[ad_1]
Are professional film critics still important? Perhaps everyone is a critic now. Maybe everyone is a journalist.
As the legend of St. Paul confirms, formal critics who published words in paper were certainly numbered. Arthur Penn’s Bonnie and Clyde did not receive critical acclaim when it was released in 1967. It took a long New Yorker article by Pauline Kael, published more than two months after the premiere, for the critical tide to turn. Mark Harris, in his 2008 book Landscapes of Revolution, sees Kale’s article as partly a response to Bosley Crowther’s negative notice in the New York Times. Krauser was fired. Bonnie and Clyde became a belated sensation. Cale was seen as such a player and was subsequently offered his job (which happened to be short-lived) as a consultant for Paramount Pictures.
More than half a century later, the first UK showing of Greta Gerwig’s Barbie doll, which eventually became a huge hit, was largely to the benefit of influencers. “Feel free to share your positive feelings about this movie on Twitter.” [as it then already wasn’t] After the screening,” he told the participants. There are no reports of opponents politely asking how freely they can share their negative feelings. In the past, movie and theater producers rushed to newsstands before dawn to get early news. In the case of social media, it is now common for embargoes to expire sooner than traditional full-length reviews. The strategy seems clear. The audience that keeps turning up for the extravagant premiere (some of whom are a little smug about seeing the film before someone who wasn’t invited) says 600 words. It turns out you’re more likely to rave than a dumb critic. To be fair, Barbie ended up getting great reviews, but many blockbusters are crushed by critics after an initial Twitter uproar. Critic Manuela Lazic, writing in the Guardian, scathingly said that her strategy was to “persuade the most dubious potential audiences to go to theaters on opening weekend”. discussed. Who cares if Dubs doesn’t like it? Important cash is taken away in his first three days. Before you blink, the movie is on streamer.
For all the benefits last summer’s portmanteau brought Oppenheimer, don’t expect the same to happen again.
It’s hard to imagine a studio paying any serious attention to a review in a lofty magazine published weeks after the movie left theaters. Let me tell you, in the current climate, it’s hard to imagine an adult drama like Bonnie and Clyde becoming a big hit. That would require a once-in-a-lifetime advertising mania. It’s a Barbie Clyde moment. Oppenheimer benefited greatly from last summer’s portmanteau, but don’t expect it to happen again.
That’s not to say that film critics are completely unimportant in the economics of blockbuster distribution. In some cruelly reductive sense, they have a greater collective significance than ever before. Find out which critics are happy with the Rotten Tomatoes phenomenon. Then I’ll introduce you to the critics who have given up. Launched in 1998, the site aggregates reviews from all over the world, from the nerdiest blogs to the sleaziest national broadsheets, into a single percentage he says is “fresh” or “rotten.” I am. Fans of the series will become obsessed with what Rotten Tomatoes is thinking. The disparity in scores between critics and audiences is touted as evidence of widespread elitism. Last September, Vulture magazine published an exposé claiming that “movie’s most overrated metric is insane, reductive, and easily hacked, but it still has a grip on Hollywood.” For many viewers, the critics are just part of a vast collective consciousness, a less glamorous version of Star Trek’s Borg. And everyone hates them.
The sheer bile some reviews generate confirms the reach and resonance no social post can match
Still, individual film critics remain important. You can see this by looking at the poster for his latest work, which has been well-received. Distributors have tried bizarre supposedly democratic scams, like randomly printing Twitter recommendations — “Amazing” @Babboonballs876 — but they’ve always, alas, been called legacy publications From stuff, I go back to quoting old-fashioned critics. For example, the current ad for Sofia Coppola’s Priscilla features a concise (but representative) “captivating” passage from the Irish Times. The public still believes that there is some distinction between traditional information sources and user-generated impressions.
The sheer bile that some reviews generate confirms the reach and resonance that no social post can match. Please note what happened recently with Angelica Jade Bastien, who also wrote for Vulture magazine and made some negative comments about Beyoncé’s movie Renaissance. The internet held its torch and stomped hard on her camp for days. One Gunnar Doyle wrote, “Her criticism, which caused the film’s Rotten Tomatoes score to be unfairly lowered, fundamentally misunderstands the nature of Beyoncé’s vision.” (RT scores just plummeted to 97% for him.)
The best reviews will excite those who are not interested in watching the movie under consideration
This is all very hot air. Critics still have really important power. While reviews may do little to boost or hinder the performance of superhero giants, they can have a huge impact on the performance of independent films. Director Celine Song’s delicate romance “Past Lives,” a starless romance derived from an unfamiliar source, is steadily expanding into 2023 on the back of consistent strong reviews after its debut at the Sundance Film Festival. It grossed 20 million dollars (18 million euros) at the box office. Critics ultimately scored big on director Colm Bailead’s Ang Cailin Siuyin, forming the early thin end of a supportive wedge that earned it an Oscar nomination. Independent films still rely heavily on recognized voices from established media.
And there’s something else. Many of the above arguments are based on the premise that in order for critics to be “important” they must demonstrate the ability to influence audience numbers and economic returns. But a movie review is, or should be, more than just a buyer’s guide. The best reviews will excite those who are not interested in watching the movie under consideration. They will excite those who have already seen the film (and those who do not agree with the views of critics). The reviews collected by Pauline Kael are profitable and printed long after many of the films discussed have been forgotten.
Let’s just say it. The best criticism justifies its own existence.
- Donald Clarke is the Irish Times’ chief film correspondent and regular columnist.
[ad_2]
Source link