“You should be kicked out of RT” — nebular
“If you fail to see the greatness of this film, you shouldn’t be reviewing movies. Your review is nothing but a display of your ignorance and bad taste” — evimeleth
“Never, ever again review another movie” — Ethan Bond
“There’s always one "critic" who wants to get attention for himself by being the voice of dissent. I doubt he even saw this movie. Pathetic” — Flinchy
“What an ignorant review! I can’t believe Rotten Tomatoes includes you as an actual critic. Go find a job that you are good at” — waterwizard2005
Wow. With all these wits, who needs Oscar Wilde?
Myths of Film Criticism
What’s amazing is how many film criticism myths have been unwittingly perpetuated in comments with about as much substance as a feud between Rosie O’Donnell and Donald Trump. Let’s examine them.
Film criticism is about Truth. Wrong. To say that “X is a masterpiece” isn’t to make a statement that is true or false. There’s no empirical test to prove whether a film is a masterpiece or not. There’s no logical, mathematical proof to be made either. At heart, it boils down to plan old subjective opinion. But does this mean that anything goes, that we can put any film directed by Uwe Boll on the same level as “Casablanca”? Nope. Filmmaking may be an art, but it is a technical art. Like anything technical, there are some things that work and others that don’t. Similarly, there are certain guidelines and standards by which the quality of writing and stories can be judged. Finally, there’s the test of time, in which movies that last beyond a generation show their true mettle. So while film criticism is heavy on the subjective, the objective isn’t completely out of the picture. The next question, then, is what is the relationship between popular tastes and critical opinion? Well, ducky, this brings me to…
Film critics just can’t enjoy movies. If the whole world likes it, popular wisdom says, then so should critics, which means they shouldn’t be party-pooping nitpickers ruining everybody’s fun. Let me ask you this, though: when you go see a movie, do you plan on having a bad time and wasting your money? Of course not. So why would it be any different with film critics? The thing is, though, is that critics take an interest in film as more than just entertainment, which means looking at more than just the immediate emotional gratification a film can provide. It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that discrepancies between critics and filmgoers happen. Besides, given the number of films some critics have seen, it’s also not surprising that it can take a bit more for a film to impress. So…
A good film critic is one you agree with…is a myth, too. Whether you agree with a critic or not is, for the most part, unimportant. What is important is whether you can understand where the critic is coming from. It’s not about the truth of a movie, which doesn’t exist, but how reasonable an evaluation of that movie is. That’s the stuff of good discussions. You may not agree with a critic, but if he or she can explain a review in a way that makes you think a bit more deeply about the film, then mission accomplished.
I could go on about what film criticism is and should be, but the broader picture in this affair is the irony for fans of an anti-fascist film to tell someone they disagree with to shut up. Whatever one might think of the quality of Mr. Shanks’ review, he is certainly entitled to his opinion. Besides, if these wits had bothered to pay attention to the critical consensus, they would have discovered that not all critics gave Pan’s Labyrinth a perfect score. Some even brought up similar objections to the ones Mr. Shanks makes in his review.
Based on reactions to his review, it isn’t so much how or why Mr. Shanks disagreed that irks, but the fact that he disagreed at all. That he didn’t fall into the conformity of reviews calls into question his credibility. He dared to think for himself. For that, he had to be ridiculed and demeaned – perhaps in the hope of him issuing an unlikely retraction? Baaaaaa. Civility, don’t let the door hit your fanny on the way out.
How to Shut Someone Up
It’s not a surprise how rude and arrogant people are when talking about movies, given how rude and arrogant people are talking about anything. Politics, anyone? The quality of discourse is rather obvious. Just pick up any newspaper or magazine, or tune into rant radio. Ridicule replaces reason. People act as if they not only know the capital-T Truth but are infallible as well. Thus, a transparent rhetorical tactic: when someone can’t offer a substantive, reasonable argument to counter an opinion he or she disagrees with, the person resorts to character assassination. If a person’s argument can’t be demolished, then demolish the person’s credibility so that no one ever listens to them again. After all, if all you heard about Mr. Shanks was that he’s an ignorant critic with poor taste in movies, would you visit his website? Probably not. Because not only do people engage in character assassination, there’s a tendency in our discussions for helping the assassin get away with it.
