Reviewers and My Hypocrisy

Emanuel Levy

Film review culture remains - and will continue to remain - one of the sluttiest cultures in the Continental United States of America. There are few other areas of review where at junkets - a time for critics to jerk each other off - they are occasionally given cards with a variety of statements on it (probably to the tune of "One of the best family films of the year!" and "An edge-of-the-seat thriller you won't forget!"), where they then proceed to check one of the boxes, sign their name, and put it into print. These quotes are then translated into advertisements, where - at the sight of their own name - critics arouse limp dicks into about three boners, essentially selling themselves for a free vacation, some food, and an intense erection.

The following are some of my most despised film reviewers / critics: the titular Roeper of 'Ebert and Roeper", Emanuel Levy, anyone writing for E! Online and Filmmaker Magazine, most of the people at The Stranger in Seattle or The Chronicle in Austin, and many many more.

Generally, my hate does not stem from their writing style; quite the contrary actually, as pretty much everyone working in the review field is well versed in the English language (I, on the other hand, am still working on this). Their language is typically flamboyant and extravagant, resulting in an entertaining read, but entertainment should not be their only aim. Reviewers and critics should provide justified opinions, because direct opinions are worthless. The most important and didactic part of reviewing lies in the justification. Sure, they'll tell anyone what they think, "A film for philistines from up-state New York," or they'll claim many times a year that this particular film is "The Best Film of the Year!" and get paid spectacularly for that.

The type of review that infuriates me refuses to provide context for their opinion - to go outside the film further than just using similar titles as descriptors ("…like The Godfather series with a dash of Donnie Darko and a splash of Johnny Depp's Captain Sparrow - slap Sally a couple of times and you've got a winner of a film!"). The following excerpt of a review by Emanuel Levy articulates the former statements perfectly:

(Review of Hard Eight)
"Hall, who has become Anderson's quintessential actor (he'll appear in ‘Boogie Nights’ and ‘Magnolia’), gives Sydney a touch of grave dignity and sad melancholy. As John, a dim but decent fellow, Reilly is sympathetic. Paltrow looks beautiful, but has hard time [sic] conveying Clementine's sudden mood swings and self-destructiveness. Jackson's flamboyance as a small hood with big ambitions recalls his turn in "Pulp Fiction" and other films."

Maybe Mr. Levy really does know his stuff, but if he doesn't have the balls to truly express himself on his webpage, then his soul is done for. Either that or he's just been such a gigantic toolbox for so long, that anything of the slightest importance he had to say was widdled down long ago. The above quote says nothing. It might as well be piss-smeared poop. And, to boot, it has grammatical errors and is ultra sexist: "Paltrow is beautiful, but has hard time [sic] conveying Clementine's sudden mood swings and self-destructiveness." So, in other words, "The make-up artist make Paltrow look like great big slut. Me like that. That kind of makes up for shitty performance. Whatevs."

There is a simple tactic employed by a majority of reviewers: 1/4 opinion - 1/2 summation - 1/4 opinionated description. Opinon is a device honed to suck readers in by the opening paragraph, which involves a reasonable amount of skill. Summation, 1/2 of their talent, relies solely on the translation of the films content, thus requiring the intelligence of an 8th grader. Opinionated description - such as the example above - is a mix requiring varied levels of writing skillz ranging from God-awful to enlightening. This formula is used with surprisingly large numbers, leaving most readership bored.

The New York Times Arts section has its faults, for sure, but generally overcomes this monotony with the touch of A.O. Scott. His reviews are sharp and backed with reasoning, and his insights reveal more about the world and cinema at large, rather than a particular film. A.O. Scott is at a point, though, where he can probably choose what films he wants to review or spotlight, where as other outlets don’t have the same freedom.

One such is TheReeler.com, where S.T. VanAirsdale and his co-editors are forced to review everything from the shittiest summer Hollywood films to foreign art house flick, because they need to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. For this reason, they continue to destroy most films that come their way, as a majority of popular films nowadays are trash.

The antithesis of TheReeler.com would be Jonathan Rosenbaum: an impatient heavyweight who hurls honesty with brutal intent and is threateningly knowledgeable. The day after Ingmar Bergman died he wrote a piece in The New York Times that pretty much said, “He’s not all that great. Here’s why.” Very few people can get away with this type of bluntness, yet somehow he does. It probably has to do with the fact that he’s been writing about films critically for 30+ years, writes for The Chicago Reader, and has published several books in academia. But the latter is also a fault: he often gets too pompous and wordy, to the point of pushing away his readers, which is self-defeating, unless he enjoys appealing to aristocratic jerk-offs.

And, in my opinion, herein lies the void: a middleman between academia and the general public. Translators, so to speak. Someone who can look at contemporary popular film from around the world, evaluate it, judge it, back it up, and write about it in a clear way, therein educating and entertaining people simultaneously. Where light meets dark. A place where king and peasant can shake hands. Where X-Men meet city council.

It’s depressing how much trash is out there. The few critics writing thoughtful reviews provide some comfort: as I mentioned, Jonathan Rosenbaum, TheReeler.com and A.O. Scott, Roger Ebert, everyone from Cineaste, CineAction (notably Robin Wood), occasionally Sight and Sound, and a few others. These people are trying there hardest to deconstruct film criticism and reconstruct it, but this is a daunting task. There are many reviewers, production and distribution companies, and editors who defy them daily in order to keep their effortless monopoly on top. And they do this with regular success.

They do this, in my opinion, by writing too directly towards their audience. Definitley, differences should exist between reviews from different magazines and journals, but everyone’s goal should be the same: To use entertainment as a vehicle for education. Style and substance should be of equal importance. Like advertisements, though, more often than not, style prevails.