• Home
• Appraisal Guide
  • Guidelines
  • How to Read the Appraisal Tables
  • Top Opener Samples
  • Top Closer Samples
  • Country Codes
• Package Calculator
  • Guidelines
• Tools
  • Starpedia
  • Phases of the Business Cycle
  • Production Tiers
  • Movie Ticket Prices Worldwide
  • Theatrical Release Patterns
  • Maturity Ratings
  • Satisfaction Ratings
  • Box Office Performance Benchmarks
  • 2009 Theatrical Films
  • Market Diagnostics
  • 2010 Marquee Stars Encores
• Archives
• About Us
  • About Marquee Stars
  • Team Tao Joenz
  • Contact Us
  • Our Marquee Appraisal System
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Corroborative Sources
  • Site Map
  • RSS Feed

The Seven Bewilderly Sins

With Their Power at an Ebb, the Arbiters of Good Taste Face Ambivalent Audiences and Bewildering Times

Opinion by Tao Jonez
Posted: September 30, 2009

Once was a time when critics ruled art as giants … when an acerbic wit could close a Broadway production … when a rave review would turn out large audiences for an unknown or unappreciated cinematic gem.  These were the times when the critics themselves were an integral part of the artistic endeavor they critiqued … when The New York Times chief theater critic Frank Rich - then known as “the Butcher of Broadway” - underscored the distracted disconnect between American politics and pop culture.

These were also the times when L’Ecran français critic-filmmaker Alexandre Astruc proposed “la caméra-stylo” (movie camera as author’s pen) … when Cahiers du cinéma magazine co-founder André Bazin articulated the idea of a director’s vision … when Cahiers du cinéma critic-filmmaker François Truffaut expounded the “la politique des auteurs” (the policy of authors) … when The Village Voice film critic Andrew Sarris repackaged Truffaut’s thoughts as the “Auteur Theory” … when The New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael challenged the limits and even the validity of this French “New Wave” concept … and when tenets of that same theory found their way into the curricula of prestigious film schools and, eventually, influenced the “creative rights” doctrine of the Directors Guild of America.

That was then.  But as first confirmed in 2006 with The Da Vinci Code’s near record-shattering opening box office bonanza - despite tepid advance word and mixed reviews - a new paradigm now exists between film critics and filmgoers.  Today the broadcast and print media’s role as a cultural gatekeeper has been substantially destabilized by the Internet and other new media.  People today prefer information that’s quick, concise, and on point.  Just say it - is the film good or bad?

Of course, even in the form of a simple thumbs up or thumbs down verdict, moviegoers are now less trusting of any critic’s judgment - giving rise to aggregation review sites like Metacritic.com and RottenTomatoes.com.

Critically Critiquing the Critics

Movie critics find themselves trapped inside an awkward time warp within the history of their tradition.  The Digital Revolution has already changed things so fundamentally, and will change things again and again for many years to come.  Now critics seem uncertain what role they should play: whether they should uphold high culture with passionate advocacy, or whether they should suppress personal opinion in favor of consumer reporting.

This confusion of focus within the critical community makes moviemakers and movie audiences all the more wary of movie reviews - the reviews, mind you, not the reviewers … most movie critics are fine people.  Critics simply are making bewildered choices in their take on the movies.  Hate the sin, love the sinner.  Below are the most irksome critical sins … at least from the perspective of the content professional:

The Seven Bewilderly Sins of Movie Critics

1. PRIDE: Lacking in humility of judgment… Very many critics review movies based entirely on whether a movie appeals to that critic’s personal tastes.  Then, if the critic has been displeased by the movie, the critic will see that displeasure as an unpardonable crime that - sha-zaaam … Dr. Jekyll … ka-pow … Mr. Hyde - conjures forth their inner demon with the evil mandate from the Dark Side to warn all audiences against that movie.  Never mind that most moviegoers - and even most of that critic’s readers - do not share the same highbrow tastes of the movie critic.

Not every book in the bookstore was written for the aficionados of William Shakespeare.  Similarly, the content industry must entertain a wider range of audiences than just that.

Read more

How to Recognize an Auteur

What They Don’t Say in Film School

The notion of an “auteur” filmmaker began as a way of grouping and academically appreciating films based on the oeuvre of prominent creatives who, though working within the restrictions of assigned genres and scripts under the old studio system, nevertheless succeeded in imposing a distinctive sensibility.  The intent was to validate film as an autonomous art form capable of maestro-driven, original film stories in contrast with the stale adaptations of the French “Tradition of Quality.”  So besides directors, the original Auteur Theory also could include luminary producers (e.g. Walt Disney, George Lucas), an occasional screenwriter of prominence (e.g. Neil Simon, David Mamet), and even movie star-directors (e.g. Orson Welles, Clint Eastwood).

An auteur was any outstanding filmmaker who could blow away the stuffy boredom of convention with a breath of fresh cinematic imagination.

Yet for promotional reasons, the auteur concept was quickly co-opted to refer principally to storyteller directors with their own distinctive personal vision.  That’s a far more romantic and compelling, but simplistic idea: the film director as Horatio Hornblower, almighty captain of his ship and master of the cinematic seas.  It’s also much easier to sell a single “auteur” as part of a film’s ad campaign.

In truth, however, from concept until completion of a motion picture, a good production team often will resemble a professional sports team - with the field plays called sometimes by the team captain (the director), sometimes by the head coach (the producer), and sometimes by the front office (the studio/financier).  The producer and the director will function by design as an adversarial check-and-balance on the other’s subjective impulses (i.e. megalomania).  Consequently most films actually require a relay race of storytellers who pass the baton through their individual creative imprints at various stages of the filmmaking process.

For example, as pointed out by the late Pauline Kael, Orson Welles’ auteur classic Citizen Kane would have been substantially less remarkable without the unique contributions of co-screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz and cinematographer Gregg Toland.  Certainly renowned auteur Alfred Hitchcock declined as a filmmaker after the dispersal of his elite production team in 1963 following The Birds.

Read more