Adam: If you
haven’t noticed, it’s been quite some time since I have posted a movie review.
There is a reason for that. It is not that I have been too busy, because I am
always too busy, but rather it has been an intentional absence. Starting in
September, I will return to writing reviews on a more regular basis, but as for
now, I’ll leave you with this explanation.
--
Critical Hit: A
Discussion of Critical Cynicism, The Effects of Negativity, and Why We Go See
Movies in the First Place
This Summer at the movies began like any other: a superhero
movie jumped the gun in April and kicked off what was sure to be a slew of
successful, expensive franchise films, sensational sequels, and the occasional
origin story. My apatite for Summer blockbuster fun at the movies was already
raging after the fantastic Evil Dead
sequel, and considering the fact that I cannot resist soaking up the overdose
of glossy, plastic pop culture that Summer brings every year, I jumped on the
chance to see Iron Man 3 a night
early (thanks to my job at a movie theater). If you read my review, you know
that I loved it. Many critics, however, did not.
I didn’t flinch at this, since Iron Man 3 did deviate from the source material enough to anger the
fanbase as well as confuse a few casual moviegoers. Not to mention, it was
extremely character driven and comic-y, unlike the two action-driven previous
efforts in the series (a change I attribute to Shane Black’s direction). I was
certain the upcoming Summer treats would be better received.
The month of May saw the release of Star Trek Into Darkness, which was a smashing success with fans new
and old, and critics alike. On a smaller scale, Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation of The Great Gatsby was hit or miss,
depending on the audience member or critic (not uncommon for Baz). Apart from
that, we had blockbusters like Fast &
Furious 6, The Hangover Part III, After Earth, Epic, Now You See Me, and The Purge, all of which receiving some
negative critical response, both deserved and undeserved. Again, I ignored it.
I loved Epic, but didn’t care for Now You See Me and didn’t see any of the
others (though I heard FF6 was good).
I stayed optimistic.
June begins the bulk of what I would like to discuss here.
The abysmal reception of Snyder’s brilliant Superman film Man of Steel got the worst of it, but Monsters University and
Despicable Me 2 each got torn to shreds by some major critics, though the
latter was quite successful with audiences, but neither of them got the credit
or praise they deserved. They were both accused of lacking the heart of the
originals to which they were sequels, when this was simply untrue of both
films. The Heat, This Is The End, and
World War Z were each well received
in their own way, but the fact that World
War Z was better-received than Man of
Steel or Monsters University hurt
me personally. More on WWZ later.
For some reason, I was still optimistic. This is probably
because I hadn’t yet disagreed with critics any more than I usually would when
it comes to, well, anything, but the final straw was about to be pulled, and I
had no idea.
Enter The Lone Ranger.
[Okay, I’m about to
go on a wicked-long rant here. I delve into a lot of crucial points of this
post, but if you want to skip them and get to the REALLY important stuff, I put
more bolded brackets down there.]
Gore Verbinski’s Western-action-adventure movie went way
over budget for Disney, but they clearly assumed Johnny Depp had the star power
to make up for dipping into the Mouse Wallet a little too deeply. They were
wrong. The movie flopped at the box office, costing Disney an estimated $150
million, and for some reason, The Lone
Ranger became the movie everybody loved to hate.
I would hear it at work daily: “Wow, that movie sucked.”
“What a waste of time.” “Johnny Depp has lost it. He always plays the same stupid
character.” (or my personal favorite) “Um, that was incredibly racist and not a kids movie.” Now, I’m not going to
turn this into a defense of The Lone
Ranger post, but I would like to clear a few things up.
Firstly, The Lone
Ranger was never meant to be a “kids movie.” Did you notice the PG-13
rating? It is on par with the Pirates of
the Caribbean franchise in terms of darkness, though Ranger does not have nearly the charm Pirates has.
Secondly, racist? Really? So World War Z, the poorly written, over-budget, all-white movie about
a “world” war where a white man saves his white family and the rest of white
humanity (with a few tourist stops in foreign countries) from zombies (they
weren’t zombies) was fine? Or the racially diverse but totally sexist Fast & Furious franchise is just
something to brush off because of the mostly-male fanbase, right? It’s supposed to be sexist, right? And let’s
not even get a little irked over the sexist, racist, and oh-so-homophobic Adam
Sandler classic Grown Ups 2, which
went on to be a huge success! Nope. The problem lies on Johnny Depp’s shoulders
alone, as he plays (with respect and purpose) the sidekick Tonto, who is a
(pretty obvious) character statement representing both the horrific Native
American history in this country, as well as an attempt to make amends with how
the character has been received in the past, as well as lightening up a dark
movie, by making him more fun by telling it in an occasionally loopy flashback.
Is it perfect? Not even close. But to throw accusations of racism around so
brashly while ignoring many other instances of racism in other films is just
another example of American culture’s habit of latching onto something minor,
ignoring every other more relevant example or piece of information, tearing
down a (complex and expensive) work of art for said minor grievance with a
biblical fervor, and then forgetting about it a week or two later as if it’s
nothing while the creators of said piece of art are left to pick up the pieces
of their hard work.
This trend of unleashing a truckload of hatred on a piece of
art of which one has had no involvement in the creation is childish and toxic.
And thus, I begin discussion of the main theme of this post: the cynicism of
critics, its effect on audiences, and why the public feels the need to tear
down some pieces of art (but not others) and forget why we come to the movies
in the Summer in the first place (hint: it’s to have fun, escape, be
entertained, and maybe even feel something more).
Okay, if you’ve read this far, I want to thank you
personally. Because it’s about to get messier.
The theory that critical reaction to a film can make or
break said film has a certain amount of truth to it, but there are just as many
examples to prove otherwise. For instance, this Summer alone, The Lone Ranger was destroyed by
critics, tanked at the box office, and was altogether widely considered a
failure. However, World War Z had a
decent critical response (despite being worse than The Lone Ranger on every conceivable level) and Grown Ups 2 was ripped apart by critics,
and yet were both incredibly successful with audiences and dollar signs.
Clearly critical reaction didn’t play too big of a role in the destruction of The Lone Ranger, right? Here is my
response to that: the reason The Lone
Ranger failed and the other two did not partially has to do with how vocal
critics were about The Lone Ranger
and not about the other two, and partially to do with what the critics were
criticizing.
Critics focused on Johnny Depp’s “acting failure,” claiming
that he has lost his touch. Combine this with his past few “identical
characters” that people always complain about, and naturally the public will
agree with critics that he has lost his star power. Conversely, Brad Pitt is
still hitting home runs in his career, both in blockbusters and arthouse films.
I mean, he’s great. I love the guy. But since his character in World War Z was flat and boring, he
didn’t have to do much acting to carry the movie, now did he?
Critics also honed in on the aforementioned “racism”
complaint. You read my response to that earlier, and why World War Z was actually just as racist, if not more (racist-er?),
but I’m going to elaborate further, so brace yourselves.
Racism is bad. We all know this. Nobody sides with a racist
except other racists, and if someone claims you
side with a racist, you’ll do everything in your power to convince them
otherwise. This is what happened with The
Lone Ranger. Critics accused it of being racist, and since some people
can’t evaluate and interpret art for themselves (The Lone Ranger was not racist) and don’t like associating with
things publicly called out as racist, they trashed it for being racist. I said
racist a lot there, but I’m trying to make a point: if the American public
associates racism with something, even if they can’t back up the accusations,
they will hate that thing blindly.
The same thing happened when a small but loud group of
critics claimed Star Trek Into Darkness
was sexist because of a scene with Alice Eve. Yes, some of what they said made
really good points, but if you want to go after and expose sexism in film
(which we absolutely should do), go after more than just one really well-known
and relevant example, and don’t back down a week after the movie opens. Doing
so has a counter-intuitive effect, and can make people more numb to sexism because it doesn’t seem like that big of a
problem. Into Darkness was still a
massive hit despite this hiccup accusation of sexism.
Am I making sense at all?
My point is that critics can
have an effect on the public’s perception of a film, but not because of their
overall opinion of it. If multiple critics point out a fatal flaw like racism,
whether or not it is founded on fact, it can bring a film’s reception down
significantly.
I am not saying The
Lone Ranger is one of the best films of the year, or even the Summer, but I
am saying that we as moviegoers need to actually take in what we are watching,
use our amazing brains (seriously, the human brain is mind-blowing, pun intended),
and decide for ourselves if what we are watching is well-crafted, beneficial to
society or ourselves, culturally relevant, artistically beautiful, or even just
plain ol’ fun entertainment. If a critic says a film is sexist, see it for
yourself and think, “does this really oppress other genders or show gender
minorities in a negative light?” and then discuss it with others who have seen
it. If a critic says a film is racist, see it for yourself and think, “does
this really oppress other races or show other races in a negative light?” and
then discuss it with others who have seen it.
But most importantly, if a critic says that a film is bad,
in any way, shape, or form, and you want to see it, see it anyway and decide
for yourself if you agree. If you don’t want to see it, don’t see it, but don’t
bash on it either. (I fall victim to that pitfall a lot.)
Cinema is a beautiful art form with the power to change
hearts, minds, and the world. Don’t let another human being decide your opinion
on a certain film for you.
[START READING HERE IF
YOU SKIPPED THE LONE RANGER BIT.]
So what does all this have to do with me not writing
reviews? Well, it all comes down to the power of negativity on a positive
person. When I write reviews, I write them because the film I saw made me feel
something that I want to share with everyone, and maybe, just maybe, someone
else will want to go see the movie and feel something of his or her own too.
When someone tells me they saw a movie solely because I
recommended it, and then go on to tell me that they loved it and wouldn’t have
seen it if I hadn’t mentioned it, it gives me a feeling akin to approximately
503 hugs from the best-smelling person anyone has ever met. I am not joking. It
is great.
So when I spend months hearing negative remarks and snarky
criticisms, where movies that have made me feel hope, love, fear, curiosity,
happiness, relief, melancholia, courage, or any number of emotions get reduced
to “well, that was a waste of time” because the person who made those remarks
didn’t give the piece of art more than two seconds of surface-level thought, it
is disheartening. It is discouraging to the level that I simply didn’t want to
write about any film I loved for the rest of the Summer.
I could have written a glowing review of Monsters University, and its shocking
anti-college message or its fascinating look at twenty-something “real life”
fears. I could have discussed the beautiful coming-of-age story of The Way, Way Back and how it was like a
perfect snapshot of the best Summer of your life. I could have delved into the unexpected
equality themes, awesome originality, and staggering scope of Pacific Rim. I could have erupted with
how much I believe Before Midnight to
be one of the best films of the year, and lamented about how it hasn’t reached
the audience size it deserves. I could have written posts and posts praising or
constructively critiquing the ever-changing and always-beautiful art of cinema
that has brought my life so much joy and meaning.
But I didn’t.
I chose, instead, to watch everything I could and enjoy it
within my own head and heart. Sure, I posted little “review shot” statuses that
were but a few sentences long, and talked about them with coworkers and
friends, but I couldn’t help but feel impotent any time I sat down to write at
length about a film that I loved because I couldn’t shake how much unfounded
hate I had heard about it. I felt as though my positive voice in a sea of
negativity would go ignored or even ridiculed.
Don’t get me wrong: I did not take this break from reviewing
films because of some fear that my differing opinion would invite criticism I
could not take, tolerate, or debate. I took the break because I needed a
breather. I had spent so much time and energy, both in person and online,
defending films I loved, only to have my defense laughed off because to many
people, they are “just movies.” I couldn’t bring myself to invite more immature eye-rolls by writing more
reviews. I see the beauty and worth in almost every single film I watch, and if
expressing that just results in a complete disregard for what I am saying, I
will rest my vocal chords a bit. But I will never be silenced. I will always
speak my opinion to those willing to listen and share their own with me.
My point here is not to refrain from criticizing, or even
teasing and light-heartedly bashing, any and all movies. Be a critic if you
want. Take in what you see, chew it over, and give an opinion. My point is that
when you do make a criticism or comment, make sure you can back up what you are
saying. I mean, I tore World War Z a
new one before I even saw it (thank you to my friend Jake for making me see it
anyway, even though I totally was right about it =P), and that was wrong of me.
I didn’t care for Now You See Me, I
was bored with The Bling Ring, and I
loathed The Kings Of Summer. But I
can back those opinions up with legitimate complaints, desire to discuss my
criticisms with others, and am willing to maybe even change my perspective and
opinion.
But I never aimed my disdain toward a person who got
something out of those films. Sure, they didn’t speak to me personally, but
maybe they spoke wonders to someone else.
And that is what matters.
Here’s to the future. My apologies for my absence, and for
the length of this post.
Let’s watch some movies.
lovelovelove,
Adam
