February 15, 2005

One of the real challenges of movie journalism and the movie business is defining standards. So let me start by saying… my standards are my standards. People get very cranky about anyone offering their standards because if they do not fit like a warm furry glove, some tend to feel judged.

But specifically in Entertainment World, there are so many options within any standard. Start with a review. Some people can find a negative somewhere in even an unmitigated rave, often based on someone involved with the project going unnamed. But in between "Best of the Year" and "Worst of the Year" lies a lot of room to overanalyze.

I am endlessly amazed at how "It's good" has become seen as a slap in the face. Good is not good enough. And I am always surprised at how one line, usually a tough one, can embed itself deeper than a stinger.

On the flip side, how does one measure success for the film industry. Is it the quality of the films? If it is, does anyone ever consider how rare a, say, 75% agreement on a film is by the critical community, much less the world of moviegoers who actually pay for tickets and home entertainment. And I'm not just talking about Rotten Tomatoes for critics. One "ripe" rating and the next can be dramatically different.

For instance, it was fair for Sony to claim that Spider-Man 2 was the best reviewed film of the summer based on the percentage of positive reviews. But come on… it was hardly the best reviewed film. It was the film that the highest percentage of critics were okay with. But is that the standard for quality?

And what about money? Have a conversation with a film writer about the quality of a film and if they do not like it, they will say that box office means nothing… and if they like it and it is financially successful, box office proves how right they are. But worse, how can it be fair for anyone to completely throw out box office as meaningless?

I continue to argue that opening weekend has, with small occasional variations on Sundays, nothing to do with the quality of a film. So, if a not -so-great film opens huge and that leads to a $100 million overall gross, that may not be a really clear indicator. But a film that opens and ends up doing better than three times that opening and more than say, $125 million, you have to start considering the idea that even if critics dislike a film, audiences are embracing it.

Likewise, a genius like Charlie Kaufman just hasn't broken into the mainstream… we have to admit it. When you have as much media attention as all of his films (except Human Nature) have had and some of the strong box office actors that have fronted them and you still can't break $40 million with Jim Carrey… who opened Bruce Almighty to over $60 million in one three day period… you are not a mainstream talent. But how soulless can you be to use that as a primary standard? And… what about all of those smart, sophisticated, non-rubes who hate everything Charlie has ever written?

One of the things that inspired this column was a reader's e-mail about Sony's box office trifecta this weekend. I asked, "What's there not to like?" The answer was simple… in this person's opinion, all three movies sucked. I haven't seen any of the three films, so I have no opinion about that. But it does point out that there are very different standards for the many different jobs in the industry. And journalists… and especially editors… as a rule, don't want to lift and separate the various jobs, preferring to simply a thumb up or a thumb down.

But circling around again, don't most entertainment consumers break it down to a simple "I like it" or "I don't like it." The Matrix Reloaded was a huge success by pretty much any standard, including critics, who reviewed the film better than they did the original. But a very vocal core repeated the mantra against the film over and over again. And The Matrix Revolutions did become the disappointment that Reloaded was reported to be. So what is real? Do the two sequels, together, hurt the legacy of the original film? Same with Star Wars. Huge successes. There is no way for Star Wars I-III can ever be as revolutionary as Star Wars IV - VI. But for a generation, these three films are the definition of Star Wars… and they adore these films the way we Boomer/Xers adored the originals. So what is right and what is wrong?

My answer would be this… your opinion is your opinion and you have an absolute right to it… even if I feel so strongly in the opposite direction that your opinion makes me think you are a fool.

There are absolutes in the movie world. But those absolutes are always overruled by the gut instinct. Even embracing the absolutes is a reflection of one's gut instincts.

But where does that leave a film critic? If your gut instinct is your primary engine, isn't everyone a film critic? How does one set standards for the gig? Right now, that question is being endlessly reconsidered, as the guys (mostly men) who had the twenty-five "non-local" critics gigs continue to be held up as the standard a much out of habit as anything else… except for experience. And experience matters.

I would say that the best standard for film criticism - or any writing for that matter - would be the ability to build an audience for the writing. If I had the power and the cash, I would love to rank "the cream of the crop." Take the names and outlet names off of the writing and have 20 groups of 100 movie lovers read a review of the same film by 20 reviewers each week for three months. Have them rate the writers. Take the top half of each group and double it up… ten groups of 200 movie lovers reading a review of the same film by 20 reviewers each week for three months. Then five groups of 400 reading 20 reviews a week. At that point, you have found fifty critics who have been read by people, some of whom have been satisfied for nine months. I tend to believe that with 2000 randomly selected movie lovers, you will find enough people who want an Anthony Lane style critic and a Roger Ebert and an Armond White and so on.

What I don't think you'd get is fifty critics who do the same thing. And you surely would not get the fifty critics that would be the best liked in the country. But you would get real choice. I would expect the vast majority of the "survivors" to really offer something to their readers in terms of knowledge of film and insight. And I think we'd all have to agree that you would get critics who could write.

What you would not get is a bunch of people who agree. And you would get past the tradition that a writer is only as powerful as their outlet.

Of course, this will not happen. Evolution is slow. And this is an evolutionary situation. Roger Ebert will eventually retire. And when he does, there will be another Ebert… quite different than Roger, but the next "The One," just as Ebert, after a long blurry pause, became "The One" to follow Pauline Kael. Who, how and why the next "Neo" comes to their perch is unknowable. Kael's perch had a lot more to do with prestige on the coasts than a large number of readers. Ebert's power has had a lot to do with the groundbreaking size of his audience. From magazines to television to, I guess, the internet. (And for those of you who think I am selling myself as "The One," I am already too old to take that slot. I could be one of the many influencers of that writer, but my guess is that he/she is in their 20s now and will have a voice all their own.)

If I had to guess, I would say that Tony Scott and Manohla Dargis will be at the New York Times for the next 20 years, Tony getting better and better at the job before getting the third Pulitzer for criticism in 2015. Ken Turan will retire in the next five years and Carina Chocano will move on to be an editor at Entertainment Weekly or some broader reach entertainment media like that, perhaps allowing the LA Times to be the outlet to launch the next "Neo." Wilmington will move on to a prestigious monthly outlet and remain one of the most thoughtful critics, but Chicago will become a dead zone… unless it turns out that Neo resides there… maybe Rosenbaum's eventual replacement will turn out to be The One.

But I digress…

The challenge of standards is that they are really hard to maintain. And whatever standard you are maintaining, someone is going to be out there to disagree or even attack you for having the audacity of daring to hold that ground. Of course, maybe your (or my) standard sucks.

Aye, there's the rub… again… and again… and again…

READER OF THE DAY: GO SWEET writes: "Oscar 2006: Is it my imagination or does 2005 look like a pretty good year for studio movies? And what do you hear about Class Action – will it make 2005? Talk about Oscar bait and rearranging the Best Actress, Director contest! Niki Caro directing Theron, Spacek, McDormand on the first successful sexual harassment suit. If it scores, expect a huge drumbeat for Caro and with the lack of high-profile Actress roles, they may try to get it our.

Disagreeing about movies: You have never been more correct – the discussion over Million Dollar Baby alone has gotten insane. Go over to Oscarwatch and view the madness. But have you ever seen such shilling by critics for their favorite picks as this year? All time high – and that ratchets up the phenomenon of which you speak.

$100 million BO: Surprised you have not written about this! The final tally for 2004 is… 11 over 150mil, 22 over 100mil,

while in 2003 it was… 8 over 150mil, 29 over 100mil

That’s quite a change and different from the trend of always one more over 100mil. Yet total BO about the same – it is the high middle that gets squeezed by marketing in my opinion."

E-ME: What's your standard?

The Case for Sideways
The Case for The Aviator
The Case for Million Dollar Baby

Sundance Wrap-Up
Sundance Preview Part I
Sundance Preview Part 2