From One Extreme to the Other

First of all, I ask you all to read this.

As I've stated in my very recent WonderCon blog, I am a fan of Kevin Smith, but I've been less enchanted with his recent filmic output. That all being said, I'm always prepared to give Mr. Smith the benefit of the doubt and usually side with him. This argument, however, I not only totally disagree with, but it actually has angered me to the point where I needed to blog while at work.

The function of film criticism is to provide an educated evaluation of a film product on either an entertainment or culturally relevant level, sometimes both, while giving a nod to the proficiency by which the film is executed, technically or otherwise. I have always been a firm believer in the profession of film criticism as viable in and of itself. Some of my favorite DVD audio commentaries are by critics providing an intellectual and historical context for the film. Listening to Roger Ebert discuss "Citizen Kane," Stephen Prince dissect "The Seven Samurai," or especially Sir Christopher Frayling speaking in minute detail on the films of Sergio Leone, was not only interesting and entertaining but greatly enhanced my enjoyment of those films in subsequent viewing.

Ever since I started watching films as art and not just entertainment, I've turned to film critics for analysis on a deeper level. Not every movie, but many of them, the ones I wanted to know more about. This is the part of Kevin Smith's argument that might have the most validity. Mindless movies don't really need to judged through the same microscope as ones trying to make a point or are particularly stunning. But I've read plenty of reviews of "stupid" movies that actually say things like "It doesn't break new ground but it's enjoyable," which is the first thing a film should do. If it doesn't educate or amaze, it should at least entertain.

Kevin Smith is upset that the same criticism used for the weighty movies was used on his film "Cop Out," saying it wasn't "Schindler's List." Obviously not, that's ridiculous. No one went to see "Cop Out" and thought it was going to be anything like "Schindler's List," but it still needs to fulfill one of the those three tenets I mentioned: educate, amaze, or entertain. "Cop Out," if you're to believe the critics, didn't really do any of them, the third being the most important, but should those critics be barred from sharing their opinions because it's just a movie called "Cop Out." If so, it's up to the studio or filmmaker to inform us that the movie is not good enough to warrant proper criticism. Until filmmakers start going on record to say they've made a stupid movie but we should go see it anyway, it's up to the critical community to do so.

Smith also makes the point that if critics aren't going to pay to see the films, they shouldn't be allowed to give their opinion on it and affect the box office returns. He says 500 random Twitter followers should be given the same opportunity and that their opinions are just as valid. I submit there is a world of difference between an opinion and an EDUCATED opinion. In a perfect world, everyone would have the same level of film knowledge or ignorance as everyone else and their opinions would hold the same amount of water. Only in math and science can we use the "all things being equal" scenario and not in real life. People come from different backgrounds and experiences that temper their views of everything, film included. Personally, I'd rather hear what educated film experts think than someone who watches "The Hills" and "Jersey Shore." If the movie caters to that crowd, then chances are they don't listen to or read reviews anyway.

To my mind this all comes down to Kevin Smith not taking rejection of any kind well and being overly sensitive. A bad review isn't always a personal attack on the filmmaker, in fact usually it isn't. Critics were very divided on Martin Scorsese's "Shutter Island," but no one who gave it a bad review said anything about Scorsese either as a man or as a renowned director. If Smith is as proud of "Cop Out" as he claims, and it indeed was the highest grossing film he's ever made, then it shouldn't matter that the film only received a 19% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, right? Smith has famously had a love-hate relationship with critics over the years, but that hasn't stopped him from giving bad reviews himself publicly of both Paul Thomas Anderson's "Magnolia," and Woody Allen's film, "Scoop," the latter a guest hosting stint for Roger Ebert on "At the Movies" a few years ago. He might have paid for those movies, granted, but he's still giving a public review based on his years of filmmaking and watching experience.

In 2008, "Zach and Miri Make a Porno," was poised to be Smith's highest grossing film and was getting mixed but largely favorable reviews. It ended up with a 65% rating on RT, garnering it a "Fresh" certificate, and was getting very good buzz from studio people. Then the movie came out and was indeed his most financially successful film of all time, though not as much as he and people around him were hoping. Some might call that a success, but Kevin Smith didn't. I listened to an entire episode of SModcast, the podcast Smith does with his friend and frequent producer Scott Mosier, where he spent the entire time lamenting how awful it was that the film didn't perform better and basically how he fell into a deep depression because of it. So what makes this guy happy? He's up in arms when critics don't like his movie but the public at-large does, and when the critics mostly like it, and indeed a lot of non-critics do too, he's depressed because it didn't make AS MUCH money as he wanted. Disappointment is a natural reaction, but to expect a critical and monetary hit every time out is not only naive, it's unrealistic. For the record, I spent the money, being a fan, and I didn't like it. So my opinion on this should therefore be more valid than all the critics who saw it for free and praised it.

I really like Kevin Smith and will continue to do so, but all of this serves to show that he's been surrounded by fans for far too long. If all he wants is for people in his community to have an opinion on the work he does, then he shouldn't be working in Hollywood.

Smith finishes his rant by saying:

Just my observation based on 15yrs of doing this and a decision to change the way I approach it from now on. Not trying to burn it all down; I just feel, from now on, I'll be going another way. The people who're criticizing me the loudest are easily 10, 15 yrs my junior with less experience writing about film than I have making 'em.

I've got longevity on my side now. I've been doing this since 93: so 17 years. I'm a veteran of the film biz. And as a veteran - not just some spectator with an opinion - I think I know what's better for me & my career than total strangers whose Google-able history proves they've NEVER had my best interests at heart. So I'm gonna listen to THOSE people? Nyet. Listening to me, not them, has gotten me THIS far.

It's not the job of the film critic to have the filmmaker's best interests at heart. That's why they just comment on movies and not advise careers. It's their job to have the movie-going community's best interest at heart and take their expertise and put forth a concise reading of the film and offer a recommendation or a warning. Only that. It's up to the viewer or reader to decide if that review has changed their mind, good or bad, about the movie and make the choice based on that. And speaking as one of the youngsters 10-15 years his junior who don't know nearly as much about film as he does, I can say that it's us who were and in many cases still are his biggest fans and want to see Smith's output go back to the edginess and realism that his early films had.

So I'll finish by saying this to Kevin Smith: You are always going to be one of the fathers of my love of film and I will follow your career until it ends, but if you don't want critics to give negative reviews, stop spending all your time on Twitter and make a good movie again.

You're welcome.
-Kanderson