RIP Morbius

[Hex08]

I don't know anything about the required credentials to be a critic. Are there any? How many critics have degrees in fields relating to cinema? How many critics ended up in their role for reasons other than having a background in art? Is it a mix of the two and how can the average reader of criticism know the difference? I ask because I have no idea, but I think it's important, especially since all this talk of anti-intellectualism is being tossed around.

Anti-intellectualism, as I understand it and simply put, is the distrust or denigration of facts and experts. Yes, anti-intellectualism is common in the U.S. (I won't give examples because we can start treading on politically or religiously sensitive topics even though they should not be) and elsewhere. Are movie critics generally experts in the field they are engaging in? One of my interests is science and if you want science news that is trustworthy and accurate you have to avoid traditional media and visit sites (or listen to/watch programing) dedicated to the topic. This is because traditional media no longer, generally, employs science reporters. Instead, regular reporters who don't have the background or education to understand what they are reporting on are tasked with a story and they tend to be really bad at it.

Critics can be found all across different forms of media, how do I know that if I'm not reading a cinephile website that the critic knows his job? How many of the critics on Rotten Tomatoes only got their job because the local paper they started out at needed someone to fill the role regardless of qualifications? If the critics that are being railed against are truly experts, then maybe accusations of anti-intellectualism are appropriate (although probably not an effective way of winning people to your point of view), if they are not....

"I don't know if it's art, but I know I like it." Walt Disney

 

[Thomas Shey]

My own feeling is, honestly, that I judge a movie (like most other things) on two grounds:
1. Does it speak to me in some fashion? That doesn't actually say whether its thoughtful or thoughtless, because of the appeal of some movies isn't the same as others; but I can have both emotion-grabbing (whether by be an action movie or by playing to my softer emotions) and intellectually stimulating movies that do or don't work for me, and it isn't always about the quality of the film.
2. Does it do what it seems to want to do? To some extent I'll judge a movie by how well it seems to meet its own expectations, even if those expectations aren't mine. This can sometimes be tricky, of course, as subversive movie making is a thing, and its possible to be oblivious to the other side of a movie doing two things at once (though I know there's distinctly mixed feelings about it, Besson's Lucy is a movie you have to really look at from both ends at once or it will absolutely be disappointing). I'm prone to looking far more negatively at a film that seems to fail at what its trying to do, more than a film that succeeds (as best I can tell) at doing something I'm not interested in.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, just realized I should have clarified--by easy to hate, I mean I definitely hate him. (And his dumb band)

What!? You hate “What If Five Finger Death Punch Was Really Pretentious” The Band!?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't know anything about the required credentials to be a critic. Are there any? How many critics have degrees in fields relating to cinema? How many critics ended up in their role for reasons other than having a background in art? Is it a mix of the two and how can the average reader of criticism know the difference? I ask because I have no idea, but I think it's important, especially since all this talk of anti-intellectualism is being tossed around.

Anti-intellectualism, as I understand it and simply put, is the distrust or denigration of facts and experts. Yes, anti-intellectualism is common in the U.S. (I won't give examples because we can start treading on politically or religiously sensitive topics even though they should not be) and elsewhere. Are movie critics generally experts in the field they are engaging in? One of my interests is science and if you want science news that is trustworthy and accurate you have to avoid traditional media and visit sites (or listen to/watch programing) dedicated to the topic. This is because traditional media no longer, generally, employs science reporters. Instead, regular reporters who don't have the background or education to understand what they are reporting on are tasked with a story and they tend to be really bad at it.

Critics can be found all across different forms of media, how do I know that if I'm not reading a cinephile website that the critic knows his job? How many of the critics on Rotten Tomatoes only got their job because the local paper they started out at needed someone to fill the role regardless of qualifications? If the critics that are being railed against are truly experts, then maybe accusations of anti-intellectualism are appropriate (although probably not an effective way of winning people to your point of view), if they are not....

"I don't know if it's art, but I know I like it." Walt Disney

I’ve read a lot of HL Mencken, and it seems to me that critics have always tended toward the casual snobbery of expertise and self importance, but not quite as much as thier general reputation would suggest.

But in a lot of cases, critics are “wrong” simply because they are judging a work as much for its adherence to a technical and methodological “canon” as for its efficacy.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I don't know anything about the required credentials to be a critic. Are there any? How many critics have degrees in fields relating to cinema? How many critics ended up in their role for reasons other than having a background in art? Is it a mix of the two and how can the average reader of criticism know the difference? I ask because I have no idea, but I think it's important, especially since all this talk of anti-intellectualism is being tossed around.

Just like there are no credentials for making a movie, there aren't any for critiquing them. In practice it's really just--are you a good writer? And even that's debatable--IGN or Screenrant want someone who's fast, and maybe deft at clickbaity takes, not necessarily a wordsmith.

To me, a good critic is anyone whose perspective and writing you find interesting. That's it. Doesn't have to be someone you always agree with, or who's at a fancy outlet, and definitely shouldn't be someone whose university transcript you've scrutinized. I mentioned Matt Zoller Seitz upthread, who's definitely one of my favorites. I credit him with getting me to watch Annihilation during its tragically short, studio-hobbled theatrical run. MZS was a fanatic for that movie from his first screening, would write and tweet about it constantly, organized random groups to go watch it in NYC and get together afterward at a restaurant to discuss. I saw it in an empty theater the last week it was out, and it just about changed my life. I would have seen it and loved it on the small screen, but I would have absolutely kicked myself forever for missing out on watching it in that environment.

Priscilla Page is another great critic, and one that totally dismantles the straw man of critics as populist-hating snobs. She writes brilliant essays about John Wick and Michael Mann and car chases in general but also Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. After the 20th time she called the straight-to-video movie Avengement her favorite action movie (or something like that ) I finally watched it, and it's incredible! It's also the least "deep" or snobby, most gleefully pulp-trashy movie I've seen in years.

Great critics are worth their weight in gold, if nothing else because of the stuff they champion, in part because they do approach lots of films with intellectualism, including and especially the ones that aren't embraced by mainstream audiences or the arthouse crowd.

(Seriously, though, Avengement is great)

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I’ve read a lot of HL Mencken, and it seems to me that critics have always tended toward the casual snobbery of expertise and self importance, but not quite as much as thier general reputation would suggest.

But in a lot of cases, critics are “wrong” simply because they are judging a work as much for its adherence to a technical and methodological “canon” as for its efficacy.

I think this was true at some point, but film and TV criticism has aged out of that kind of default stodginess. When you have critics writing lovingly about video nasties and sticking movies like Peter Jackson's Dead Alive on Best Of lists, the bow ties and cuff links have largely come undone.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

There's a funny meme that talks about Jered Leto being in both Marvel AND DC's "worst movie".

I have no idea how bad Morbius is, but I would argue that Suicide Squad is no where near DC's worst movie. C'mon, there's Catwoman (among many others).

Also... are they counting Elektra when they talk about Marvel?

How far back are they going?

 

[Ryujin]

This really reads to me like the textbook definition of anti-intellectualism, which is a term that's needlessly charged--sure sounds like being called dumb. But I don't think that's what anti-intellectualism is about. It's more complex, but it some ways it comes down to a pretty simple question: Why would any piece of art make you feel defensive, or attacked? If you don't like it, you don't like it. No one's required to like a French New Wave movie because critics have written a million books about it, just like you aren't required to like James Joyce novels. Literally no art is telling you that, if you don't like it, it's because you don't get it.

Take David Lynch, for example. A lot of people find his movies awful, just try-hard nonsense arthouse puzzles that are missing most of the pieces. But he's said himself that his work isn't really supposed to make sense. It's abstract. It's expressionistic. It's weird as hell. And there's usually nothing to "get," except the associations you bring to it. You like it or you don't.

But here's my main issue feeling defensive or attacked by so-called intellectual art: All it does is risk limiting the art you consume. Because the people who are digging into those high-fallutin' movies are also watching The Real Housewives or Daredevil or Jackass Forever. Now imagine if those pointy-headed arthouse enjoyers felt looked down on by popular entertainment, that anytime they weren't into a mainstream show or movie it's because the people making it despised them? They'd be missing out.

OK, call it whatever you like then. I like some Lynch. For example I really enjoyed "Twin Peaks." Hell, I've even been to where it was shot. "Mulholland Drive"? "Eraserhead"? "Lost Highway"? Sure. Some of it, yeah, I guess "I just don't get." (Code for I didn't like it.) There's "Arthouse" and then there's "Pretentious." At least to me.

 

[payn]

OK, call it whatever you like then. I like some Lynch. For example I really enjoyed "Twin Peaks." Hell, I've even been to where it was shot. "Mulholland Drive"? "Eraserhead"? "Lost Highway"? Sure. Some of it, yeah, I guess "I just don't get." (Code for I didn't like it.) There's "Arthouse" and then there's "Pretentious." At least to me.

 

[GreyLord]

We also watched all 17 episodes of "The Prisoner" for that class, so it wasn't a complete loss.

People talk about shows that leave them regretting watching it or raging over how it treated them (ala...game of thrones, lost).

Some stick with you for DECADES after, the horror is real.

The Prisoner (if it is the one I am thinking of) was great at first...but that end...that end...oh gosh...that end. Nothing has made one want to rage at the uselessness of the writing at the end...

I'd consider it the biggest loss of the class if you watched the last episode...because...no rage is like the rage of the unrequited lover.