How to Find Your Film Critic

The death of film criticism is proclaimed every year or so these days, as moviegoers continually declare film critics irrelevant, and box office receipts seem to be totally unrelated to critical consensus. Whenever the topic comes up, one point generally made in response is that the best way to get value out of film criticism is to do a little research and find a few critics you like rather than trying to use manufactured consensus like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, which have their issues in terms of actually representing critical thought.

The most common piece of advice along these lines is to find critics who share your taste. That way, when they like something, you know you’re likely to like it, too. Conversely, you could find critics who generally like the opposite of what you do and then you can just see what they don’t like and avoid what they do. Both of these options are taking critics in their consumer guide role, and the point of reading them is to figure out what you should watch. That’s fine, but it’s pretty limited in terms of the usefulness of criticism.

Another thing I see with some frequency is to find critics you disagree with, not just to choose your entertainment contrary to their recommendations, but to provide yourself some argumentation. Reading a critic who disagrees with you can not only challenge you to see things you might not’ve otherwise, but can help you hone your reasons for liking or disliking something – that is, he/she may not convince you to change your mind, but you’ll come away with a better understanding of why you like or dislike something. This is a little more thoughtful, but tends a bit too much toward the negative/argumentative to me.

My advice: Don’t bother finding critics who agree or disagree with you. One merely reinforces your own biases, the other is only likely to set you more firmly in your ways as you defend your position (even if you only do it in your own head). Rather, find critics who make you think, and who specifically make you think about film in a different way entirely.

Reading film criticism shouldn’t just be about finding like-minded people who think the same things as you, but it also shouldn’t be about finding opposite-minded people to define yourself in opposition to. It should be about opening your mind to new ideas, to new ways of thinking, and to new perspectives. It isn’t even ultimately about evaluation – whether you like something or not, or the critic likes something or not. Is there something about the way the critic looks at film that opens up new vistas of thought for you? That’s the kind of critic to read.

David Bordwell, no doubt seeking a rare 35mm film for his next close reading essay.

Who are these people for me? Lots of them, and in ways I can’t always articulate. Roger Ebert taught me to look for humanity in films, whereas I previously tended to mostly look for craft. David Bordwell taught me to see narrative and formal structures in all kinds of films, whether the film as a whole is “good” or not. Rick Altman taught me new ways to think about genre form and content (many other academics I could name here, but won’t). Farran Smith Nehme helps me remember to cherish my love of Old Hollywood actors and films despite modern attempts to degrade or reinterpret them. Ryan McNeil and Jessica (at The Velvet Cafe) routinely make me consider film from personal angles I never would’ve thought about. Matt Price and Matt Brown force me to reconsider my preconceptions and biases on a near-weekly basis. Carl Sandberg, who wrote reviews in between poems in the 1920s, reminded me that sometimes baldfaced enthusiasm is the right way to approach film. And poet H.D., whose essay on The Passion of Joan of Arc floored me recently, tells me that it’s okay to feel honestly conflicted about your reaction to a film. Some of these I read ages ago in grad school, others I found much more recently (the last two just now as I’m reading American Movie Critics). There are many more, and of course I’ve learned other things from these critics and writers as well.

Matthew Price, in a clip from the sadly no-longer-with-us Substream.

These people aren’t people I necessarily agree with or disagree with all the time. They’re not people who have necessarily changed my mind on any given film, or whose opposing thoughts have honed and steadied my own opinions. They’re people who make me think, who give me new perspectives not just on a specific film, but on cinema in general. They’re people who have shaped, and continue to shape how I think about cinema, how I think about criticism, how I write, and how I WANT to write.

So don’t bother looking for agreement or disagreement. They’re both red herrings. Look for writers who make you think, and who make you think differently than you did before.