Mean Critics

Rod Dreher on American Idol and "mean" criticism:

I watched some schlub in the tryouts talking about how great she was, and how her husband didn't support her trying out because, in her view, he was jealous of her desire to soar. She talks for a bit about how much of her own self-worth and dignity and dreams and yadda yadda are riding on this tryout.

Sure enough, she stood in front of the panel of judges, and she's horrible. Excruciatingly bad. And boy, did they let her know. I'd heard that this Simon person is especially cruel, but it shocked me how harsh he was with that young woman. She begged for another opportunity to sing, but after the second one, they sent her away with a fusillade of insulting remarks. Offstage, she sobbed, which you knew was coming. She graspingly tried to salvage her dignity by saying that she was "sick," and that that had affected her voice. But she was, of course, completely untalented. She didn't realize that. She does now, most likely.

I did something I never would have done 10 years ago: I turned off the TV. The schlubby young woman was a fool, but it was unbearable watching her torn down like that. To be honest, it reminded me of when I used to be a critic, and would gleefully trash untalented filmmakers, actors and the like. Had a blast doing that. Never once thought about the real people with real hopes and real dreams, however tawdry and delusional, that I was bashing. My reviews could be really funny and entertaining, but if I were ever to return to criticism, I wouldn't write reviews in the same way. I'm not saying that I would pull punches, and overpraise something that didn't deserve it just to be nice. But I would put aside callow cruelty, of which there is too much in the world. I regret having added more than my share back in the day.

I sympathize with this sentiment, but I'm not sure the comparison between an amateur singing competition and Hollywood entirely stacks up. I imagine a lot of critics--no matter what the topic--will, at least once in their life, take a moment to wonder about the targets on the other end of their pens. Many will at least be tempted to feel a little bit of guilt about their harsher words. Does anyone really deserve to be made fun of in a public forum?

The answer is more complicated than Rod seems to make it. I might agree with him that there's little need to lay into someone as deluded as the AI contestant. But when a filmmaker makes a product designed to waste your time, money, and thoughts--when a filmmaker, either by intention or incompetence, makes a sucker of you, the paying audience, then I think there's a good argument that he or she deserves to be the target of scorn, if not ridicule.

I also tend to think a critic has a responsibility to honestly portray their own reactions. Movies (or politicians, or sculptures, or restaurants, or architecture) that make a critic irate should be treated as such. And critics also have a responsibility to engage their readers--which means that they, like movies themselves, need to make use of entertainment, humor, wit, etc. Publications don't pay for pep talks to filmmakers, nor do they pay critics to squelch their own views. As a good employee, a critic has a responsibility to both readers and bosses to write in an honest, engaging manner--which often means being, well, what Rod might call "cruel."

Of course, a good critic will (hopefully) be able to judge the appropriate tone for a piece, will not indulge in gratuitous mud-slinging, and will avoid piling on easy snark at the expense of substantive content. But sharp words are a tool that should not be yanked from of any critic's rhetorical arsenal just to salvage some creator's feelings. And, just as conservative and liberal pundits can often share drinks and make peace even while launching print salvos at each other (well, usually), knowing that it's just part of the trade, I think both the critics and the criticized can have some understanding about the nature of their business and not get too worked up over harsh judgments.