I used to defend film critics: we needed objective, thoughtful voices that looked beyond box office receipts and truly judged the work itself. I even felt somewhat sorry as they were declared obsolete and out of touch. It is not just that viewers weren't paying attention to what reviewers had to say (especially young people who have never taken them seriously and will make up their own minds, thank you). They weren't reading them at all.
I think I am ready to throw in the towel. Those pernicious Top Ten lists are sprouting up and one can't help feeling these faux intellectuals are trying to prove not only that they know what is really good, but that millions of people who felt otherwise must be wrong. Furthermore, don't they read their own reviews? Remember when The Social Network opened long ago? As in six weeks ago? Well, that is apparently a long time in Movie Critic memory and so far, I am seeing that 100%- positively reviewed film on few if any lists. This means what? That the critics themselves were wrong in their rapturous critiques, that it was before films could be be taken seriously, or that it was just too damn enjoyable to be deigned award-worthy?
Find me one educated person who is not raving about The King's Speech. And, for that matter, find me a critic who did not praise it. Perhaps they found it somewhat conventional, but few argued against its polish and worth. On the lists? Not the ones I am seeing. And what became of The Kids Are Alright? This one too -- released eons ago as in summer 2010 -- garnered overwhelmingly positive praise but aside from star Annette Bening, seems to have disappeared in movie memory.
So what are we seeing on these lists? Presuming the films are in English (notice how reviewers also tend to show off their international leanings at this time, throwing out titles no one has heard of) you may find The Black Swan which features not one likable or originally conceived human being. I am all for exploring the dark underbelly of a beautiful milieu but do it with an ounce of wicket wit. (Sunset Boulevard anyone?) I acknowledge some of this is generational. (The younger set simply has not seen as much therefore recognize fewer clichés) Another "Festival" favorite finding its way on these coveted but ultimately meaningless lists is Sofia Coppola's Somewhere, about which the less said the better. Suffice to say, you will not find one "normal" viewer who does not scream with agony during this laborious labor of self love. There is also the Michelle Williams-Ryan Gosling little Blue Valentine, which purports to be about the making and breaking of a marriage. Really? With two weird 20-somethings who have not an ounce of chemistry (not to mention a sense of history) and perform as if they are in an improvisational class? You want to see a movie about marriage, check out Two For the Road or Shoot the Moon.
I promise that none of this is about studio products vs small indies. Truth be told, I am a huge believer in the latter and cheer every Winter's Bone or Tiny Furniture that comes along. But there are good ones and bad ones. Critics are often guilty of falling under the spell of a particular filmmaker, say Woody Allen in his heyday and now, Danny Boyle, who can seemingly do no wrong in their eyes. Hey, I love James Franco, but you find someone who thought 127 Hours was either entertaining, (even omitting the cutting-off-his-arm segment) suspenseful, or anything but simultaneously jumpy and lazy.
In holiday spirit, I have not given up all hope. I subscribe to the idea that a critic can and should point us to original, less noticeable works.It is interesting that the Academy Awards have chosen to widen their Best Picture category to include choices audiences both recognize and enjoy. The motive is not so admirable: Academy folks -- often influenced by these last minute year-end lists -- are simply trying to get tuned out viewers to tune back in. Critics should get the same message.