Critic vs. Critic

Over at the NYT “Cannes Journal,” co-chief movie critics Manohla Dargis and A.O. Scott file opposing reports (both essentially reviews) about Sophia Coppola’s upcoming Marie Antoinette. It’s a curious thing to see the paper of record letting their critics butt heads over a film, and it’s a format I’d like to see them employ more often. There is a prevailing myth within a large segment of the public, I think, that “the critics”—movie reviewers and essayists—are all part of some secret cabal that knows, beyond certainty, whether a film is definitively Good or Bad.

I get the question all the time. “Was that any good?” My usual response is to sputter, “Well, I, yes. I mean, I liked it [or didn’t]. I have no idea whether or not you will.” For this unhelpful response, I often receive looks of annoyance, as if it is quite clearly my business to be able to tell any random passerby whether or not he or she will like a film. Unfortunately, I skipped out on both the psychic skills development and voodoo mind reading courses in film school, and as a result, I cannot gift strangers with an accurate reading of their taste. Indeed, no one can. If there were such a critic, he or she would surely be in the employ of The New York Times. This display of competing viewpoints demonstrates that no such thing is possible, that even our foremost critics, working for the same publication under the same editorial guidance, can and do disagree.

Of course, this is not to say that I discount using accepted aesthetic standards to judge good and bad. I’m not one of those who crass preachers of pure subjectivity who believes that all opinions about art are equally valid. Though there can and will be disagreements, there are ways (inaccurate, sometimes, and debated, often) to determine artistic quality. The elegance of the cinematography, the complexity and coherence of the narrative, the development of the characters, etc… all of these are extremely important.

The problem is that, for many moviegoers, most of that stuff means nothing.

To a substantial number of viewers, a good film is simply one they liked. A good critic is merely one who accurately predicts which films they will and won’t like. What the Scott/Dargis exchange shows is that writing about film is more like dialog than judgment. It’s a conversation: with readers, with other critics, with movies from the past, with the film and filmmakers in question. Watching a movie is great experience all on its own, but the post-movie rundowns are often just as—sometimes more—memorable and fun. Seeing diverging viewpoints from the top critics at the New York Times brings the intellectual gamesmanship of dueling opinions to a wider audience.