I love it when film critics and other journalists and op-ed people get into debates via their articles and columns. A little drama between national media outlets never hurts. Recently, Wall Street Journal movie critic Joe Morgenstern wrote a column in response to an article a few weeks back by Peter Bart, Variety's editor-in-chief. There are some personal digs between the two that I won't bother getting into (they're amusing), but the central question is interesting: Should critics be more in tune with what the masses (Bart calls them the "popcorn crowd") really enjoy seeing at the multiplex?
Bart's column started with this:
Box office data this year suggests that filmgoers seem to be having a great time at the multiplexes. The critics, by contrast, may be shopping around for a new line of work.
He goes on to say that movies like 300, Ghost Rider, Wild Hogs, and Norbit have been slammed by critics but have done very well in the box office. "The situation underscores yet again the disconnect between the cinematic appetites of critics vs. those of the popcorn crowd," Bart writes. He suggests that there are two types of movie-going public: those propelled by buzz and those who are more discriminating--the wait-and-see-what-critics-say crowd. So why are movie critics only in tune with that second demographic (and so out of synch when it comes to popular culture)?
Morgenstern's rebuttal goes primarily like this: Audiences are Hollywood's harshest critics, and, despite box office numbers, they're clamoring for a higher level of filmmaking. Here's how he puts it:
And you [Bart], like I, surely hear the drumbeat of complaints from Hollywood's harshest critics -- not those of us who are paid to ply this peculiar trade, but longtime movie lovers, and ticket buyers, who've come to expect a certain level of intelligence and expertise in filmed entertainment. They don't think of themselves as elitists, and they'd rather not abandon the multiplexes until the level starts to rise come September. Week after week, though, they find themselves dismayed, and alienated, by the very productions that you point to as proof of Hollywood's health.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with either of them. I can't quite tell what Morgenstern is defending (his belief that Hollywood needs to step it up a notch?), and Bart's idea that critics should "make a passing attempt to tune in to pop culture" seems to defeat the very nature of a critic.
Here's what I think. Bart's take on the two general types of movie-goers is right on, and we each have our advocates, guiding us along the way. Those who love getting caught up in the buzz have marketing and distribution campaigns at work for them. And those who want to think through it a bit more before laying down their money have the opinions of critics, be they professional or experts on spout.com. It seems like there's enough room for all types to do their thing their way.
Syndicated Feed From:
SpoutBlog