Why be a film critic if you don’t like films?
I have been prompted this week by Avengers: Age of Ultron to pull out this, my most trusted, dusted and probably over-used soapbox and once again attempt to decipher a mystery that burns within me.
Unlike the frustrated journalists of the middle of last century who were rotated into the role of film critic by newspapers for a brief sojourn at the cinema, today’s reviewers not only take on the mantle by choice, but after winning more wrestling matches than Hulk Hogan with competitors, conscience and parents who just want you to get a real job.
As such a love of cinema seems a pretty obvious starting point. Most probably the sort of obsessive love that would see court orders in your not-too-distant future were it aimed at a hot blooded individual.
Yet a few critics seem to actually hate films, measuring them all against a series of benchmarks that allow them to shriek with glee as they fail. We’ve all read or seen them, those who write reviews in which you can hear the disdain for cinematic youth of today dripping off every syllable. The end product is a verbose piece that no matter how well written may as well be reduced to a crank yelling “get off my lawn!”
Then there are other reviewers who clearly like films as long as they are the right genre. I once sat behind two senior film critics – no, not that pair of senior film critics – as they discussed the preview for The Hangover that they had seen the previous day. “It’s a pity it’s a comedy so I can only give it three stars,” said one with a straight face only matched by that of their listener who firmly agreed.
This week a handful of critics have come out firing at Avengers: Age of Ultron. While some I suspect of pre-determining their negative response in order to generate audience ire and attention – could we call it critick bait? – others just seem angry because the comic book film insisted on being a comic book film. Why had Joss Whedon and his team failed to morph the monumentally successful series into a Brechtian comedy?
Simple really. Because it isn’t one.
Any suggestion that the creative team have been lazy on Ultron or that the film panders to the mass audience demands utterly misses the point that turning an immensely popular comic book series into an intensely popular comic book movie franchise is demonstrably hard – just look at the Hulk movies,Fantastic Four, Catwoman and the Daredevil / Elektra double bill – and is actually an admirable quality. They have, to use the parlance of critics, respected the genre.
To my mind, and this is to me the crux of the issue, reviewers serve one purpose: To stand between the distributors with their million dollar marketing campaigns and the punters and advise the latter on whether the film delivers on the former’s promise.
We are not here to declare if a film is objectively good, brilliant or perfect. I will. From end of year lists to crazy ranting blogs. I can’t help myself. We’ll wax lyrical on film any way we can. That’s the love talking. But it’s not my ambition in writing reviews.
Plenty of critics disagree. They see themselves as a purer arbiter of taste. The type to cry: “This isn’t art!” I often refer to this as the distinction between a reviewer and a critic.
That’s my polite answer. My blunter answer is that I just think they’re wrong. Their ego is trying to make them more important than the film, or the audience. Our purpose has to be answering the question: Will this film give the audience what they want?
I genuinely don’t see how anyone can answer that question truthfully with regards to Avengers: Age of Ultron in any other way than a resounding yes. It’s a five star film for that very reason. It nails the brief.
I haven’t read a negative review yet that convinced me otherwise.
I loved this film. I can’t wait to see it again.
I love the Sydney Film Festival. I can’t wait for it to start.
I don’t expect one to emulate the other. They should give their audiences what they promise.
So should critics.
