Dog Days for Film Critics?

With word of the outsized box office success of Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code, which grossed an almost-record breaking 238 million dollars worldwide - 77 million in the U.S., comes a number of stories with a similar theme:

Why didn't the critical drubbing the film received after its premiere at Cannes stop all those people from seeing this supposedly god-awful film?

Or, more to the point, are film critics out-of-touch with the tastes of the general public?

When The Da Vinci Code opened the Cannes film festival last week, it was greeted with the kind of venom that is usually reserved for Rob Schneider films. The wire services led the way with AP writing:

     The Cannes audience clearly grew restless as the
     movie dragged on to two and a half hours and spun
     a long sequence of anticlimactic revelations.

     (....)

     One especially melodramatic line uttered by Hanks
     drew prolonged laughter and some catcalls, and the
     audience continued to titter for much of the film's
     remainder.

     Some people walked out during the movie's closing
     minutes, though there were fewer departures than
     many Cannes movies provoke among harsh critics.
     When the credits rolled, there were a few whistles
     and hisses, and there was none of the scattered
     applause even bad movies sometimes receive at
     Cannes.

Reuters headlined their report Cannes critics left cold at Da Vinci Code screening "

     (T)he reaction at the first press screening in Cannes
     was largely negative, and loud laughter broke out at
     one of the pivotal scenes.

     "Nothing really works. It's not suspenseful. It's not
     romantic. It's certainly not fun," said Stephen Schaefer
     of the Boston Herald.

     "It seems like you're in there forever. And you're
     conscious of how hard everybody's working to try to
     make sense of something that basically perhaps is
     unfilmable."

And with a Cream of the Crop (meaning top, respected critics) Rotten Tomatoes rating of 9% fresh - come on, those are Gigli numbers - it was clear that whether they saw the film in Cannes or back home, critics were nearly unanimous. There were two solid days of news stories and Drudge headlines proclaiming that the movie was almost historically bad.

Yet, the crowds were not deterred.

Was this a specific-case, where so many were fans of a mega-selling book that no one, not the pope, not Owen Gleiberman, could dissuade them from heading out?

Or is something else happening. Are film critics becoming obsolete?

These haven't been the best days for critics, to be sure. Even with bad reviews, non-event films like Failure to Launch, the Pink Panther and Silent Hill have been big successes this year. But that's when critics get a chance to weigh in before a film opens.

It used to be that studios would very rarely prevent critics from seeing films in advance. If such a tactic was pulled on a film, it was akin to acknowledging that the studio thought the film was terrible. But lately, this practice is becoming common place for films expected to appeal primarily to a teen or genre audience. As noted here, by the end of February 2006, 8 films had been withheld from the critics - just 7 films were withheld in all of 2005. Bigger news still, 4 of the 8 films opened at #1.

The oft-quoted Paul Dergarabedian said in a recent article, "Studios figure, why bother letting people review them and trash them?"

Disney's publicity chief Dennis Rice summed it up by saying that studios may now looking for a one-way beneficial relationship:

     "If we think screenings for the press will help open
     the movie, we'll do it. ... If we don't think it'll help
     open the movie or if the target audience is different
     than the critics' sensibilities, then it may make
     sense not to screen the movie."

Movie City News' David Poland has been on top of this for months, writing in his Hot Blog about an episode earlier this year when Sony (who also distributed Da Vinci) decided to cancel advance screenings for The Benchwarmers:

     Sony has a movie that is meant for young boys and,
     as started back with The Day After Tomorrow, has
     realized that screening films that will inevitably get
     smacked by critics offers no upside and only
     downside. It also costs money… though I think that
     argument is a load of excrement, given the tons of
     money spent on junkets and ads. However, in the
     case of The Benchwarmers, Sony doesn’t make the
     call not to have screenings until after many critics
     have been invited.

What follows is a somewhat predictable battle between an offended critic ("how dare you not show me this movie you've already told me you'd show me") and a studio that is, truthfully, under no pressure to show The Benchwarmers to anyone. Is it strange that no one seems to take the film critics' side in this battle? Amongst the responses to Poland's post are:

     Critics do not have a god given right to be invited to
     courtesy press screenings by the studios -- especially
     when the studios know that there's a very strong
     chance the critics will come out against the film.

and

     Not screening a film isn't an admission that it blows,
     it's an admission that critics won't like it. If you think
     that's the same, calculate the number of films every
     year that you think are way overrated or way
     underrated.

and

     Critics trash the horror movies but they continue to
     do well. And then even when critics fawn over
     something like King Kong, it was still seen as
     disappointing at the box office. So what is the real
     impact of critics?

Alison Willmore at the IFC Blog predicted last month that the studio moves may require professional film critics to become more like Ain't It Cool News spies:

     Who knows? This could spawn a near-future era
     of antagonistic, espionage-based reviewing, in
     which critics sport fake mustaches and trench
     coats and creep into screenings of "Big Stan,"
     only to be bounced back out onto the sidewalk
     in a tumble of tweed and brittle bones by sharp-
     eyed, 'roided-out publicists: "Damn you, Sarris,
     we said WE'RE NOT SCREENING FOR CRITICS!"

One of my favorite critics, Manohla Dargis at the NY Times, weighed in today from Cannes with her own take on the disperate reactions from critics and the movie-going public, specifically on Da Vinci Code:

     So, "The Da Vinci Code," Ron Howard's critically
     skewered and roasted film adaptation of the Dan
     Brown book earned, according to a news release
     put out by Sony on Sunday, an estimated "$224
     million in worldwide box office receipts during its
     first three days of theatrical release" and delivered
     "$77 million in U.S. ticket sales," thereby giving
     the company its "biggest worldwide opening ever."
     Does this mean that critics are out of touch with the
     public? Maybe, but really, who cares? All that box
     office doesn't make it a good movie. Here's hoping
     that this extra lucre means that Sony Pictures
     Classics, can go on a shopping spree at Cannes.

The funny, and maybe slightly defensive, line there - "All that box office doesn't make it a good movie." - implies the opposite - that critical reaction confirms it's a bad movie and all the box office in the world can't change that.

But The Hollywood Reporter's Anne Thompson has the weekend exit polling on DVC, and the numbers are telling:

     3. “Would you recommend THE DA VINCI CODE to
     a friend?”

     * 55% say they would definitely recommend it.
     * 32% say they would probably recommend it.

     4. “Did you read THE DA VINCI CODE novel?

     * 74% of ticket-buyers say they had read the novel
     (as of 5/21/06).

     5. “How would you rate THE DA VINCI CODE movie?”

     * Among those who did read the novel, 64% say
     the movie was excellent or very good.

     * Among those who did not read the novel, 65% say
     the movie was excellent or very good.

That's 87% of the audience saying they'd definitely or probably recommend the film - and a nearly exact response - 64% to 65% favorable - of those who read the book and those who didn't.

So who's right? And does it matter?

Beyond the battles with the studios over advance screenings, some critics are finding themselves in far worse straits as veteran writers are being let go at major newspapers across the country. Most recently, the NY Daily News decided to dismiss veteran critic Jami Bernard.

Her former compatriot, Dave Kehr, launched an impassioned defense on his excellent blog - you really should go there to read the whole thing:

     Apparently concerned that its demographics
     were drifting distressingly upward, the Daily News
     has decided not to review the contract of veteran
     movie reviewer Jami Bernard. She is, however,
     being required to work through the end of the
     month, at which point her contract will expire and,
     according to features editor Orla Healy, an
     exciting new dimension in Daily News film
     coverage will make its debut. Translated, this
     means that the DN has gotten rid of one more
     of those pesky, individual voices that keep
     gumming up the paper’s stated mission to be as
     bland and toothless as possible, to avoid roiling
     those mysteriously faithful readers who continue
     to buy the creaky tabloid out of habit. I imagine
     the exciting new vision for film coverage will
     involve a lot less movie reviews and a lot more
     “exclusive” profiles of movie stars, carefully
     assembled by underpaid freelance writers at grim,
     debasing junket round-tables.

     Together with the news that Michael Wilmington
     has been pushed out of his first-string job at the
     Chicago Tribune in favor of a theater critic with no
     known film background, that makes two highly
     informed observers who have been bounced in
     recent weeks for – what? More room for the puff
     pieces and warmed over industry gossip that most
     daily editors seem to take for film coverage.

Beyond the sacking of veteran (read "over 40") film critics, another trend has threatened those who have long held clout in film criticism, what we call the "Rotten Tomatoes Phenomenon.

Now that film critics of all stripes are rendered equal by internet sites like Rotten Tomatoes (that, while linking to individual reviews, are more utilized for determining a film's average score) and by search engines generally (try googling any film and you're just as likely turn up a 22-year old in Omaha as you are the Washington Post), it's becoming more difficult to separate the stratum of "respected, top, 'cream of the crop' critics" from anyone with a computer.

Some welcome this internet revolution, claiming that this disconnect between those veteran critics and the movie-going tastes of today's audiences has been exposed by the young, online upstarts. They point to films like The Matrix and Fight Club, which were savaged by the newspaper critics, but beloved by folks just starting to make a name for themselves online.

For filmmakers, especially those of us working independently, this could be a lose-win-lose situation. Art house audiences still tend to look to critics for guidance, particularly to longtime film writers with whom they (the audience) have developed an affinity. Losing these voices in favor of critics without a film background could be a major blow to some films. On the other hand, some films are considered so small that you can't get major critics to view them, even if you're about to open in their town (they may grab something from the wires or hand it off to a freelancer). For these, having any chance at exposure may be critically important, except when those reviews turn out to be crushing, and when those crushing reviews turn up high in a random internet search.

Then what is the filmmaker to do? Fight back? That's what some filmmakers are starting to do, as we've noted here previously. And not just at random internet sites, either. Eugene Jarecki took on the New Yorker's David Denby, Scott Foundas and Sally Potter talked out his negative reaction to her latest film and Caveh Zahedi went after almost everyone - even the positive reviews.

Is this yet another new phenomenon spurred on by the internet, where freedom of expression has been democratised and filmmakers feel a new freedom to defend their own work? Or are they, too, getting the sense that film critics, perhaps once regarded as lofty, are wounded.

For my part, I'd mourn the loss of several of the critics that I really like. Whether they like a film or not, it's the way that they write, their overall knowledge of film and their belief that filmmaking is a worthy and admirable thing, and that excellence should be pursued. I'm not sure that film critics should concern themselves with whether the audience at large heeds their advice, although we may have entered an age when business decisions at major newspapers are made based on that very point. Will editors dismiss critics who are seen as unable to tap into the zeitgeist?

That would be a bad day indeed, if it's not already here.

+++++++

On a somewhat strange Da Vinci-related side note, although everyone seems to be weekend's box office as an unqualified success, at least one writer is of the opinion that it's a bit of a flop:

     However, with some projecting that
     Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code would take in
     upwards of $100 during its first weekend, that
     figure can be considered disappointing.

That writer links to Marketwatch's Russ Britt, who today bangs the drum that Hollywood is in the midst of another slump. All this because the overall box office was down from the same weekend last year - when Star Wars Episode III premiered.

+++++++

Update - Tuesday, May 23 - Just noticed that Fenton Bailey has a great post up over at World of Wonder that delves into this very topic:

     (T)he critics didn't like (The Da Vinci Code). And they
     didn't like M:i:3 either. Even though the movie was
     excellent and Tom Cruise better than he's been in
     years. Why are they so cross? Because they no longer
     hold sway. Their power is evaporating even faster
     than the hold of the movies. It's an inconvenient truth
     that in this climate change, the pilot fish are as
     beached as the whales they have depended on. They
     are falling like flies to internet kids who do this shit
     for free. Shrieks of resentment! Unhinged rants of
     disbelief! Hatred of Tom Cruise!

Comments

[Michael C.]

The issue of whether or not film critics are influential in terms of box office isn't so cut and dry. It's pretty evident that reviews of huge studio films matter very little. People will go see most hugely hyped films no matter what a critic says. Especially one based on one of such a massively best-selling book when there isn't any real compeition in the theatres. But it's also true that for smaller independent and art-house films, reviews can have a huge influence, as you mention in your post... and that can sometimes be unfortuante (when a film needs to have a respectable opening weekend in order to build an audience.)

In the end, a critic's view of a film is simply there opinion. I like a lot of films that critics hate, and hate a lot of films that critics love. I also dislike a whole lot of films that make huge amounts of money... does that mean they're good or bad? Why is my (or a critics) opinion any less worthwhile than all the people who love a film, and vice versa of course.

Still, the nature of criticism and film reviews now that the internet and blogs have come about is certainly interesting. Thanks, AJ, for starting up this fascinating topic.

Michael C. (who hasn't and isn't planning on seeing THE DAVINCI CODE).
Chlotrudis Mewsings

[Adam Hartzell]

"Or is something else happening."

Perhaps we should toss aside the gross of a film's ticket sales as a determinant of a critic's influence and look at the persistence of MEMES. That is, let's look at which critics are most effective in influencing how audiences READ a film, how they integrate it into their own personal film theories rather than looking at their influence on how many people go or don't go to certain films. Perhaps this is the primary purpose of critics in the first place, diseminating ideas rather than an offshoot of marketing.

Just a thought regarding this often asked question - "Are critics obsolete?" Perhaps we're just focusing on the wrong area of influence. I'm more into film because of the ideas, not the box office. That's why I read Rosenbaum, Thrupkaew, and others rather than the daily dilly-dallies.

[AJ Schnack]

Adam,

I agree. The notion that a critic's effectiveness or value is based on their ability to build an audience for one film or deter an audience from another seems highly unfair to both filmmakers and critics. They should be judged on their own perspective of film, the prism through which they see others' art.

But I also think that there's another factor here. There's a pretty substantial portion of the moviegoing audience that is looking for something different, perhaps simpler, than what many critics look for.

I was talking last night with a friend of mine about the Jennifer Lopez/Jane Fonda movie Monster-in-Law, which rated a dismal 17% on Rotten Tomatoes. Our discussion was that Monster-in-Law is not such an abonination - it might be banal, but it has the qualities that a lot of moviegoers are looking for - big stars, lightweight & sitcom-y premise, a breezy night at the movies. It may not be our kind of movie, but we can see it's appeal to others.

That's the kind of disconnect that ultimately fuels this idea of critics being out-of-touch, I think. Does that mean they should recommend a movie that they don't like? No. But it seems to me that the studios are starting to look at these kinds of films and say "these are our "fast food items" - do we really need the "gourmet food critics" to tell customers how little nourishment is in our hamburgers?"

[Adam Jeppson]

I, honestly, go to movies because it is an escape from reality. I see enough of the real world in everyday life, and I like to get away from my own little world every now and then to preserve my sanity.

I believe the masses in general are in the same frame of mind as this for the same reason America is (in general) obese, sexually active, and self-absorbed: We love stimulation!

Don't get me wrong, I like to be made "to think" during a movie. But if it isn't stimulating and exciting (emotionally included), its hard for me to be "excited" about it.

If that's what critics are looking for, then they might be out-of-touch with the masses (I don't know how critics think because I don't usually read many reviews...sorry!). But who cares, its their opinion, and they have as much right to speak it as I.

Excellent analogy of food to films, AJ. I'm proud to share your initials. :)

[Moira Sullivan]

Part of the problem is that there is much to BE critical about in popular culture. It seems to matter little to the public that some critics have studied film just as many do literature, and are familiar with the inner workings of cinema as well as the stylistic system. That is considered high brow. Yet everyone should be able to know about these operations, and many general college courses are teaching it. Cinema enjoys two worlds - film as art and film as entertainment. Some films wear both hats. The discussion about whether critics are out of tune with the public is indeed an ancient one, and depends on if you regard film as art or entertainment- in the case of the film studios and producers- read commerce. Since all things in a market society are commodified, why not film? The styles of critics reveal these worlds. It doesn't matter however if you are a 22 year old blogger or a veteran critic. Good film criticism depends on your sincerity, and your understanding of the realm you want to explore. Its not surprising that print media wants to hire critics with commerce in mind, the problem is that if film is only approached as a commercial entity there is no impetus to demand better film or to know about better film. Filmmakers and producers should realize that not everyone is content with reality TV type film scripts with shallow characters and plots. But of course they are not, look at the ratings, look at the box office. That is where critics come in, if you'll have us. Unfortunately the public is fed a standard diet of shallow , disposable contant --which serves to infantalize us. And nobody wants their favorite toys taken away. So blame the critics for pointing out the elephants in the dining room, fire them.Say we are out of touch with the public. But are we? We are part of it too. Which public?

[AJ Schnack]

Excellent points, Moira. And I agree, the questions of obsolescence or being "out of touch" widely depends on who is perceived as the comparative entity. Is, if you'll pardon my using the food analogy again, the gourmet food critic "out of touch" with folks who love a quarter pounder? Or do they just have different tastes and desires.

I would certainly hate for there to be an expectation that critics only praise (or the Academy only nominate - another variation on this same theme) the films which seem to be embraced by the public. But somehow, it seems to me, some critics (by no means all) have taken it upon themselves to presume to speak for the public at large when reviewing a film, predicting that their own response is or will be that of the general audience. So, when I read a comment like "you're going to be bored" or "you will have the time of your life", as opposed to "I was bored" or "I had the time of my life", I wonder what role the critic thinks he or she is playing. I don't want a critic to tell me how I'm going to react to something, or even to try to fit me into a subgroup - "if you're ______, then you're going to feel ______, but if you're not _______, then you're probably going to be _______."

I want the critic to point out the elephant and I want them to have a voice and a perspective that is so individual, so much their own, that whether I agree or disagree, I will want to know what they think.

Your blog, by the way, is swell.

AJ

[Moira Sullivan]

As you point out, producers and filmmakers are starting to take on critics by challenging them publicly after a bad review. After working long and hard on a film, you can certainly appreciate or at least expect that happening. I got criticized by the producer of Abel Ferrara's "Mary" screened at Venice--and I keep on meeting many people who liked the film than not. It may seem easy for a critic to launch into a tirade against a film, based on what appears to be only a personal point of view. That is where knowing something about film operations is important, and makes your opinion have some signficance. Knowledge of lighting, sound, cinematography, mis en scene or composition of the frame, continuity, acting style, art direction etc. Even if a critic dislikes a film there is always something about a film that is done well if you think of these different aspects. So if you point out something about the sound, or art direction that didn't seem to work, it bears more weight than if you just dismiss the film entirely - based on your own value system. Or why not address your ideas to others that might be like minded. Such as how the representation of gender or race may be sterotypical. I agree a personal opinion about a film, is a personal opinion --so it improves a review significantly to bring up examples from the film that can't be dismissed as only that.
But do we want to ban critics from press screenings because they may be out of touch with the public, and potentially squash a film before its release? (They can't--folks will still want to see Julia Roberts, even if the critics say she sucks on Broadway!) Tim Robbin's "Embedded" takes up how the media were enmeshed with the White House and coerced into becoming administration friendly or else be booted from the airwaves. Can it come to the press being booted from movie premieres by the producers?
In 1971, director Tom Laughlin took out a full page ad in the LA Times, blasting critics for disliking the films that the public wanted to see --such as his film "Billy Jack". It hasn't changed much since.In 2005, Japanese director Takashi Yamazaki made a huge public success--"Always Sunset on Third Street", winner of 14 Japanese Academy Awards - and was blasted by one influential Japanese critic, who just didn't like the movie. Yamazaki believes that the critic was infuriated that the public loved and felt this diminished his importance. That may be a text book case for the occasional negative review however whether a critic likes a film or not, it does make a better impression to back up why the film doesn't work, rather than provide personal conjecture as the ultimate proof of a film's failure. Now what about "The Da Vinci Code"---500 journalists at Cannes that have to go through a rigorous accreditation protocol--can they all be wrong, and the public right , or can both be right? Film needs a public, and we need the critics who have something meaningful to say. If not, critics will become embedded with the producers.

[Moira Sullivan]

PS AJ, glad you like my blog!