So you want to be a critic....

There is a general problem that is called "movie critic's disease" in my household. It comes from having a much higher and more intensive level of exposure to something than does the general public. If you see ten movies a week and have to write reviews, basic notions of diminishing marginal utility suggest that you will value novelty and nuance in a film compared to someone who watches one movie a week. Hence you will go gaga for art films and won't be impressed by a good car chase or fight scene.

Similarly, it's my impression that musicians and critics are more favorably disposed to jazz, on average, than are civilians. This is because jazz often breaks out of standard expectations about time, melody, form, etc. relative to pop and rock genres, and so provides novelty and nuance for jaded listeners. I'm pretty sure the same thing goes for poetry and fashion, too--stuff that's weirder or more subtle or harder to understand will appeal to the over-exposed critic more than something "classic" that's closer to what's been done before.

The problem is that quality and novelty of this kind are likely to be imperfectly correlated, no matter what you mean by quality--popular appeal, Aristotle's poetics, fomenting class struggle--so that jaded critics may be uniquely unsuited guides to what is "best" in their domain.

Just because a popular movie gets bad press doesn't mean the critics have diminishing marginal utility. I do not believe that most critics are overly swayed by novelty in judging *every* type of movie. I see on average eight films a week and I judge them according to the genre. Simply put, if it is a horror movie, did it scare me? If it is a comedy, did I laugh? If it is an art-house movie, did it provoke me? I don't demand pioneering film-making from, say, a Wayans Brothers movie. That would be absurd. So, for the summer blockbuster, I simply ask, was I entertained? Did I get swept up in the swash and the buckle? Did I feel like an over-excited kid? Now, Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and Superman Returns bored me to tears. I don't think that's because I am being elitist or dismissive of a tried and tested formula. They were just too long, narratively weak, and cannot compare to the glory of say, Raiders of the Lost Ark or even Pirates 1. I am as happy to see a movie with fast cars, beautiful people and cool stunts as the next guy...but even trash can be high quality!

Hows Tufts?

Eat at soundbites yet?

Maybe this seems too counter-intuitive, but just a movie is "popular" doesn't mean people actually like it or think it has artistic merit. Da Vinci Code being an excellent case in point. People who loved the book felt compelled to see it, other people wanted to be part of the event or the water-cooler talk. Now how many of those people really loved the film? How many of them have a desire to see it again? Will the critics who panned DaVinci code look smart in 20 years? I bet they will. Critics who panned "Shawshank Redemption" clearly missed something that the mainstream audience found, I'm not sure that's true when you're talking about big budget "events" like Da Vinci Code or Pirates. If Scott thinks his job is to tell what movies to see on a given week-end he's way off-base, I think his real job is to provide viewers with some critical benchmarks they can use to make up their own minds.