Viggo Mortensen has sounded off on the current state of film criticism, saying “what passes for critical thinking in terms of reviews is pretty poor” these days.
“In terms of the reviewer having some understanding of film history, how movies are made — the level is really low,” he added. “There are some good reviewers, some really interesting conversations are had from journalists in terms of their reactions to films, but it’s not great. As a director, certainly as a director-producer, I pay attention. It matters to me more, a lot more than as an actor because the fate of the movie, whether it’s going to be distributed well, whether it’s going to be seen in movie theaters — a lot hangs in the balance as to how it’s received critically.”
I’ve already tackled the “understanding of film history” part. I can’t tell you how many film critics I’ve met who haven’t seen “Vertigo” and “Citizen Kane.” It’s truly mind-boggling. Chances are high that a disturbingly high percentage of film writers out there have not seen a single Hitchcock or Welles.
Film criticism is still a “profession”, but it's no longer an occupation. Sure, there are still some who make a living doing it, but they are very far and few. This means that’s it’s much easier for studios to lure them into their web of hypedom.
With the advent of social media, film criticism is now a hybrid of influencers, bloggers and actual critics. The lines have been blurred.
Prominent film historian and critic, Jonathan Rosenbaum, once trashed modern-day reviewers of film as the cheerleaders and Pied Pipers of the film industry.
They are too often, he said, in a “sinister symbiotic relationship with the studios and are "quote whores," providing good taglines for the posters and trailers.”
Of course, at the other end of the spectrum, you had Roger Ebert referring to the internet-age as “the golden age for film criticism”. His view was that never before have more critics written about films. However, based on what I’ve seen, the democratization of the profession has also led to a watering down of the field.
This past June, Quentin Tarantino gave his two cents about modern-day film criticism which he believes has no identity and has kept him out of the loop on who writes what:
Today, I don't know anyone. Is it my fault? Theirs? What remains are website names: CinemaBlend, Deadline. I am told: “There are still good critics.” And I always answer: who? I say this without sarcasm. I'm told, "Manohla Dargis [of the New York Times], she's excellent." But when I ask what are the three movies she loved and the three she hated in the last few years, no one can answer me. Because they don't care! OK, if The New York Times is at my disposal then I’ll open it, read it, but that's it. I used to know a critic’s style of writing, their tastes, intimately! The sad reality is that today, the voice of Manohla Dargis – and it's nothing against her – doesn't matter enough for me to read her opinion on “Notes on a Scandal” or the fourth Transformers.
Tarantino’s commenting that there’s no identity to film criticism is primarily due to our consensus-driven era. Aggregate websites such as RT and Metacritic have become the go-to film criticism for mainstream audiences; there’s no importance given to the reviewers who submit the reviews, but rather, the aggregate itself.