Boy I really need to get on the ball when an idea crosses my mind these days. Earlier in the week, Guardian writer Paul Harris beat me to the punch on an article I was spinning around concerning Hollywood’s attraction to post-apocalyptic narratives as of late. Now HitFix’s Drew McWeeny has penned exactly the same kind of curious exploration of mainstream media critics’ views of the American film-going public that I was hoping to get to this week.
McWeeny nails it. In a nutshell, what the hell is it with the amount of hot air being blown by the self-important film criticism and journalism establishment toward audiences that have a right to go see what the hell they want lately? Roger Ebert, Jeffrey Wells (no surprise there), A.O. Scott and Patrick Goldstein have all recently tossed around the idea of a coming “dark age” of movie intelligentsia, arrogantly dismissed the preferences of American audiences, bemoaned an overall lack of interest in what critics have to say and, effectively, as McWeeny puts it, declared that you all get off their lawn.
I think there is a conversation to be had about American distaste in quality cinematic entertainment. I don’t think it begins with insulting working people with higher concerns than what to see on a Friday night, however. And I think the entire situation has pushed me that much further into an opinion I’ve held for a long time but never really had the guts to say in a public forum: Film criticism does not matter. Yours, mine, the next guy’s. It’s not precious, it’s not a commodity and it has slowly ruined the art of filmmaking by establishing a criteria of sorts and a hierarchy of perceived quality, boxing in what it sets out to celebrate.