‘Every Film a Critic’ From Highbrowers to Rotten Tomatoers and YouTube Video Essayists.

(1)

‘Every Film a Critic’

From Highbrowers to Rotten Tomatoers and YouTube Video

Essayists.

Laurie Le Bomin Thesis 2019

MA New Media and Digital Culture University of Amsterdam

(2)

6. YouTube Video Essayists and the ‘ Sociality’ of Expertise……….………...31 6,1. Critics as YouTube Users and Participatory Expertise……….………...32 6,2. Case Study: Every Frame a Painting, NerdWriter1 and Lessons from the Screenplay, Pseudo-Intellectual Film Criticism?………..……….………...35 6,3. The Challenges of YouTube Film Criticism………....40

Conclusion………...43 Bibliography………...44 Appendix………...52

(4)

Preface & Acknowledgements

To an avid film enthusiast such as me, there is nothing more pleasurable—except watching films—than to look at film criticism and reviews. In many ways, new media has significantly shaped how I came to view films critically. Although I can draw many parallels between the transition from highbrow film criticism to digital new formats and my appreciation of criticism, this thesis constitutes a broader inquiry regarding new media. After applying to the Master in New Media and Digital Culture at the University of Amsterdam, I was curious to learn more about online practices and communities. Learning about theoretical concepts and discourses was highly beneficial to advance my understanding of new media. Initially fascinated by the intellectual nature of film analysis and the literary excellence of film critics in Les Cahiers du Cinéma and The New Yorker, I then began to watch audio-visual formats such as YouTube videos and reviews. As a result, YouTube is a source of knowledge and creativity worth researching. Many researchers have already engaged with this medium—examining its affordances, its cultural and economic impact, and so on. My approach, however, is not limited to this one platform. Instead, I consider the digitization of the cultural practice of film criticism to enquire into online notions of expertise. Despite being familiar with digital methods such as the YouTube Data Tool (Rieder, 2015), I ultimately decided to write this thesis using a theoretical approach. I chose YouTube audio-visual essays as a case study as they constitute a relevant trend in contemporary film criticism. I hope my research, which combines concepts from various fields, will provide thought-provoking insights into this vernacular practice and contribute positively to the development of more innovative, intelligent, and appealing ways to engage critically with and learn about cultural objects.

I would like to thank, first and foremost, my supervisor dr. B.M. (Bogna) Konior. Not only did she provide valuable insights into film theory and media studies, her guidance contributed greatly to the production of this thesis. Secondly, I want to show appreciation for each of my professors who significantly and positively impacted my learning experience: Prof. dr. R.A. Rogers, dr. T.J. (Tim) Highfield, Dr A. (Alex) Gekker, dhr. dr. B. (Bernhard) Rieder, dhr. dr. M.D. (Marc) Tuters, dhr. E.K. (Erik) Borra MSc, mw. N. (Natalia) Sánchez Querubín MA, and mrs. Prof. G. (Giovanna) Fossati. And finally, I dedicate this thesis to my family and friends. I also want to thank B. David who offered helpful advice. Without their support, I would not have been able to conduct this research.

(5)

Abstract

Film criticism was initially associated with a notion of expertise. Whether written by professional critics and film theory scholars in traditional prints and scholarly articles, or published in magazines by culture journalists, the aesthetics, symbols and historical contexts of a film were analysed to establish its value as an art form. As digital technology transformed the production and distribution process of cinema, the stature of the film critic changed. Streaming services facilitate access to films and TV shows, and anyone can publicly establish themselves as critics and write about their opinions, recommendations, and reviews on social media and websites. With the democratization of film criticism, online communities, amateur critics, and cinephiles proliferated.

Rotten Tomatoes has made a significant impact on online film criticism. The website relies on statistical rankings, the audience’s opinions, and professional critics and journalists. A community of critics also emerged on the YouTube platform. Analysing and deconstructing film narratives in a video format has been popularized as a more entertaining approach to film criticism. Consequently, the practice has deteriorated, as many people lament a ‘crisis of criticism’ and even its death. However, there has been a growing trend towards the production of more intellectual content, using visual rhetoric to break down abstract ideas and complex concepts within films. For instance, YouTube channels such as Every Frame a Painting and NerdWriter1, produce high-quality video essays that attract a large audience. The popularity of such content poses the question—are digitization and democratization eroding the relevance of the critic and ‘cultural intermediaries’? And if so, do video essays constitute a revival of the expertise and intellectual aspects of film criticism online?

(6)

Introduction

In an interview during which he reminisced about his days as a film critic, author and culture critic Chuck Klosterman revealed that, “the only thing people really wanted was a plot description and how many stars I'd give it. It didn't matter how much effort you put into writing a piece, they looked at it solely as a consumer's guide toward going or not going to films” (Murray, 2006). Given that the practice of film criticism has considerably changed in the digital era, this claim appears to ring particularly pertinent to the current state of modern society. Established and professional film critics are growingly disappearing, replaced by self-proclaimed online experts or film enthusiasts. For audiences, notions of expertise are not authoritative criteria in assessing the quality of a film. Instead, personal opinions and ratings are favoured. Web 2.0, social media, and cultural industries are thus significantly influential in shaping consumers’ behaviours. Many researchers in new media focus on analyzing the challenges of contemporary entertainment and its effect on culture in relation to technology. One of the main topic discussed is the changing relationship between producers and consumers. Audiences can communicate their opinions online, build social networks and communities, produce content, and dictate market trends. They can develop online communities based on common interests or ideas. This active, social, and participatory approach to consumerism impact the economic model, placing the consumer in between two roles. As ‘prosumers’ (Fisher, 125), film audiences create new modes of public engagement with films as cultural objects. In addition to these new forms of sociality enabled by new media, questioning the relevance of film critics, or what sociologists refer to as ‘cultural intermediaries,’ can help shed light on broader economic and social aspects of society.

As film criticism first emanated from notions of expertise, it then appears coherent to examine the transformation of film criticism in the digital era. With new media, the practice of film criticism proliferated in diverse formats. This development carried out a promising democratization of culture and taste. With the Internet propelling culture criticism and reviewing outside the realms of academia and print journalism, delineating the practice constitutes a challenge. Technology and new media have accelerated processes of culture production and the rate of consumption, so much so that economic and social models predominantly hinge on the production and commodification of cultural products. Scholars observed that: “entertainment is a commodity that requires profitability: it is an ‘experience that can be sold to and enjoyed by large and heterogeneous groups of people’ and ‘a particular category of marketed product’ (Bates and Ferri, 6). The commodification of films exemplifies the extent to which entertainment is produced to be marketed and consumed on a large scale. Film critics, by engaging with cultural commodities, therefore contribute to the development and profitability of film culture online. The interaction

(7)

with culture and cultural objects, made possible by new media, is an important aspect of contemporary discussions. Many researchers have addressed the different possibilities and challenges that arise on social platforms such as YouTube. Focusing on critics’ role in the digital era, one can thus refer to the notion of ‘prosumer’ and the ‘participatory culture.’ Since films are largely discussed and criticized online by various communities, it appears necessary to try and understand how the role of film critics and notions of expertise have changed to adjust to new

norms and standards.

The purpose of this thesis is not to propose an historiography of film criticism, nor to conceptualise its digitization as one singular practice. Rather, by first giving an historical overview, I want to contextualize the role of the critic in the digital era and ultimately consider its importance. By doing so, one may gain a new perspective on the relevance of ‘cultural intermediaries’ while questioning the ways expertise is conveyed online. Ultimately, I want to argue that digital forms of film criticism, particularly video essays, can permit the development of new modes of expertise.

Throughout this thesis, I will use a theoretical approach. In the first part entitled “Critics and the ‘Art of Film’,” and the second ‘Highbrow Critics, Lowbrow Reviewers,’ I will examine the role of critics and look at the changes throughout history, using concepts in the field of film studies and sociology. Then, I will engage with concepts of subjectivity and taste in the third part ‘Subjective Taste-Makers’. With support from literature in philosophy and culture studies, I want to determine in what ways critics participate in the formation of cultural tastes. In the fourth part ‘Is Everyone a Critic in the Digital Era?,’ I will discuss different definitions of what constitutes a critic. I will also propose a brief analysis of the website Rotten Tomatoes to examine the context of the transition from traditional media to the Web 2.0 and the extent to which the supposed ‘crisis of criticism,’ is led by new online standards and changes in cultural practices. After that, in the fifth part ‘To Edit and To Voice-Over: The Audio-Visual Essay Genre,’ I will engage with the implications of using digital technology to present film criticism. Considering the potential of video essays, I will then focus on new media topics to consider new forms of sociality and expertise in the final part “YouTube Video Essayists and the ‘Sociality’ of Expertise’.” I will zoom in on contemporary film criticism—mainly, the practice of creating YouTube video essays—to further explore notions of expertise. As a case study, I will examine how three YouTube channels; Every Frame a Painting, NerdWriter1 and Lessons from the Screenplay, use video essays as new modes of expression. By positing that these video essayists on YouTube are contributing to the revival of film criticism as an intellectual practice, I will gain further understanding as to whether this new form of film criticism is pseudo-intellectual and a mere symptom of the platform’s purpose in sustaining the participatory culture, or if it indeed constitutes a new form of revival of the expertise and intellectual aspects of film criticism.

(8)

1. Critics and the ‘Art of Film’

The technology of film was invented in the late 19th century, relying first on visual projections and later incorporating sound. The production of films demands a considerable amount of machinery and human labor. Additionally, each frame is determined by its aesthetics, its technical prowesses, and its storytelling intent. That is why the artistic value of films is studied by scholars and communicated by critics. Film critics evaluate through their own structured and researched interpretation. This practice elevates the genre of film as a whole by establishing it as an art form. Its legitimacy comes from authoritative figures for whom culture is produced following a hierarchy of taste. Film criticism also contributes to the curation of films for the constitution of a visual heritage. However, the stature of the film critic has long been discussed. In the beginning, film criticism struggled to become a relevant practice. As a matter of fact, “challenges to the critic’s authority and legitimacy are not new; these can actually be traced back to the first attempts to define film as an art form” (Sayad, 41).

1,1. The Cinema of ‘the Spectacle’

It is indeed important to note that the potential of film itself slowly came into view in the early 20th century. When discussing the process of making films such as Le Voyage Dans La Lune (1902), French filmmaker Georges Méliès explained:

As for the scenario, the "fable," or "tale," I only consider it at the end. I can state that the scenario constructed in this manner has no importance, since I use it merely as a pretext for the "stage effects," the "tricks," or for a nicely arranged tableau (Gunning, 382).

Early cinema was thus the cinema of ‘the spectacle, ’ or ‘the cinema of attractions’ (Gunning, 382). By favoring illusions of reality and magic tricks instead of cohesive narratives, films were made for entertaining audiences visually. The role of the director was not recognized as central in the production process. It was not until later that the status of the director was elevated to the one of an artist, bestowing critics an important role in cultural ‘gatekeeping’. Vachel Lindsay was a prime contributor to the establishment of film as an art form. In 1914, he published the first work of American film criticism The Art of the Moving Picture. This groundbreaking book included various analysis of silent films. In Chapter 3, he began with the following statement; “the motion picture art is a great high art, not a process of commercial manufacture” (Lindsay, 79). He then addressed the people working in the fields of art, humanities, and the critical to explicitly declare his intentions to “establish the theory and practice of the photoplay as a fine art” (80). Although he

(9)

was among the first to adopt a scholarly approach to film, him positioning it as art through critical standards also implied that film criticism as a practice would be reserved to an elite of intellectuals. To him, for films to last historically and be considered as high-value cultural objects, the ‘shabby readers’ (80)—the lowbrow people with little education and poor taste—had to be pushed to the sidelines and arbitrarily dismissed in the establishment of film as an art. This elitism gave critics a ‘highbrow’ stature, which will be further examined in the second part of this thesis entitled ‘Highbrow Critics, Lowbrow Reviewers’.

Acclaimed films such as The Wizard of Oz (1939), Gone with the Wind (1939), Meet Me In St. Louis (1944), which required expensive production budgets to make, defined the aesthetics of Hollywood films. In spite of the cinema of ‘spectacle’ being the focus of Hollywood since the 1920s, many contemporary films have been criticized for their exorbitant budgets and over-the-top resort to technical display. The first denunciations can be traced back to the 1950s when the rear-projection technique was used to produce a practical imitation of reality. In Hitchcock’s

North by Northwest (1959) for instance, scenes were filmed by combining actors’ performances with pre-filmed backgrounds, instead of on location. Laura Mulvey appraised this technique as “an aesthetic emblem of a bygone studio era” (Danks, 67). Rear-projection was thus an innovative way of filming. However, it now constitutes an outdated industrial form “that define[s] the heightened artificiality of classical Hollywood as an outmoded form” (Danks, 66). This cheaper production method could be compared to the contemporary ‘green-screen’ video effects technique used in blockbusters and franchise films such as Spy Kids 3D: Game Over (2001) and Spider-Man (2002). Critics’ dissatisfaction with these techniques is mainly due to its unfitting nature with specific “cultural and historical conceptions of what constitutes cinematic realism” (Danks, 68). In other words, these types of techniques are being used systematically in films for practical reasons to suggest realism, but fail to bring a significant cultural value. Instead of framing a scene in reality, which would anchor the film in a specific historical and cultural context, rear-projection or green-screen effects become mere backgrounds creating a sort of mise en abyme, that brings about confusion in their artificial aspect. The artificiality mentioned here is not associated with set designs or fabricated décors—as these contribute to the artistic value of a film—but with its superficial and irreal nature; “its self-consciousness, spatial and temporal discontinuity, artificiality, pictorial inability to adequately suggest appropriate lines of perspective, hermetic qualities, and imperialist and colonialist implications” (Danks, 66). As a consequence, many films that exhibit a generic and recognizable aesthetic can be dismissed by critics because they suggest the imperialist nature of the Hollywood industry.

(10)

1,2. ‘Nouvelle Vague’ Critics

From the 1950s onward, in an effort to diverge from Hollywood’s extravagant productions and challenge popular culture, Jean-Luc Godard and François Truffaut prompted a movement called the ‘nouvelle vague.’ In a 1954 article published in Les Cahiers du Cinéma, a French ‘revue’ which

had a significant role in establishing film criticism as a legitimate and professional practice, Truffaut emphasized the potential of film as a medium for directors to express their ideas. To him, considering the decline of the French film industry, it was essential to reinstate the directors’ role and authority in the creative process, in lieu of screenwriters’ and producers’ focus on textual representations (Glenn, 27). This idea of 'auteur cinema’ or ‘auteur theory,’ which considers films through the lens of the director’s artistic intent, allowed for both intellectuals and journalists to make an impact on the film industry. Publishing their film reviews enabled them to discuss and

debate film culture. Les Cahiers du Cinéma featured works written by an elite of writers, elevating the intellectual and cultural value of film criticism. It had a tremendous impact on the history of film theory, introducing non-academic criteria used to evaluate films such as technical competence and the personality and intent of the director. It also participated in the birth of cinephilia, which gave readers a new appreciation of films. Film critics were teaching audiences “how to appreciate and analyze the unique nature of cinematic language” (Glenn, 19). It prompted the creation of ciné-clubs where communities of cinephiles could gather, socialize, and discuss their common interests. For instance, the Cinémathèque Française was highly influential in educating audiences about auteur cinema, showing various experimental and alternative films (Glenn, 19). The emergence of film culture is an important aspect of the popularization of film criticism. Knowledge about films began being identified with evidence of expertise. It became a way to socialize and gain desirable cultural capital.

The heydays of cinephilia and film in France had an impact on American culture. As Asher Weiss pointed out, “the 1960s and 70s, whether because of the remarkable bounty of good films, or the rising interest in film culture, or both, spawned a golden age in American movie criticism” (10). Roger Ebert, for instance, was an influential film critic who was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism in 1975. Throughout his career, he popularized film criticism on television. His reviews and knowledge about films were broadcasted and accessible to a mainstream audience. He remains a trailblazer in successfully adapting film criticism to the specificities of the medium.

Simultaneously, film criticism became a relevant way for scholars and academics to engage with culture and politics. This approach was influenced by the historical events taking place; the feminist movement, the Civil Rights movement, the counterculture movement, and the Vietnam War. These conflicting contexts were marked by unstable and contradictory ideas and prompted scholars to focus on how ideologies were communicated through media. Particularly, one influential figure named Laura Mulvey established the psychoanalysis approach in film studies. She

(11)

aimed to analyse how films shaped and transmitted ideological ideas. More specifically, she sought to demonstrate the relevance of psychoanalysis theory as a “political weapon” (Mulvey, 833). According to her, films were structured in a way that reflected the inequalities of the socio-cultural-political context, mainly the misrepresentation and sexualization of women on screen through specific framing and camera movements. Exposing how visual rhetorics contributed to the transmission of political ideas led many feminist scholars to use her approach. Mulvey was the first to consider questions of identity and gender disparities, broadening the scope of research within the field of film studies. Consequently, films came to be appreciated and criticized, not only for their artistic merit but also for their cultural and political value. Following scholars’ political engagement, critics introduced “new models of film appreciation, providing a vision of critic as a creative artist, as opposed to distanced judge” (Taylor, 7), popularizing the practice outside the realm of elite intellectuals.

2. Highbrow Critics, Lowbrow Reviewers

The verb “to criticize” comes from the Greek krinein, which means “to decide”. Criticism implies judgment and deliberation. Culture criticism aims to produce opinions and evaluations of cultural objects. To assess the quality of these objects, two approaches can be taken; the first is an expert’s critic evaluation or “evaluation grounded in reasons,” and the second is a journalistic review or “a report with opinion” (Jaakkola, 12). The expert’s critic is considered more authoritative as it presumes the critic to have received validation from an institution after acquiring specific knowledge. Furthermore, the term ‘evaluation’ alludes to a more objective, intellectual and logical approach, as opposed to ‘report’ which would entail a subjective description. Criticism contextualises, classifies, elucidates, interprets, analyses, and evaluates a cultural object (Jaakkola, 13) to communicate its artistic and cultural value. To some extent, reviewing uses similar elements to make cultural objects appealing but only provides audiences with guiding lines on how to consume and understand them. According to Christian Metz’s psychoanalytical semiotics, the cinema is an institution operated by feedback loops between “the outer machine (the cinema industry), the inner machine (the spectator’s psychology), and the third machine (the cinematic writer)” (Beller, 11). To him, the three machines operate to gratify the cinema itself. Therefore, critics and reviewers, by evaluating ‘the outer machine,’ inform cinematic standards and values, and participate in the creation of meaning for the audience or ‘inner machine’. In other words, the relation between the cinema industry and the audience are based on a system of “financial feedback” (Beller, 11), thus placing critics and reviewers as a connector between the production

(12)

and consumption process. To Peter B. Orlik, director and professor in the School of Broadcast & Cinematic Arts at Central Michigan University, the critical process constitutes a “knowledgeable comprehension, positive/negative ascertainment, and resulting carefully considered judgement as a means of reasonably estimating the value of the particular work under scrutiny” (Jaakkola, 13). Critics and reviewers, through structured, detailed analysis and evaluation, connect filmmakers and audience, and bring about a form of public ‘gatekeeping’ by producing meaning and safeguarding the value of cultural objects.

2,1. Critics and Elitism

As gatekeepers of film culture, ‘highbrow critics’ (Taylor, 5) embodied the elitism of traditional critics. Originally, as stated by Matthew Arnold, a 1880s cultural critic and poet, criticism was “a disinterested endeavor to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in this world” (Taylor, 6). In his view, the critic had to remain objective, unbiased, dispassionate, and thorough. By applying a sophisticated approach to the practice, it puts film criticism in the domain of elite deliberative processes which are not democratic in a Tocquevillian perspective (Crosbie, Roberge, 284). In his reflection on 19th-century civilization, French sociologist Alexis de Tocqueville described elites as using intelligence to assert power over the public. He stated that, “the high-minded and the noble advocate subjection, [...] honest and enlightened citizens are opposed to all progress, whilst men without patriotism and without principles are the apostles of civilization and of intelligence” (Tocqueville, 22). Simply put, society’s control is operated by a privileged few through the establishment of intellectual authorities that encourage obedience and contain individuals’ divergent behaviours and opinions.

In the book entitled In Defence of Elitism however, William A. Henry III argued that society had reconciled democracy with elitism (46). He distinguished democracy and egalitarianism, claiming that the latter encouraged mediocrity and ignorance. To him, democracy is based “on the theory that anyone’s participation, even if ignorant and fleetingly motivated, enriches the collective judgment” (Henry, 46). He illustrated the practical application of democracy with the example of the popular vote in America. Voters are fulfilling their duty in response to shared common standards and values. Elections are held because a representative democracy requires electees to have merit since favoritism is not accepted. An intellectual distinction is thus perceived as a prerequisite for governance. Intellectual legitimacy is “valued above ideology and certainly far above compatibility with the common man” (Henry, 47). This intellectual elitism also applies to the field of culture. As a culture critic for Time magazine, he advocated for an established elite of intellectuals that set superior societal standards. The prevalence of uninformed opinions in a society justified the presence of elites who use their cognitive abilities to elevate culture; “high culture is hard brain-work” (Henry, 313). William A.

(13)

Henry III’s argument reinforced Tocqueville’s description of 19th-century America where a dominant minority exercised control. Elites exist because they are perceived as primordial to individuals’ education and self-improvement. One may argue that claiming to push individuals towards excellence is de facto using knowledge as an instrument of subjection. By conveying the idea that as long as individuals respect and comply with principles decided by higher figures, they can be part of society and elevate themselves. Ultimately, I would argue that it implements a flawed outlook on the purpose of intellectual expertise. Instead of encouraging critical thinking, it creates intellectual insecurities and a desire for social validation. Both can be illustrated by the trend of auteurism which paradoxically introduced a different form of elitism. Auteurism is a critical approach to film based on auteur theory. Critics often adopted a laudatory approach to independent or avant-gardist film directors. In the 1957 edition of Les Cahiers du Cinéma, André Bazin warned that auteurism risked promoting an “aesthetic personality cult” (Sexton, 135). The term cult initially referred to a herd-like mentality and perceived superiority in a group. In the 1950s, it was used to refer negatively to individual thinkers assigning abstract and intellectual ideas to popular culture. Auteurism was now not compatible with a trustworthy critical approach due to the elitism that came with it. As Pratley explained,

There is . . . a tendency on the part of some individuals to support such works simply because of the learned superiority which comes with proclaiming their enthusiasm for these bewildering puzzle pieces. This, in turn, is prompted by a fear that in disavowing these distortionist fallacies they will reveal their lack of profundity, be looked down upon with scorn, and ultimately be rejected from intellectual circles (Sexton, 135).

By attributing deeper meanings to certain films and using auteurism to assert knowledge, it is argued here that most critics were in part influenced by their desire for intellectual and social recognition.

2,2. A ‘Sensationalist’ Approach to Criticism

Later, during the counterculture movement and its interest in challenging mainstream opinions, film criticism emerged as a popular journalistic practice. The debated role of the journalistic critic can be illustrated by taking two contrasting examples: Andrew Sarris, who brought the auteur theory to the American public, and Pauline Kael who pioneered a more modern approach. Sarris, who wrote for the New York Observer, approached film criticism as a vehicle towards journalistic and literary excellence. He also contributed to the development of film scholarship as a teacher. He took part in counter-culturistic cinema practices in the 1960s with his contributions to Film Culture and The Village Voice. These magazines embodied the ‘New American Cinema’ which

(14)

engaged with avant-garde films, departing from classical Hollywood productions (Fossen, 30). Sarris and Kael shared common political opinions but had divergent visions on film criticism. Sarris often adopted a more detached, auteurist approach and historical perspective on films, while Kael focused on sensationalism and the audience's viewpoint (Bordwell, 254). Writing for The New Yorker, Kael participated in a cultural shift as she “shaped how critics looked at movies and how people read them. [...] she made it exciting to go into film criticism as a profession, and her influence on the next generation of film critics has been enormous” (Beller, 11). Kael was known to have a singular writing style and a personal approach to film. She became an authoritative figure by disregarding theory and established standards, making film criticism more appealing and accessible to the public.

There appears to have been a shift in critics’ focus as as producers of meaning, or what is referred to in sociology as ‘cultural intermediaries’. Bourdieu’s definition frames cultural intermediaries as “anyone involved in the transmission of a work of art” (Crosbie, Roberge, 276). Drawing upon this broad definition, the transmission of a cultural object is dependant on the expertise—ability, experience, authority—of a critic or reviewer in translating and communicating the artistic intent within films. Enough extended knowledge or ‘cultural capital’ is required for critics and reviewers to be considered cultural intermediaries. Since the 1960s however, instead of bridging the gap between the production and consumption of culture with expertise, critics and reviewers appear to be leaning towards a less elitist approach. Henceforth, the stature of film critics, increasingly challenged by socio-economic contexts has changed. Critics are no longer the politically engaged intellectuals of the auteur film landscape, but part of the neoliberalist capitalistic system. Hence, there is a need to be aware of the different modes of practice of critics and reviewers. Accordingly, “we should develop an ability to untangle or disaggregate the practices of cultural intermediaries: to work out when, how and under what conditions such aesthetic activity might be creative, innovative and providing any more than an impetus inclining towards the conservative and mundane” (Negus, 13). This claim coincides with a different definition of cultural intermediaries, departing from Bourdieu’s initial one. Keith Negus defines “cultural intermediaries as those involved in the economic impact of the cultural product” (Crosbie, Roberge, 276). As he explains, “cultural intermediaries shape both use values and exchange values, and seek to manage how these values are connected with people’s lives through the various techniques of persuasion and marketing and through the construction of markets.” (Negus, 4). To some extent, it reduces critics to mere facilitators of the producer-consumer interactions within a capitalistic system. However, the mediation here is not solely financial. Following Jean Baudrillard’s analysis of the end of political economy and the rise of the ‘attention economy’ (Beller, 5), it can be suggested that the ‘economic impact’ mentioned in Negus’ definition can encompass the different aspects of the attention economy. While the attention economy is worth

(15)

acknowledging as a significant element in contemporary society, it will not be a central concept in this thesis.

Digital technology and new media are transforming both the production and distribution process of cinema. As Tom Gunning suggested, “in some sense recent spectacle cinema has reaffirmed its loots in stimulus and carnival rides, in what might be called the Spielberg-Lucas-Coppola cinema of effects” (387). Here, he is referring to films such as Jaws

(1975), Jurassic Park (1993) and Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace (1999) which were, and still are today, highly popular. Not only did these blockbusters captivated the mainstream audience, but it also gave rise to the popularity of the ‘franchise’ marketing concept. The plethora of remakes, sequels and prequels, are frequently ranked online and slashed by film critics who give low ratings on popular websites. Critics’ reviews target consumers and are directed at fans seeking recommendations. This trend in negatively reviewed films is due in part to the fact that “most movies are constructed functionally, to be legible and entertaining. They are not built to last but exist very much of their brief, hyped moment in the marketplace” (Taylor, 5). The same goes for television, although its programming was always intended for a mainstream audience. The medium is regarded as maintaining publicly shared social and cultural values, with its aesthetics embodying what David Thorbum calls "consensus narratives" (Crosbie, Roberge, 283). Television, thus, produces public content through standardized visuals, moderated dialogues, plots reinforcing the status quo, familiar characters, and so on. From the popular TV comedy I Love Lucy (1951-1957) portraying the values of family life in the United States in the 1950s, to the sitcom Friends (1994-2004) which captured the zeitgeist of the early 2000s, television is a mass communication media. Programs are made to accommodate product placements and advertise a specific lifestyle. Consequently, TV criticism is often regarded as an irrelevant practice. Nonetheless, the emergence of cable television and streaming websites has allowed for the production of more artistic series, which resulted in the acceptance of TV criticism despite considerable skepticism. Since the history of television differs greatly from the history of film and although it would be interesting to address TV and series criticism, especially since streaming services such as Netflix have had a tremendous impact on the practice, the focus of this thesis will solely be on film criticism.

3. Subjective Taste-Makers

The shift towards a more journalistic approach to film criticism popularized the practice, prompting the emergence of amateur critics. As film culture increasingly opened itself to the public, having a profound and sincere appreciation for films was thought to offer meaningful

(16)

insights to criticism. Critics also contributed to the development of new social relations between film fans. The enthusiasm for films communicated by critics influenced audiences to appreciate film criticism as an accessible practice for supporting their interests. Most of the popular culture goods were not judged based on the hierarchy of taste established by elites, but on the critic’s own diverse experiences of them. This subjective approach redefined the nature of criticism itself, departing from its scientific and academic objectivity, towards empiricism. Thus, I specifically chose to engage with philosophical concepts. Through this approach, I will be able to draw upon theoretical principles that characterize our understanding of criticism and gain insights into broader discourses surrounding subjectivity, beauty, and taste.

3,1. The Departure from Objectivity

First, I will turn to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophical claims about language to emphasize why some began to perceive criticism as non-theoretical. Wittgenstein argued that highbrow critics tended to appropriate critical expressions for the establishment of rules or ‘calculi’ (Abrams, 544), modeled after the scientific languages. This bias towards an expert, academic, and sometimes ornamental language limited its critical purposes to the intellectual sphere. Also, setting up standards and norms of thinking meant that critics were restricted in their judgment by existing rules. To Wittgenstein, there cannot be authoritative principles for language is viewed as ever-changing, adapting to different contexts. By approaching criticism as an impartial way to convey expertise, film critics risk using concepts which are inherently biased and have limited critical purposes. That is why exclusively relying on the critical lexicon established by aesthetical theorists to criticize a film, may only lead to its ‘valency’ or its value in terms of grammatical and logical assessment. It has no practical value. To remodel the function of criticism, M. H. Abrams proposed that:

we must remain ready to put the simplified model of critical activity back into its complex and variable surroundings. When we do so, we find that the most important thing the model leaves out is the role played in the transaction by language-both by the general system of language and by the characteristic language of the individual critic. In terms of the model, language comes into play only insofar as the critic, having made his aesthetic discoveries, proceeds to render his visual perceptions in words (546).

Following this claim, it can be inferred that individual empiricism is suggested to be the underlying criteria in film criticism. As previously mentioned, Pauline Kael’s work as a critic was based on the description of her emotions when experiencing a film. She thus followed Wittgenstein’s argument in rejecting the traditional critic’s scholarly structured language. To her, “there are not—and there

(17)

never were—any formal principles that can be used to judge movies but there are concepts that are serviceable for a while and so pass for, or are mistaken for ‘objective’” (Fossen, 43). Because authoritative principles are built on immutable theoretical ideas, they cannot offer a more concrete understanding of films. Concepts, on the other hand, are temporary and characterized as intrinsically subjective. In his book What Good Are the Arts?, anti-elitist John Carey rejects the same external standards, especially aesthetic ones, claiming that they only validate an institution or an authority assessing artistic values. To him, objective criticism is not possible since “artistic value exists only in people's minds. Art is inescapably personal and cannot be called to account in any objective court” (McDonald, 19) . To appreciate the subjectivity of film as an art form, aesthetic

values have to be informed by subjective perception. He warns, however, that overtly subjective ill-advised remarks made by critics can be limiting and have detrimental effects on their legitimacy. Subjectivity for a critic is, therefore, used to encompass the complexity and diversity of sentiment or experience at play when watching a film, so that variations of taste can be transcribed and communicated.

3,2. The ‘Universality’ of Taste

Taste is defined in the Cambridge dictionary as “a person's ability to judge and recognize what is good or suitable, especially relating to such matters as art, style, beauty, and behaviour” (Cambridge English Dictionary). Following this definition, it can be inferred that the journalistic practice of film criticism adopts a sentimentalist approach. Insofar as the subjective experience of films are appreciated and shared, the value of films produces a common taste, which in turn informs the artistic cultural standards. Henceforth, taste can be examined through philosophical sentimentalism. In David Hume’s Of the Standard of Taste, because empirical experience or sentiment has universal physical basis in producing bodily pleasures, it positions taste as a distinctive common sense. Taste is, ergo, the product of aesthetic and moral values. These values are informed by external influences and societal standards, making both sentiment and judgement determinant in the production of an object’s beauty. As Hume stated:

The difference, it is said, is very wide between judgment and sentiment. All sentiment is right; because sentiment has a reference to nothing beyond itself, and is always real, wherever a man is conscious of it. But all determinations of the understanding are not right; because they have a reference to something beyond themselves, to wit, real matter of fact; and are not always conformable to that standard. Among a thousand different opinions which different men may entertain of the same subject, there is one, and but one, that is just and true; and the only difficulty is to fix and ascertain it. On the contrary, a thousand different sentiments, excited by the same object, are all right: Because no sentiment represents what is really in the object. It only marks a certain conformity or relation between the object and the organs or faculties of the mind; and if

(18)

that conformity did not really exist, the sentiment could never possibly have being. Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty (Hume, 1757).

Put differently, since beauty is subjective, it is guided by a convergence of sentiments and appreciated based on empirical judgments. Sentiments, therefore, inform all aesthetic, moral and value judgments. Consequently, refining one’s taste is not linked to earning the merit of appreciating high culture through academic research or theoretical studies, but implies refining the ability to reflect on the sentiment that results from the experience of the cultural object. Therefore, taste is defined not only by the pleasure given by a film, but also by the analysis of our own standards and the extent to which they constitute a feeling of approval and admiration in us, or conversely the opposite. Hume’s argument joins Immanuel Kant’s in concluding that there is no objective beauty. Despite their divergent ideas on empiricism and sentimentalism, they can both advance our understanding of criticism. For Kant, the impossibility of an objective critic means that, when assessing the quality of art, an arbitrary assumption about what its purpose is is made, and criteria are invented by the perceiver (59). This subjective creation of standards and rules is said to be necessary to unite the relation with the object, the pleasure it provides, and the beauty it predicates. Beauty is what satisfies universally without concepts, so what may differentiate a purely subjective judgment of taste from the one of a critic is the ‘Understanding’ of “the faculty of concept” (Kant, 77) regarding the conscious intention assigned to the representation of an object without purpose. In Kant’s words, “we could even define Taste as the faculty of judging of that which makes universally communicable, without the mediation of a concept, our feeling in a given representation” (Kant, 173). Kant thus goes further than simply recognizing the relativity of beauty. In addition to instinctive natural sentiments, individuals and especially critics can engage with beauty by making subjective judgments of taste through the common understanding that the capacity to do so is universal. In contrast, taste, inherently subjective and prejudiced by individuals’ desires, is also said to present a limit to sentimentalism by its detractors who claim that it embodies emotional indulgence and a misrepresentation of reality (Jefferson, 523). When individual emotions dictate judgments expected to be grounded in reason, it most likely impacts a critic’s authority. A critic’s personal desire to be recognized and admired for their capacity to express tasteful convictions may cloud their judgments. For instance, their emotions can be misdirected at a specific film aspect with which they are not or otherwise too familiar. Moreover, critics can easily mask what would be considered a lack of or ‘bad’ taste with syntax. This extract from Alexander Pope’s An Essay On Criticism, written in 1711, can help shed light on the mistakes made by critics:

(19)

In search of wit these lose their common sense, And then turn critics in their own defence: Each burns alike, who can, or cannot write,

Or with a rival's, or an eunuch's spite (Pope, Part 1).

According to Pope, critics can be flawed by vanity and selfish interests. By referring to “a rival's, or an eunuch's spite,” he compares critic’s conceitedness to impotent intellectual insecurities. Although Pope’s poetic essay was a reactionary piece against the critics of his time, it constitutes a reflection on the critic’s ideal role. To him, since critics were biased, the establishment of artistic limits were to be made by the artists themselves. Hence, he suggested criticism should be based on sensible wisdom rather than defiant intelligence. As a result, it is now widely argued that anyone can be or become a critic.

4. Is Everyone a Critic in the Digital Era?

In light of the philosophical sentimentalism and its understanding of subjectivity, beauty, and taste, I would wish to suggest that there is a need to reconsider the role of film critics in the contemporary era. Films “exist on the border of art and consumer culture” (Taylor, 5) and tastes are heavily influenced by the cultural and economic context. It is, therefore, necessary to take into account entertainment culture and market structures. Since films are cultural commodities which are marketed and, with the advent of the internet, discussed by using various public forms of criticism and reviewing, it raises questions about the current role and legitimacy of critics. To illustrate critics’ relevance in the digital era, one can turn to contemporary debates in The New York Times, or even among intellectuals surrounding the phrase claiming that ‘everyone is a critic.’ In the article entitled “Is Everyone Qualified to Be a Critic?,” Adam Kirsch and Charles McGrath briefly state their views on the critic’s function. Kirsch describes receptivity and response, meaning the reaction people experience when looking at a work of art, or in this case a film, as being the fundamental aspect of criticism. Whether they disregard the piece or are moved by it, their immediate judgement constitutes a form of criticism that is inherently present in their consciousness. This instant perception echoes the above-mentioned philosophical sentimentalist approach in which sentiment is at the core of moral judgments. The ability to then self-reflect, question one’s responses or emotions, and transcribe them as coherent ideas onto another medium, is what makes for a legitimate critic. In his own words,

(20)

What makes someone a critic in the vocational sense is, first, the habit of questioning her own reactions — asking herself why she feels as she does. Second, she must have the ability to formalize and articulate those questions — in other words, she must be a writer. To be able to say what you feel and why: that is the basic equipment of a critic (Kirsch, McGrath, 2015).

The critic is thus considered a professional individual who communicates his or her own taste as a form of moral value criterion through written language. For McGrath, “a valuable critic is someone whose judgment you can rely on and learn from, which is not to say someone you always agree with” (2015). Critics are respectable, valid figures who provide knowledgeable judgments to challenge other people’s opinions. As Gitlin argues, it is important to pinpoint the role of critics in shaping taste. As their judgments do not derive from the mainstream, collective preferences, “they are best thought of as ‘precipitates:’ the material outcome of debates among producers, around which the dispositions of certain audiences then crystallize” (Ross, 924). They have a significant impact on audiences’ judgments and are, therefore, influential in the formation of taste through their critical works. It can be concluded that they produce meaning, as Daniel Mendelsohn suggests in its definition of criticism in the 2012 article entitled “A Critic’s Manifesto.” In simple terms, Mendelsohn describes criticism with the equation “KNOWLEDGE + TASTE = MEANINGFUL JUDGEMENT.” Being a critic is therefore not compatible with a lack of knowledge or taste. According to him, the work of a critic is to produce meaning, “to mediate intelligently and stylishly between a work and its audience; to educate and edify in an engaging and, preferably, entertaining way” (Kristensen, 1). This definition restates the traditional understanding of the critic’s ideal qualifications, adding the performance aspect of the critic.

4,1. The Rise of Amateurism

With the majority of contemporary ‘amateur’ critics, cinephiles and freelance writers, writing and publishing on the Internet, communicating opinions about films became a way for film culture to be deployed online. The decline in print journalism, and subsequently the deterioration of the critic-journalist profession resulted in a move of criticism to online spaces. Along with adapting to the transition from print to new media, criticism gained a new meaning. According to its new conception, criticism is not a means to convey expertise and taste in the traditional sense, but it rather serves to communicate and differentiate oneself online. In the issue entitled “Film Criticism: The Next Generation” published in the magazine Cinéaste, contributing film critics described what writing online film criticism meant to them. Vadim Rizov, a freelance writer, stated that “the goal of film criticism is to articulate my thoughts and record them before my memory fades” (Cinéaste Magazine, 2013). In his view, criticism is a sort of personal approach to films made

(21)

public. It is aimed at maintaining a collection of film interpretations, each one being associated with a specific memory. His conceptualization of criticism reflects the perceived permanence of digital content. Calum Marsh, who is also a freelance critic for various publications, addressed the difficulties of online criticism. He explained that “it has been my experience that writing film criticism on the Internet is sort of like distributing music with it: you accept that free dissemination is valuable for the audience it might earn you over time” (2013). He is alluding to the absence of copyrighting regulations online and the fact that the authorship of a critic’s work is often misapprehended or overlooked. These complex and limiting aspects of online film criticism lead to much uncertainty for any critic who aspires to gain public recognition or achieve a successful career in the traditional sense. Furthermore, distinguishing critics from amateurs has become difficult with the proliferation of online reviewers.

According to Marc Verboord, the binary structure designating criticism as a “professional” practice and reviewing as one for “amateurs” does not include gradual distinctions between different types of reviewers (Jaakkola, 13). An attempt to label these distinctions has been made by Kristensen and From. In their theoretical typology, they proposed a model that distinguishes four ideal types of cultural critics:

1) the intellectual cultural critic, who is closely connected to an aesthetic tradition, bohemia and/or academia, or institutionalized cultural capital; 2) the professional cultural journalist, who is first and foremost embedded in a media professional logic; 3) the media-made arbiter of taste, whose authority is closely linked to practical experience with cultural production and repeated charismatic media performances; and 4) the everyday amateur expert, who offers subjective opinions and represents experience-based cultural taste. The aim is to provide an analytical minimum model for future empirical studies by outlining the contours of the multiple, objective and subjective, professional and non-professional cultural ‘authorities’ of contemporary media culture (Kristensen & From, 1).

Their topology is thus particularly relevant in addressing the growing disappearance of the distinction between the private and public sphere and its consequences for cultural intermediaries. By drawing distinctions between cultural critics in accordance with sociological concepts and historical transitions, their topology relies mainly on notions of power and capital. They claim that a critic’s authority is linked to “their cultural, social, and, in the terms of Couldry (2003, 2012), media meta-capital” (Kristensen & From, 12 ), extending Bourdieu’s initial definition of cultural intermediaries to include the impacts of new media. Moreover, although criticism is considered to be more legitimate than reviewing, the terms have been used interchangeably in recent years. This amalgam can be explained by the impact of the internet on the film industry. Film distribution and consumption is transitioning from traditional theater releases to digital platforms such as Netflix.

(22)

Web 2.0 enabled more than access to films through streaming services, it also offered spaces—forums, websites, social media—for audiences to voice their opinions. These digital environments gave rise to the democratization of the practice of film criticism and prompted a shift in audiences’ approach to film culture.

4,2. Tomatometer-Approved Critics

Nowadays, anyone can publicly establish themselves as critics. Individuals with different levels of expertise can express their interpretations and opinions online with little to no restrictions. New conventions across digital media blur the line separating expert critics from online practitioners. The proliferation of digital forms of film evaluation such as amateur blogs, video essays, viewer/consumer reviews, the democratization of the culture production process and the mediation of user-generated content pose challenges for the relevance of critics’ traditional roles. Launched in 1998, the website Rotten Tomatoes is a prime example that illustrates this changing new media landscape for critics. It makes use of statistics and ratings from online communities of consumers, amateur critics, and cinephiles to determine the quality of a film. Critics’ approval of a film largely determines its reputation and its commercial success. It was found that “more than one-third of Americans actively seek the advice of film critics (The Wall Street Journal 2001), and approximately one of every three filmgoers say they choose films because of favorable reviews” (Basuroy et al., 103). Critics’ positive reviews thus act as signals of quality and determine the value of cultural products. The higher the rating a film gets, the more likely it is to influence a film’s performance. Film ratings are, thus, determinant factors and explain why Rotten Tomatoes has become a referential source for film reviews. Its rating system is based on aggregated opinions. Films obtain two scores that are measured according to the ‘Tomatometer’ (Rotten Tomatoes). Both are calculated based on a 60% or higher approval rate; one of critics’ reviews and the other on the audiences’. Scores constitute a critical consensus which further establishes the website’s authority. A recognizable ‘certified fresh’ badge, which has become a mainstream staple in film quality evaluation, also accompanies well-reviewed films.

A movie or TV show that reaches the requirements for Certified Fresh doesn't immediately receive the designation. Instead, it is automatically flagged for our staff's consideration. Once the team can determine that it's unlikely the score will drop below the minimum requirements, they will mark it Certified Fresh. If the Tomatometer score drops below 70%, then the movie or TV show will lose its Certified Fresh status (Rotten Tomatoes).

These conditions and prerequisites, which serve to establish the website’s commitment to quality and transparency, are signals that evoke trust in the rating system. Instead of the star rating system

(23)

used by IMDb (the Internet Movie Database) for instance, Rotten Tomatoes creates its own sets of principles and rules that take form through easily recognizable symbols (red tomato, green splat, badge, popcorn bucket). These emblems serve to signify reliable film criticism. Moreover, critics are selected after a process that is similar to a professional selection of candidates. Individual critics and publications can apply on the website and are approved if they meet the criteria required according to ‘key values’ and ‘eligibility guidelines’ (Rotten Tomatoes). Key values are divided into four criteria: 1) insight, which requires critics to have a relevant perspective and interesting opinions, 2) audience, which implies that critics must have online influence and be able to represent specific communities, 3) quality, meaning that critics must follow standards regarding the written and oral language, and 4) dedication. Values are, therefore, presented as being based on critics’ ethical and journalistic principles. The ‘eligibility guidelines’ list requirements such as “consistent output for a minimum of two years,” “a minimum of 200K subscribers on a video publishing platform qualifies for broad audience reach,” and “demonstrated social media presence and engagement (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, and/or Instagram)” (Rotten Tomatoes). Although it is mentioned that exceptions can be made, productivity and online influence are predominantly considered. As Denis McQuail claims, the main new media competence now lies in the “ability to attract attention and arouse interest” and “assess public taste” (Ross, 913). To do so, Rotten Tomatoes offers content specifically targeted at fans. This emphasis on film enthusiasts communities aims to encourage active participation.

We also serve movie and TV fans with original editorial content on our site and through social channels, produce fun and informative video series, and hold live events for fans across the country, with our ‘Your Opinion Sucks’ live shows. If you’re an entertainment fan looking for a recommendation, or to share an opinion, you’ve come to the right place (Rotten Tomatoes).

On Rotten Tomatoes, one can thus refer to online ratings which serve as an accessible and easy-to-understand format to assess the quality of a film before watching it, and get involved in a community.

Critics act both as influencers and predictors. This dual role was examined by Jehoshua Eliashberg and Steven M. Shugan. According to their definition, “an influencer or opinion leader, is a person who is regarded by a group or by other people as having expertise or knowledge on a particular subject” and “a predictor is expected to call the entire run (i.e., predict whether the film will do well) or, in the extreme case, correctly predict every week of the film’s run” (Basuroy et al., 104). Critics’ influence is based on their reputation, while their role as predictor relies on their ability to gauge the notoriety a film will gain. Criticizing commercial films is, therefore, not determined by notions of expertise, but by critics’ social media reach and their understanding of

(24)

trends in audiences’ tastes. Besides, their recognized authority is dependent upon their ability to resonate with a wide audience and to build a strong following across platforms. In that sense, both positive and negative reviews contribute to the establishment of a critic’s online persona and reinforce his or her leverage in impacting audiences’ choices. More often than not, negative reviews have a greater impact than positive ones. The study by Basuroy et al. questioning “How Critical Are Critical Reviews?” (103) referred to the ‘negativity bias’ to posit that audiences are more affected by negative reviews. Their hypothesis was validated by their findings:

our second set of results shows that negative reviews hurt revenue more than positive reviews help revenue in the early weeks of a film’s release. This suggests that whereas studios favor positive reviews and dislike negative reviews, the impact is not symmetric” (Basuroy et al., 116).

Although the study relies heavily on statistics and focuses on the revenue and marketing effects of film criticism, it is particularly efficient in showing the impact of critics on both the film industry and film audiences. Consequently, online reviews, whether they are positive or negative, do not have any significant impact when singled-out. What matters most is the final score resulting from the combination of multiple reviews. Rotten Tomatoes scores, thus, paradoxically exemplify the loss of value of criticism. On the one hand, it allows for more people to discern quality in films. On the other hand, the simplified presentation of film reviews can result in inconsistencies, especially between critics and audiences. The website appears to have eroded the professional and authoritative aspect of film criticism. Social bonds between film audiences and a critic are replaced by statistical rankings, making the ‘pleasure’ and meaning found in writing or reading film criticism obsolete. Film reviews are governed by “‘herd-like’ models of connected sociality” (Terranova, 13). An emphasis on the superiority of the majority within social networks means that, while the proliferation of reviews is facilitated, there is paradoxically a loss of diversity in the expression of opinion. The general agreement surrounding a film is taken as a certain and reliable signal of quality since unanimity is favoured over an individual’s ability to convey expertise and subjective taste.

4,3. A Decline in ‘Good’ Criticism?

Along with this homogenization of mainstream taste, many others have foreseen “a crisis of criticism”, and even the "death of criticism" (Crosbie, Roberge, 275). Since critics’ artistic judgments are not considered as much as it used to, singular critical opinions can no longer impact audiences. Instead, they solely look at the aggregate percentage of ‘good’ versus ‘bad’. In other words, it is only when the rate of approval outweighs the one of disapproval that a film is deemed worth watching. Or, Stephen Prince argues that:

‘Every Film a Critic’ From Highbrowers to Rotten Tomatoers and YouTube Video Essayists.