In today’s internet savvy society, the term “everyone’s a critic” has become a veritable reality. Now, everybody has the forum to not only express their ideas on film to their peers, but also to distribute their opinions to a vast and anonymous public audience. However, long before the advent of internet blogging and twitter, film criticism has had a long and fascinating history that, at least according to director Gerald Peary, warrants examination. “For the love of Movies: The story of American Film Criticism”— a recent documentary and Peary’s directorial debut— explores this history and follows the progression of film criticism in America. “For the Love of Movies” has two projects that work together to create a complete picture of the film reviewing industry. First, it examines the history of film criticism from small plot synopses in newspapers to the varied forms in different media that are available today. At the same time, it investigates the nature of past and contemporary individuals who have held the title “film critic” and seeks to understand this profession, define its purpose, and assess its questionable future. Ultimately, the film claims that this profession— which is threatened by the availability of film reviews on the web— is above all else the product of a profound passion for film and is a valuable asset to the industry and its audience. However, while the historical information is fascinating and the film critic industry well examined, the documentary’s relationship with, and message for, the rise of web reviews is a bit unclear.
Peary divides “For the love of movies” into six different chapters in which he describes a two decade period as it pertains to film criticism. The first era, which is called “The Dawn of Criticism”, extends from 1907 until 1929. The earliest movie reviews, narrator Patricia Clarkson explains, began as simple plot summaries in trade papers. Quickly, some figures like Frank E Wood and Robert Sherwood began realizing the unique nature of the movies— a medium that is more than “filmed theater”— and developed theories as to how to measure their quality. These writers even formed relationship with filmmakers and obtained roles in making movies in addition to viewing them.
The documentary lays out five more of these time periods, however, mostly focuses on Sherwood’s and Wood’s inheritors— the critical innovators of subsequent eras. Writers like Manny Farber, Vincent Canby, Bosley Crowther, Andrew Sarris, and Pauline Kael all contributed to the discipline in their own significant and unprecedented way. “For the Love of Movies,” which details these contributions by quoting passages from their articles and showing interview footage of these individuals, wonderfully exhibits these personalities and puts a human face to these figures who are so often reduced to a name in a newspaper.
The film also lays out the different tensions and dynamics that defined this profession. For instance, Bosley Crowther, the New York Time’s main critic and the most powerful critical voice in film in the forties and fifties, would look for the moral element in the film, and promote movies with a positive message. However, the younger generation— writers like Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris— felt that movies should be judged on aesthetic merit alone. They did not feel that the movie’s moral fiber was relevant to the review and believed that Crowther was “out of touch.”
While Kael and Sarris fell on the same side in this debate, the movie spends a lot of time on the famous conflict between these two powerful voices in the movie review business. During the sixties, Sarris, who wrote for the village voice, and Kael, who wrote for the New Yorker, became the two of the most influential critiques. Their conflict started with Sarris’ acceptance of the French Auteur theory that was popular in the seventies. Kael strongly discredited the auteur theory— which states that the director determined the movie and was an artist no different than a painter— and unabashedly slighted Sarris’s ideas. However, eventually Kael also became somewhat of an aurterist herself, only she supported her directors while Sarris championed other directors. This rivalry is an interesting one and demonstrates the internal dynamics of the word of movie criticism quite well. With the exploration of these tensions, “For the Love of Movies” shows that the film criticism industry was also changing and dynamic and any recent challenge, it suggests, is only the newest point on the evolution of this medium.
Interwoven into this narrative are questions that are posed to a number of contemporary critics— Liza Shwatrzbaum, AO Scott, and Owen Gleiberman to name a few— on the nature of their profession. Questions like “what qualifies you to be a film critic?” “did you always want to be a film critique” “Does your partner have to also be movie-crazy?” are peppered throughout and serve as a supplement to the historical account. In the responses to “what qualifies you as a film critic,” the general consensus is reached that critics do not actually have anything that proves their ability. “There is no degree or piece of paper” AO Scott explains that gives a critic the authority to relay his opinions on film. One critic even goes so far as to say that it actually is only to due to “sheer dumb luck” that he gets to have the job of attending movies.
While I believe that the documentary relays a fascinating history and successfully characterizes the role of a film critic, the take-home message is somewhat unclear. The movie opens up with a quote that is more in the nature of a hurricane relief ad, “Today film criticism is under siege... 28 reporters have lost their jobs over the last several years” The obvious reason for these jobs losses is the virtual (no pun intended) obsolescence of printed film criticism because of the availability of free film reviews on the web. However, while they seem to bemoan that fact of this loss, in actuality the film does not critique this newer form of criticism. In fact, they name a few reasons why this new trend is good for movie audiences and the movies in general.
First, at least according to film blogging king, Harry Knowles, the rise in the citizen as film reviewer is sign that more people are “thinking critically.” Film criticism on the web does not signify a decline is the standards of film critique, as some may think, but is rather a testament to the younger generation’s engagement with higher thought. Moreover, as America does not have a monolithic pop culture, there is no one critic who can speak for everyone. The cacophony of voices on films is well suited to the heterogeneous society we live in. Michael Bay, for instance, is hated by movie critics and yet adored by many viewers. Perhaps, there is a need then to have people with different aesthetic sentiments to cater to different tastes.
Ultimately, the film decides that it is and has always been a field that is about the eponymous “love of movies.” The critics do their job because of their passion for film but also the entire profession is really for the continued improvement of the film industry. Directors and actors benefit have an added incentive to make a movie as good as possible and critics have a long tradition, dating back to Sherwood’s time, of giving their opinions in the movie-making process. Most importantly, these critics spark conversations, whether it be between Kael and Sarris or a cab driver and AO Scott, and elicit ideas and dialogue over the common viewing of films. With these reasons, they certainly make a convincing case for the continued importance of this profession; however, I had trouble shedding any tears over the rise of online film criticism— especially as I consider the forum in which this is being published.
Comments