There is, and has been for a long enough time, a disturbing trend online and in the real world, wherein a person's opinion is assumed to be fact. Sometimes, those assuming this are those whose opinions are being heard; we can all think of people who say something that's technically an opinion but want you to believe it's really the truth ("Citizen Kane is the best film ever, really!"). More often than not, though, we've just come to assume that if we go to a blog or website, what we read there will be factual. I'd say I'm getting tired of it, but that would mean it hasn't been a serious and frustrating problem for a while.
A recent kerfuffle via Twitter and blogs about one critic's low opinion of the upcoming Danny Boyle film 127 Hours made me relive my frustration all over again. As context, one of the critics for In Contention, an awards-based film website, gave 127 Hours a D+ in a quickie review via Twitter. This caused, among a few others via Twitter and elsewhere, the online version of seizures. How dare someone not like a movie that everyone else did? What was this guy thinking? Didn't he realize that every other critic who had seen the film deemed it Oscar-worthy? Tensions rose, and one of the main folks who had an issue with the Twitter review, Sasha Stone, wrote up an editorial of sorts on her site, Awards Daily.
It's worth checking out both sites to see the disparate points of view, but baffling to get to the point of both issues; Guy Lodge, the In Contention critic, ended up being bewildered at how much was made of his quick review. The folks at Awards Daily chastised him for not appreciating how important his review could end up being to the film's chances. Maybe we've come to a point where a critic who--while extremely talented, mind you--very few people in the world have heard of can say something in 140 characters, and a film's awards future is affected. Or maybe we've come to a point where people need to take their heads out of their asses. Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely obsessed with movies, television, and popular culture. I am not here to tell off the people involved to remember how insignificant this all is in the grand scheme of things. It's not necessary to say and I'm the last person who should say it.
No, my problem is that the Awards Daily side of the argument is, to me (because, remember, I need to remind you, dear reader, that what I'm saying isn't a statement of fact), so wrongheaded and presumptive in the weirdest ways possible. Is there a scenario in this world where one film critic's opinion could sink a film and ruin its chances at Oscar glory? Sure. In the scenario, though, the critic has to be named Roger Ebert, or maybe Pauline Kael. Oh, and it needs to be 1975 or something. With the proliferation of the Internet, anyone can be a film critic. You don't need to go to film school, you don't need to have a journalism degree, and you don't need to have decades of experience. Some of you read that and think only negative thoughts. And I can't blame you. There are, without question, shitty film critics in the world; lucky for us, most of them aren't well-known and don't know a truly good film if it were to walk up and slap them in the face. Some of the bad critics are well-known; Ben Lyons is Public Enemy, No. 1 to me.
But there are so many voices online that wouldn't have been heard without the World Wide Web. In Contention and Awards Daily wouldn't have existed, and it's the same for most other film-geek havens. Is every critic worth reading? No. Is every critic influential? Absolutely not. In fact, with so many available, it's hard to say that even those working for the most established sources--the A.O. Scotts and Michael Phillips of the world, for example--are influential. I'd also sincerely hope few intend to be influential. A good critic wants to have his or her voice heard, and wants to be considered as a valued source, but not as an all-knowing arbiter of quality. My point in all of this is that critics are always going to be sources of opinions. 127 Hours, as an example, has been getting mostly high praise. Guy Lodge disagrees; not only does he have every right to do so, but he has every right to do so in written form, whether it's Twitter or a blog post. Is his opinion more valid than that of those who love the film, or less valid? Depends on the reader.
I think what frustrates me about this particular argument is that Stone argues that an opinion can be right or, in this case, wrong. She writes, in the post titled "Why Film Critics Matter, One More Time," "[Guy] is entitled to his opinion, absolutely. He is entitled to write it on a popular Oscars website and put it out there. But I'm here to say that, as much as [I] like Guy, he's just flat out wrong this time around." Now, let me qualify this by saying that, thanks to me not living in New York or Los Angeles, I have not seen 127 Hours. But I'm here to say that Guy Lodge isn't wrong, BECAUSE HE IS STATING AN OPINION. Opinions are not facts. We've gotten into a lot of trouble politically in the last decade because of people in power using opinions as facts, and in a much less important way, it's a common issue in the world of film writing.
When I see 127 Hours, I will form my own opinion. I have hopes for the film; not high ones, as I find Danny Boyle to be a fabulous visual stylist with a propensity for making films with terrible third acts. However, I like James Franco quite a lot, and the true story upon which the film is based--which made the national news rounds in 2003, yet I've little knowledge of what happened--is compelling. When I see the movie, I may like it, or I may dislike it. Either way, Guy Lodge isn't going to end up being wrong. I might disagree with him, but it's not going to make him wrong. This argument from Stone frustrates me most because it's even shaky to say a person is wrong about their opinion of a film if that film is The Godfather or 2001 or Citizen Kane. Those are three universally beloved American films, and you may have different responses to each of them. 2001 remains one of the "great" films of all time that I just cannot fully love. Visually impressive, fascinating and thought-provoking, and I'd still take out a good 20 minutes from the movie. What do I know from Stanley Kubrick, of course, but it's my opinion. Does it make me wrong?
You may read my condensed opinion of 2001 and think that, hey, mine is not an opinion you want to take as seriously as others. Maybe that's what Sasha Stone is getting at; that she may respect Guy Lodge and consider his opinion worthy, but by not being a fan of 127 Hours, for whatever reason, she won't consider his opinion first. Or maybe I'll never know what she truly meant, but whatever the case, her editorial fell short. I don't have a problem with wanting to give major film critics an equal, or stronger, voice in the online void, but not at the expense of genuinely thoughtful and well-written younger critics who make the mistake of not falling in line with everyone else.
No comments:
Post a Comment