..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington

January 18, 2003

Michael Medved Attempts To Lead Film Criticism Another Step Closer To The Toilet
by David Poland

-------------------------------------------------------

On Friday, Michael Medved stuck yet another blow for reducing all of art to the most commercial, most simplistic pap possible. His hypothesis, printed in USA Today, wonders aloud, "Why do the preferences of America's movie critics differ so radically from the tastes of the general public?"

The snobbish - and inaccurate - answer that Medved obviously expects would come quickly from most critics - and it would - is that the "public" is made up of mouth-breathing, fast-foot-eating, shopping mall morons who consume whatever crap they are sold.

But, in fact, Medved himself engages in that very same hypocrisy, picking and choosing the films in the box office Top Ten that should (Signs, My Big Fat Greek Wedding) and should not (Men in Black II, Scooby Doo) be considered for year-end awards from critics groups.

Medved likes to paint himself as a standard bearer, but the only standard he is interested in is his own taste... the same disease he claims infects other critics. He wags his finger and tongue, "Those of us who evaluate motion pictures for a living should never forget that we are supposed to serve the public, not just the movie industry, and we ought to pay more attention to the values of the people who buy the tickets."

BZZT!!!! WRONG!

A film critic should function like any other journalist. We serve the story with a critical eye. The story is the film, just as the story in another section of the paper might be the economy or a war or a murder or a million other things. Are movie stories as important as war stories? Of course not. But there still must be some standards. Or would Medved have us serve the public by taking their temperature?

Medved's analysis antagonizes me in an extreme way because he uses selective history to sell his lie. For instance, he writes, "With the ever-increasing emphasis on motion pictures as art rather than entertainment, the gap between critical darlings and mainstream blockbusters may seem inevitable, even healthy."

What planet is he living on? Where is there an "ever-increasing emphasis on motion pictures as art rather than entertainment?" In critics' groups? He makes it sound like Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring wasn't the most nominated film of all (including Best Picture) at last year's Academy Awards. Or that LOTR: The Two Towers doesn't turn up in the Top Three on 21 critics lists in MCN's survey, with 48 total mentions, putting it on over one-third of all the lists included.

That said, I do not believe that it is "our" job to work against the mainstream either. And there are critics who act that way. There is a certain snobbery. And there is a certain interest in appearing to be on the edge of something to which everyone else is not connected. If Signs was one of your ten favorite pictures of the last year, for God's sake, put it on your list.

But the notion that critics exist to compliment the egos of the public - or Michael Medved - is not only absurd, it's dangerous. The entire system of filmmaking is designed to acknowledge and bend to the tastes of the public. Millions and millions of dollars go into the marketing of films. Millions of words are written to let the public know what the film is about and what they might expect. So what is the critic's role?

It is not an easy question to answer, regardless of whether Medved feels it is. Even the least arrogant way of looking at criticism, that it should be what you would tell a friend around the water cooler, cannot seriously take popularity into account. I can live with "Viggo's so cute" or "The effects are cool," but "Everyone else is seeing it" as a critical statement is the death of any hope for culture.

The vacuum in a critic's life, in which we see most films without a "real" audience and without the influence of the public response pressuring us, is a part of the heavy lifting. We do have to be aware of the distance it can create. But it is a necessary burden because we do not walk into those screening rooms to write social surveys,we do it to analyze the merits of films... films which will be seen in all kinds of formats, in all kinds of settings for years and years to come.

Why do the preferences of America's movie critics differ so radically from the tastes of the general public? The same reason that Roger Ebert loves to go to Steak-n-Shake night after night with the guests of the high-minded (and glorious) Overlooked Film Festival in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois every year. Because he does.

There's a perfectly good McDonald's nearby. Burger King, KFC and Taco Bell too. And I bet there's even a quality slow-food restaurant in town. But Roger loves Steak-n-Shake for his own, personal, lifelong reasons. And we all love hanging out with him in a place that makes him so happy. In L.A., we have In-n-Out and Tomy Burger. In New York, there is Grey's Papaya And Ray's Original Pizza. None of them are fully national chains. But they are all loved and their fans would tell you that they are a lot better than the nearby McDonald's.

So, does Roger have to take his beloved Chaz to Steak-n-Shake for their next anniversary dinner? Or should he have a real steak at The Saloon? Or a salad with shaved truffles? Or lobster Cantonese?

Perhaps Roger is supposed to pretend that Steak-n-Shake is quantitatively better than filet mignon in order to be the "right" kind of film critic. Or perhaps it is better, for him.

It's Roger's job to tell me what he thinks, whether I agree or not. It's his editor's job to determine whether he is doing the job and doing it fairly. It's his publisher's job to determine whether his opinion will sell newspapers. It's his readers' job to determine how they want to react to his opinions and to the myriad other influences on their movie going decisions, from critics to advertising to word-of-mouth. And I guess it's Michael Medved's job to simplify the whole equation so it fits into the 1100 words that USA Today has room to print and he can perpetuate his position as a hack moralist.

(I won't even go into the political subtext of Medved's surface rant against film critics in which he questions the support of a "profoundly depressing picture about suicide and madness, artistry and AIDS" as well as a film allegedly about "a middle-class family shattered by the father's homosexual affair." Meanwhile The Pianist is just a "Holocaust drama." Gotta' be careful about those sources of depression! We can't attack our own, even if our history is depressing. And how about that film about the orphaned teenager whose hubris gets his uncle killed and who can't express his emotions for a young woman, lest she find out about "his secret?" No one will ever see that! Perhaps Mr. Medved should have led, more honestly, with "Why I Think That Critics Embrace Homosexual Values That Are Polluting Our Culture" God knows (ha! - speaking for God again), that they are far more dangerous than sword wielding humans, dwarves, orcs and hobbits!)

Medved isn't wrong to accuse many critics of being too snobby and living in some degree of isolation. But unlike Medved, if you asked a critic of any weight to take a deep breath and really answer the question, "Why do the preferences of America's movie critics differ so radically from the tastes of the general public?" you would get a thoughtful, complex, challenging answer. Some of the critics from whom you would expect public-bashing would bash critics harder than the masses. Some of the seeming lightweights would be the biggest snobs. And some would toss the question away in disgust.

But that's the point. Critics are just individuals. Critics groups are just groups of individuals. Everyone tends to think they are capital-R Right. Everyone. Michael Medved. Me. You. So stop moping around and pointing fingers. It's what you love, not what critics or the Academy love or what the film you loves grosses.

That, I dare say, is the sickness of this era of film criticism. In the end, critics are not snobby enough... when snobby means that they have strong, clear opinions of films based on the films and nothing else. Because in the end, nothing else matters.

Least of all, Michael Medved.