Cedars, April 2019

April 2019 18 ANALYSIS Films and their Critics Cedarville discusses how online movie reviews affect audiences’ perception by Hunter Johnson F or decades, audiences only had one source for film criticism: the news- paper. These professional film crit- ics were highly respected and lauded as the be-all and end-all of a film’s quality. This is mainly because no one else had an outlet to express their own views of a film to a wide group of people. This started changing toward the 21st century. More and more film critics became popular and, over time, general movie-go- ing audiences began expressing their opin- ions of film on the newly birthed World Wide Web. Now anyone can criticize a film — You- Tube, Twitter, and countless blogs have be- come a housing place for millions of people calling themselves film reviewers. Where does this place film critics? What role do people, who were previously the only voice in film criticism, have in this new age of media and constant discussion? In the world at large, film criticism has only gotten bigger. There are count- less news sources online that provide in-depth reviews and analyses on films and what they mean. Rotten Tomatoes is largely responsible for this. The popular aggregator website gives a sense of organi- zation to the enormous world of film crit- icism by gathering all professional critics and providing a consensus on how many of those critics generally liked a film and how many of them didn’t. The site also provides a section where anyone can add their thoughts of a film, creating a general audience consensus. This separation between critics and au- diences keeps the need for film critics alive. It separates the people who analyze films as a career from the people who may not be as trained in analyzing films, but have very real opinions nonetheless. But, let’s take a step back and remind ourselves of what the role of a critic really is. Should they be the decider of a film’s quality or should they simply be another person in the audience? Isaac Mayeux, assistant professor of English and a fan of comics and movies, said this about film critics: “People should probably not try to treat critic’s reviews as being authori- tative in any way, so much as a person’s opinion. And hopefully, if it’s a good crit- ic, they’re saying a lot more than just, ‘I liked this movie, I didn’t like this movie. The lighting was good, the cinematogra- phy was bad.’ Hopefully, they’re trying to grapple with some of the ideas of the film and what the film means socially, so that it’s more about having a conversation about film than as a … consumer reports review.” Mayeux’s concept of an ideal critic sounds great, but it’s not always the actual situation. Many critics really do focus on the technical sides of a film rather than the ideas the film is trying to get across (me be- ing one of those kinds of people), and even when critics do look at the social ideas of a film, many audiences still misunderstand them for claiming to be “authoritative,” as Mayeux put it. Cedars conducted an informal survey of 100 students on campus regarding film criticism. Around 50% said they would not be less likely to see a film in theaters, even if it had a 30% score or less on Rotten To- matoes. Students said it was because they “don’t trust critics,” or they “think critics are stuck-up.” The idea of a critic’s role has been skewed. Sites like Rotten Tomatoes serve as a simple collection of critic’s reviews, and are often misinterpreted as the defi- nition of a film’s quality. Many audiences look up a film like “Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” and all they notice is the big 91% listed beside it. They take this as saying that the film’s score is a definite 91 out a 100, but it’s not. All this means is that 91% of the critics generally liked the film and 9% of the critics didn’t. Many of those 91% of reviews lay out all the problems they had with the film. They still arrived at the conclusion that they liked it while still acknowledging its flaws. But most au- diences don’t read those reviews, they’re just angry because they disagree with the general consensus of critics, resulting in a 44% score from audiences. All of these problems that audiences have with critics lead to them eventually ig- nore critics entirely. When surveying those same Cedarville students, 52% of them said that they don’t check reviews at all before watching films. Many said that if they really want to see a film, they’re not going to let a critic tell them not to see it. Cedarville’s Dan Clark, an associate professor of English and co-creator of the Foreign Film series on campus, echoed this idea. “If there’s a film I want to see, I’ll prob- ably see it no matter what the critics are say- ing,” he said. However, if a film that he was previously uninterested in receives positive reviews, it might encourage him to watch it. Clark understands that the critics sim- ply are stating an opinion and not making a judgment on the film’s objective quality. This idea that the critic’s job is to tell audiences what to believe is flawed. Perhaps some critics believe they are the authority on a film’s quality, but most openly claim to simply be stating their opinions. They love films and want to be honest with what they think about them. But then there’s another issue. Many audiences want to watch films for entertain- ment purposes rather than analyzing the film and it’s social issues. Mayeux said that people are doing a Retrieved from www.vintagemovieposters.co.uk “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” received a 91% from film critics and a 44% from audiences on Rotten Tomatoes.