Week 2 Reflection – Critical Failure: Film

Week 2 saw us explore the role and credibility of criticism in a contemporary context. We watched a video that featured a series of panellists in diverse professions discussing the ‘failure’ of film criticism and providing some insight on why the quality of film criticism is thought to have declined in recent times. One of the main factors identified as influencing this shift in criticism was the internet, which has given rise to ‘hobbyists’ and created a much wider pool of criticism – and therefore, detract from the credibility of film reviews. The more traditional style of long-form reviews found in the column of newspapers were considered more credible and better informed, as there a higher degree of professionalism involved, and literally more space on the page for critics to provide a thorough, in-depth analysis of a film. In contrast, many of the reviews found online, written by self-proclaimed critics, are generally short-form and more concerned with their opinion of the film rather than its broader social, cultural or historical context. However, not all is bad when it comes to the rise of film criticism on the internet. Some advantages were noted, such as the fact that the internet provides a sphere of diversity and a much larger pool of criticism. This comes as a benefit to film makers who now have more chance of receiving positive criticism. It also exposes a wider range of different approaches to critique writing, which provides fellow or emerging critics with examples of models they can adopt and build upon in order to find their own voice and writing style.

Beyond the internet, other factors that affected the quality of film criticism were also considered; primarily, how commercial and economic interests can compromise the authenticity of film reviews. This prompted me to think about why film critics write reviews and how faithful they are to doing something for the sake of enjoying it. Week 2’s reading ‘Film Criticism: The Next Generation’ clarified some of these thoughts for me, as most of the critics interviewed were self-proclaimed cinephiles and discussed their critiquing as coming from a place of appreciation for movies rather than any sort of business interests. I think this field in particular is one where the work comes from a place of enjoyment rather than financial gain, and I think there is something very genuine in that.