By KAI COLBERT

Movies are fun, right? Movies are meant to entertain the general public and to show the beauty of artistic collaboration, teamwork, and energy in a visual medium. One might also argue that films are made simply because they can be made by anyone, about anything. This mindset has become increasingly more prevalent with the rise of new and improved filmmaking technology, higher interest and popularity in young filmmakers, increasingly higher budgets for films made by major film corporations, and prestigious film festivals such as Cannes, Sundance, Tribeca, etc. 

These factors have, and continue to, impact the production of films, the reliance on intellectual property/multiverses, and the push for bigger and better advertising. For these reasons, there has been a surge of films to an almost exhausting degree. Nowadays, most people don’t have the time and/or money to see every movie released in the theater, which is highly unfortunate and deeply saddening for me. 

However, there are positive aspects to this modern approach to films and how we view and respond to them. For instance, the rapid-fire film release schedule allows people to pick the movie that most strongly appeals to their unique interests and not be forced to see something they are less interested in just for the sake of watching a movie. 

Additionally, this gives new and aspiring filmmakers more opportunities to pitch their concepts to donors and major studios, as they are constantly looking for the next big hit that will make them stand out from the pack. Actors, in particular, benefit greatly from this system, as new and interesting roles are being created and posted daily, making it easier for them to network, gain experience and make a stable income. 

Now, at this point, you might be wondering why I have only been giving positives and haven’t discussed the title of this article and my main reason for writing it. There are many reasons why I chose to start my article this way, but my main reason was to both provide insight into how I view the film industry and present one possible viewpoint to show how there are always positives and negatives with any scenario, situation, and problem. 

Before I elaborate on my critiques and gripes with modern-day movie critiquing, let me take you back to a time when being a film critic was a respectable position held in high regard by society, and was, most importantly, a responsibility. It was a film critic’s responsibility and civil duty to truthfully rate and analyze films and inform the general public about said film’s merits and overall contributions to society. This could be achieved by looking at the subject material, the tone/genre of the film, its main themes, unique and varied settings, relevance to certain topics/subjects upon its release and its willingness to shine a light on the dark nature of humanity and society as a whole. 

The epitome of what a film critic truly can be is one of, if not the most, famous film critics in American history. His name is Roger Ebert. Mr. Ebert was born on June 18, 1942, in Urbana, Illinois as the only child of Annabel and Walter Ebert. His family had a modest background and lived quite comfortably, although his father wanted him to achieve greater things. His passion for writing, adoration of newspapers, and fascination with movies started early, thanks to his close relationship with his Aunt Martha. He loved writing so much that he even wrote and published his own newspaper as a child. He titled it the “Washington Street Times,” named after the street where he lived. 

Upon entering high school, he would edit the school’s newspaper while also writing for “The News Gazette,” located in Champaign, Illinois. Ebert continued pursuing his writing career at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1960. While there, he quickly rose up the ranks in the school’s paper titled “The Daily Illini,” becoming editor-in-chief by his senior year in 1964. Ebert graduated from the university with a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and was pursuing a P.h.D. in English at the University of Chicago, but stopped after deciding to write full-time. 

Shortly after this decision, he was hired to write for the “Chicago Sun-Times” Sunday magazine and became their official film critic six months later. The rest, as they say, is history. He became the first ever film critic to win the Pulitzer Prize in 1975 and became highly influential and respected in the film industry. 

He is perhaps most well-known for the television show “Siskel and Ebert” that he co-hosted alongside Gene Siskel (another well-known and highly respected film critic), where the two would discuss, argue, elaborate, praise, mock and critique the newest films. Their opposing dynamics, with Siskel being more reserved and matter-of-fact and Ebert being more theatrical and outgoing, created unique and highly entertaining conversations and debates between the two. Needless to say, the show became a blockbuster success and was even purchased by the Walt Disney Co. four years after its release. 

This newfound success gave Ebert and Siskel a lot of power, which they used to draw attention to certain issues that concerned them. Some examples include their campaign for an adult movie rating, which helped spark the invention of the NC-17 rating, and their championing of independent films, foreign-language films and documentaries that would have otherwise been forgotten and/or abandoned. 

Ebert’s life is truly fascinating, and I highly encourage anyone who is even slightly interested in film, entertainment, reporting, journalism, or acting to research his lasting legacy. 

I bring up Ebert because what made him truly special as a film critic was that he didn’t base his opinions on how the movie performed financially, socially or by popularity; he based his opinions on his own thoughts, experiences and feelings. He didn’t just focus his critiques on certain actors or gossip; he looked closely at every single component that resulted in the final product from beginning to end. 

This is why I loved Roger Ebert and why I hate modern day film critiques. The overflow of movies and tv shows has unintentionally washed away all creativity, originality and individuality within the art of film critique and only left the bland, surface-level, biased and predictable behind. Film critics no longer seem to respect films and the filmmaking process, instead they only care about writing what the majority of movie-goers believe or what they believe will get the most attention regardless of if it is true or not. We need to re-evaluate the purpose of film critique, and how at its core, it is not meant to insult, degrade, and undermine films, actors, crew and screenwriters. 

The purpose of film criticism is to enlighten the public about the true merits of a film and its true value and contribution to our understanding of humanity, society, history and film. This is what film criticism should be, and this is a hill I will gladly die on. 

I will end by writing the Latin phrase Ars Gratia Artis which translates to mean “art for art’s sake.” This is a phrase I connect with, and I believe should be at the forefront of every single person who watches, analyzes and critiques films.

Featured Image Credit: kentislandcritic