criticism. The blogging explosion, for instance, has made it possible for everyone to be a critic. On one level, that's a good thing, but there's no way of knowing if an online critic has actually seen a movie in its entirety or simply reviewed the film based on the trailers. A good critic needs to see as many films as possible, even the ones that are truly dreadful, in order to produce decent criticism.
The rise of "junketeers," the critics who routinely attend junkets paid for by the studios, has also taken credibility from criticism. To be totally honest, I worked the junket circuit for about four years and I was blinded by the four-star hotels, free food, and the junket gifts, such as the expensive art kit emblazoned with the "Mona Lisa Smile" logo. My publication at the time questioned the ethics of accepting gratuities from the studio and stopped sending writers on junkets.
By spending hundreds, even thousands, of dollars on each critic, the studios hope for favorable press or a good quote to use in a movie ad. Earl Dittman of "Wireless" and his quotes have appeared frequently in movie ads, but it is almost impossible to find his publication on a newsstand or the Internet. I met Dittman on several occasions, and though he is a pretty affable guy, he also never met a movie he didn't like. Dittman's quotes are almost always positive, even for films that bomb at the box office.
Paul Fischer, a former junketeer who wrote for "Dark Horizons," was a familiar face at junkets and events like the San Diego Comic-Con. At print press interviews, which are conducted in a mini-press conference style around a table, Fischer would typically position himself next to the talent and monopolize the questions. More often than not, one of us would have to tell Paul that he needed to let someone else speak. Fischer was taken to task in 2010, though, for reportedly plagiarizing sentences from the Sundance Film Festival Guide to use in his reviews.
So do film critics have any redeeming value at all? Despite his health problems, Roger Ebert is still out there writing brilliant reviews and analysis of the latest films. Ebert and others of his caliber have kept legitimate film criticism alive. The best rule of thumb is to find a critic you enjoy reading, see how well your personal opinion matches up with their review, and make your own movie choices accordingly.
Note: This was written by a Yahoo! contributor. Join the Yahoo! Contributor Network to start publishing your own articles.
There are no comments yet