The Role of a Reviewer

Chances are anyone who is reading my blog knows who Roger Ebert is. He is a Pulitzer-winning writer most famous for film reviews. He is probably the most famous and well-regarded art critic alive today. Because of his fame, and his subsequent influence on the film industry, I was disturbed by this quote, given in a response to criticisms for his negative review of Thor:

“I don't consider my reviews instructions to readers about whether they should see a film. They're more like a continuing conversation. Nobody enjoys it when people get too wound up and start shouting. I hope to have a good time at a movie, and to provide a good time in writing a review. My guide is Dr. Johnson: "Those who desire to partake of the pleasure of wit must contribute to its production, since the mind stagnates without external ventilation."”

I feel that Mr. Ebert has seriously misunderstood what his job is. A film critic is, of course, supposed to provide something entertaining in his reviews (and Ebert is one of, if not the, most humorous and entertaining critic who’s work I read). However, finding a funny way to express the feelings you felt at a movie is not the way to write a review. A critic’s job is not to say whether they will like the film, or whether their audience will like the film: It is to say whether or not the film is good.

A prevalent theme in film critic’s attitudes is that a person’s view of a film is their own opinion and is not true or untrue. I find it astounding that someone who would believe that would devote their life to writing their opinion. Yes, film critics like Roger Ebert are able to entertain us with their ability to express their thoughts, and they are fortunate enough that their verdict on a picture generally matches that of their audience. But in the end, this reduces reviewing art into a mere display of the skill and wit of the critic at the expense of the filmmakers.

Think of the amount of effort that goes into making a film: All the people who have invested their time, money, and careers into it. Judging their work based on something as arbitrary as your own enjoyment of a film and then telling readers you do not know whether they should or should not see their work based on that is incredibly hurtful and selfish.

But critics like Ebert seem to see this as their job. To achieve consensus, they have(unconsciously) made the system more elaborate by not even basing their reviews on their own opinions, but on a standard of what a good movie should look like. Frequently, a picture is judged solely, or at least mostly, on its artistic merit. And what is artistic merit? Some of it is creative achievements in the industry; some of it is crafty ways to sway the audiences mind. But, frankly, most of it is a belief of what a film critic’s opinion should be.

As a result, we see the best reviewed movies are often horribly morally askew. Take, for example, The Dark Knight. The acting is brilliant; the imagery beautiful; the mood very powerful. But for all of its merit, the ending point of the film is (SPOILER WARNING) terrible. Batman decides the people of Gotham are too foolish to understand the full truth, so he makes up lies to please them. He enforces the peace by invading their privacy and taboo levels of brutality, and he replaces the law with his own code of honor. And his only qualifications for the job of Batman—a job he violently ensures will only be his—is that he is rich, strong, smart, and through natural gifts “superior” to those around him. This is a fascist, Nazi-esque look at life. A very convincing, powerful look at life, but a fascist one all the same.

Before giving a film a good grade, a critic should think of a few important things. First, they must identify exactly who the film’s audience is. That is not necessarily the same audience the picture was marketed for. After deciding who the film is intended for, one must think whether that person will be pleased by the movie. One should keep in mind the standards of the audience. For example, a movie like The Smurfs is meant for children. Therefore, view the film as a child would view it. This is probably with an eye less harsh than the critic’s personal preference is. Finally, the reviewer should look at what people will take away from the film. A movie that appeals to its intended audience and has little objectionable content, yet does not give the viewer anything or much to take away probably deserves a B. The grade should be higher if either it offers a moral or message that goes beyond its basic story, or if it reaches a broader market, or if it excels artistically far beyond anything else in its genre while not becoming offensive (it is artistically superior to most films around).

What is probably most controversial about what I have said is that it allows a movie with no original content and only a very small market who will only be mildly pleased to get a passing grade. Most critics judge a film based on how they enjoy it, and how impressed they were. Being well-versed in movies, they will almost certainly have a far higher standard that the viewer who pays to see the movie because they like that sort of thing. This is because of the myth that a critic’s enjoyment of a film should directly correlate with their review of the film.

I admit, I found very little entertaining content in The Smurfs. The little creatures were cute enough, but the slapstick humor was evident to me as unoriginal and bland. However, I know a small child will love the picture. And, what is more, I know the small child will not take away a bad message.

In contrast, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Thor. It was funny, well-acted, full of fun battle sequences, rim with amazing visuals, and altogether entertaining. However, I would give that movie an overall grade of a C-. For all of its positive content, it treats excessive drinking as a harmless and routine occurrence, and in fact links it to one’s masculinity. Sure, it was only one scene. And the writers had no intention of making that a part of their film’s message. Nevertheless, it is an undeniable fact that people will watch it and, probably subconsciously, get the idea that intoxication is a joke.

This is because the core of what a review should get at is what a viewer will take away from a film. If the film is The Smurfs, the viewers will be children and will thus take away a good feeling. If the film is Winter’s Bone, the viewer is someone intending to receive a deep and powerful message, and chances are they will get that. If the movie is Thor, the viewer is someone who went to see a fun action movie, and they will take away both a great time and an idea that excessive drinking is okay.

Unlike Mr. Ebert, I see my reviews as instruction of whether people should see or not see a movie. That is the role needed for reviewers. And it is one they should step up and accept.

3-D Report: July

3-D movies can be done well and they can be done badly. Unfortunately, people have seen too many movies with the bad kind of 3-D and thus think that they hate the format when in fact they really don't know it. I am compiling a report of the quality of 3-D for every month. Some of the movies could still be in theaters so you could consider seeing them based on this, or watch these if you have a 3-D player when they arrive on DVD. Or at least read this years later when 3-D home viewing is easier to come by. Still, the biggest reason I write this is that I hope readers who have seen the movies in 3-D will know how that movies' 3-D compares to other movies' 3-D. Then there might be less of a negative view towards what is in truth a great new invention. Before reading this some people willlikely think "I hate 3-D because the glasses darken the image so much." Sometimes this is the case but I will tell you if it is. Now, obviously, if you watch the movie in 3-D and take off your glasses in the middle you will notice how much brighter the screen is. THAT DOES NOTE MEAN THE 2-D IS THAT BRIGHT--a well-made movie will lighten the 3-D version with the expectation it will be darkened by wearing glasses. It sounds simple but you would be surprised how many people think that a 3-D version viewed without glasses is the same as an out-of-focus 2-D one. The movies are presented in chronological order.

Keep in mind Transformers: Dark of the Moon came out in June, so you will find my comments on it in the 3-D Report for June.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II

One of the biggest blows to the 3-D genre occurred last year when Warner Brothers had Clash of the Titans hurriedly converted into the format. It was done far too quickly and as a result the 3-D was awful (also due to Warner Brothers' request for last minute editing, the rest of the movie was awful as well, but that is for another article). People paid to see Titans in 3-D, but after that people have been seeing movies in 2-D.

Amazingly, Warner Brothers learned from their mistakes. Only a few months from the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I, the studio took back the advertisements for that movie to be in 3-D, saying they did not think it should be converted in that time and they wanted all their focus to go into converting Part II.

It may have cost them money at first, but it was worth it (at least for the audience). Deathly Hallows 2 has the best 3-D for a 100% converted movie yet. The images are in perfect focus, the world has the right dimensions (meaning no "cardboard cut-out effects"), and the 3-D adds to the experience greatly without interrupting the story. This is one movie to see in the extra dimension.

Now, many people are going to complain that the image is too dark. Well, that is true, but its not because of the 3-D. Back in Prisoner of Azkaban (the third Harry Potter movie), Alfonso Cuaron took his turn directing the series. Not only was this by far the stupidest book (remember time-travel, everyone), but Cuaron decided the best way to convey the "darker tone" was to give the movie a darker tone. And by that, I mean he had his cinematographers digitally darken every single frame of the film, meaning you can't see a thing that is going on. Cuaron and his cinematographer--Michael Seresin--left the series after that movie, but future directors decided not to drastically change his look for the series. This means that for most people (especially those who are even mildly color-blind), the Harry Potter movies have some of the ugliest, depressing, and distracting cinematography of all time (I know some of them have gotten Best Cinematography Oscar nominations, but that is probably because 1) it took a lot of effort to make the movie look like that and 2) voters forgot that its originality was because everyone else knew it was a terrible idea). In short, the final Harry Potter film, while not quite as hideous as most of its predecessors, still is shot in tone of black and green. It looks like the affect of a poor 3-D conversion, but in fact every version of the picture looks like that because it is supposed to.

Captain America: The First Avenger

The 3-D in this is acceptable, but not fantastic. It does add depth to the image, and it does blur the background (to prevent headaches). However, in some cases the characters seem to not be in perfect tune with their surroundings. It is a very slight error in fully expanding the frames, but sometimes the characters stand out as having a not quite right look around the edges of them. It is very subtle, and most of the time you don't notice (or most of the time it is not there). This is often an issue for converted film, and Cap is not as bad as most of them (Green Lantern had it much worse). Still, it provides enough of a reason to strongly consider a 2-D viewing experience.

The Smurfs

Most of the problems with converted 3-D is that it is out of focus, but occasionally these pictures (and ones shot in 3-D, for that matter) have a problem of being over-focused. A person's eye puts the thing someone wants to look at in focus, and everything else is blurred because it is unimportant. A good camera is able to put everything in focus--and when the image is heavily altered through cinematography, this is worse. When a movie is in 3-D, it is absolutely imperative to blur the background. If this is not done (or not done well), the viewer has to work to distinguish what the important part of the picture is. They will get motion sickness, their eyes will get tired, and they will get a headache. I had this problem at Smurfs, and I think most people do to. The makers of well-made 3D movies like Tron: Legacy stress that it is mandatory for filmmakers to follow this rule. Realizing that their market is mostly kids and their parents, who aren't familiar with good 3-D and just want an extra gimmick, the studio behind The Smurfs doesn't bother to do it right. This is very thoughtless, since it will both make people hate the entire 3-D format (robbing other 3-D films of money), and it will make parents think that 3-D only works on children ( a common myth).

Do not watch The Smurfs in 3-D.

As a final note I will mention that there are reports that many theaters are projecting 3-D films wrong (such as by using a dimmer bulb) which makes the image darker. Sure, some 3-D films are actually darker than their 2-D counterparts, but it is often worth considering that your local theater is playing it wrong and its not the fault of the actual movie. It could be worse trying out your next 3-D experience at another theater as an experiment.