When most people imagine a critic, they visualize a comic book guy type who simply hates everything. And as much as I hate to admit it, I might be one of them.
Not taking into account the guaranteed six-figure salary, I want to become a film critic because I love film. But most importantly, because I love talking about film. However, if we were to talk, you’d probably think I’m just another comic book guy.
I hated nearly every single blockbuster this year. I didn’t want to find Dory, I didn’t want to reread "The Jungle Book" and I didn’t want to meet "The Nice Guys." But just because I criticize "Captain America: Civil War" doesn’t mean that I hate everything.
Since most people only see summer blockbusters, it’s hard to talk about film without coming off as a total hater. For every disappointing blockbuster there’s been an independent film that I loved. Now I’m not an independent purist, but it’s impossible to talk about steak when people have only eaten chimichangas.
Now I understand that people have different tastes. Some people, like my mother, love everything and some people, like my brother, hate everything. Some schmoes think "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" is terrible. Other schmoes, like me, think it’s perfect. One man’s chimichanga is another man’s steak.
While a difference of opinion is healthy, critics are continuously condemned as the worst of the worst. They are either stupidly critical or critically stupid. They are villains who vilify films to fulfill their ego. Their greatest crime, however, is convincing people they are right.
Film criticism is critical in determining ticket sales. One bad review is one less ticket. Whether it’s Roger Ebert or Jeremy Jahns, many people put their faith in the judgments of certain critics in order to decide whether or not to watch a particular film. This dependence is detrimental to the art of filmmaking. It reduces all the time and effort filmmakers put in their films to a number.
While it’s understandable to not want to watch a bad film, no one, other than a composer, should determine a film’s score. It is true that everyone is a critic, but too many people are not even watching the films they critique. Instead of listening to tomatoes, individuals should decide for themselves which is superior: "Room" or "The Room?"
Watching a shitty film is as inevitable as looking at your own shit in the toilet. Look, everybody poops. You shouldn’t avoid it. You may not like it, but that’s no excuse to read reviews and assume something’s shit before you even turn around and look. Not every shit will be a golden egg, but a golden egg can come from any shit.
Criticism should only be read after one has watched a film. Once one’s own judgment has been made can one address a film’s criticism in order to better understand how that judgment may have come about. True critics have incredible insight. They can deconstruct films and reveal their strengths and weakness. Anybody can look at a film and say it’s shit. Only a critic can explain that its inconsistency makes it shit.
As aforementioned, a difference of taste is natural. You many not agree with a certain critic, but instead of tweeting bloody murder, engage in an actual conversation with the critic. Critics don’t write articles for you to like. Critics write articles for you to comment, share and talk about. The aim is conversation, not approval.
So yes, I am just another comic book guy. But only if you judge me by the number of chimichangas I’ve shitted on. But before you criticize me, let’s out go out and eat some steak, or maybe even some chimichangas, and talk. I promise you won’t hate it.
