A wall-crawler, a bespectacled magician and an angry young Jedi all brought home the big bucks this year, collectively earning just less than a billion dollars in grosses.
But don’t expect to see “Spider-Man,” “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” and “Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones” on any critics’ lists, nor in the best picture category at the Academy Awards. The top critics’ picks, as rated by Web site www.moviecitynews.com, are: “Far From Heaven,” “Y Tu Mama Tambien” and “Talk To Her,” three movies that also aren’t likely to garner many Oscar nominations in three weeks.
With the seeming disconnect between audiences, the Academy and critics — do critics matter at all?
The answer is yes. And no.
Depending on whom you ask.
“There’s nothing a critic can say that will overcome $30 million in advertising in a five-day period. Nothing,” says movie columnist David Poland of moviecity news.com.
Despite near-universal pans, the much-hyped “Scooby-Doo” took in $153 million, the 10th highest-grossing 2002 release. The same held true for critic whipping boys “The Scorpion King” (No. 27 with $90.3 million) and Disney’s “Snow Dogs” (No. 30 with $81.2 million). Yet among the top 25 moneymakers of 2003, most films grossing more than $100 million met positive (“Minority Report,” “Road to Perdition”) to mixed reviews (“XXX,” “Signs”) from critics, according to online tracking site Metacritic.com.
But fixating on box office numbers is missing the point, says Charles Taylor, contributing editor for Salon.com.
“Box office only tells you how many people saw the movie. It doesn’t tell you if they liked it,” Taylor says. “It’s a reflection of what was spent on advertising.”
Moviegoing habits are influenced differently among demographics, says Paramount Classics co-president David Dinerstein.
“People age 30 and over are absolutely influenced by newspaper reviews, to some extent. Movies like `The Hours,’ `Adaptation’ and `Chicago’ were helped by positive reviews in newspapers,” Dinerstein says. “But if you buy advertising on MTV or other youth-oriented shows, it doesn’t matter whatsoever.”
So, in this landscape of deep studio pockets buying opening-weekend audiences, what’s left for critics to do?
“Hopefully, we’re more than consumer guides. We really are the only independent voice out there between the public and an industry with billions of dollars at their disposal to pick your pocket,” Taylor says.
The critical community’s relationship with awards and festivals is more complicated.
Indie awareness
During the year-opening flurry of hype and industry accolades, if the two can be separated at all during multimillion dollar Oscar campaigns, critics have become important in raising awareness of independent films among awards voters, Poland says.
“The studios really do, more so than any other situation, go to critics and entertainment writers and ask them what they are hearing, what the word is . . . it’s very influential in the process,” Poland says. “It’s [also] an influence of how much studios will spend on a campaign.”
The snowball effect of critic boards and industry guilds offering up awards before the Oscars, he says, also helps generate buzz and sway during the voting season.
“The value of a critic is that they are credible,” says Clarke L. Caywood, professor of public relations at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University. “The amount of info we receive has increased so dramatically, that we need translators. We need people who help us digest and understand information, as long as we build a relationship with that critic.”
That kind of relationship, some say, has eroded.
“Critics who used to be reliable and people you used to feel a kinship with, that’s really dissipated. To go to a critic now is not what it once was,” says Poland.
With the Internet and advanced marketing measures, more information is available before a film’s first trailer hits megaplexes.
Rules have changed
No longer are critics the sole source of information for an increasingly passionate moviegoing public. The rules of the game have changed, but critics haven’t, Poland says.
“For the most part, critics have abdicated their responsibilities. Critics have become reviewers, previewers — they’ve become Moviefone. They tell you what’s in the movie, they tell you if they like it or they don’t like it and that’s it,” he says. “Criticism used to be about a discussion of what a movie was, its purpose, reason, what was special about it . . . you don’t see it that much anymore. And that’s because there’s not much of an audience for it.”
The audience is there, although the connection often isn’t, says Peter Bart, former studio executive and editor in chief of Daily Variety, an industry trade magazine.
“Some critics have just somehow lost their ability to appreciate popular entertainment,” Bart says. “You have to be able to appreciate not only art films, but `Spider-Man.’ I just think you’ve got to be open to different kinds of entertainment. If you’re a critic, you owe an obligation to that mass audience out there to say, `Yeah, `Spider-Man,’ for what it is and what it tried to do, it’s a damn good movie.'”
“Spider-Man,” while not listed on many critics’ top 10 lists, did receive mostly favorable reviews. Metacritic.com, a barometer site for critical reviews, listed the movie with a score of 70 out of 100 points on its weighted scale.
Columbia spokesman Steve Elzer says such praise contributed to the momentum of “Spider-Man’s” mega-hit run.
“With a $114 opening, as extraordinary as that was, it also was propelled by the phenomenal critical support. It contributed in an enormous way,” Elzer says. “Along with what we knew was an enormously enjoyable film for audiences — having that combined critical support took it to another level. It had a lot to do with where we ended up. It’s a film that took in $821 million worldwide.”
So critics do, and don’t matter.
While the impact of reviews on box office numbers remains in debate, critics do hold sway with studios — especially at festivals, Bart says.
“I employ about 25 critics around the world, and they have a pivotal role in the sense that, very often, if they like a picture and write good review, then the picture will be picked up for distribution. That’s big,” Bart says.
That’s what happen with “Traffic” director Steven Soderbergh’s 1989 debut “sex, lies, and videotape,” Bart says. That film has largely been credited for starting an indie film boom in the 1990s.
Historically, critics have acted as advocates as well. The Los Angeles Film Critics Association helped rescue Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil” from the cutting room in 1985 with a best picture award, and New Yorker critic Pauline Kael famously resurrected 1967’s “Bonnie and Clyde” from obscurity.
“The same way the readers or viewers come to rely and appreciate the likes and dislikes of various critics, so do the studios,” says Matthew Hiltzik, senior vice president of corporate communications for Miramax Films.
A love-hate relationship
But it’s a love/hate relationship, Taylor says, evidenced by Sony’s 2002 admission that they created David Manning, a fictional critic whose rave lines appeared on movie posters for “A Knight’s Tale” and “The Animal.” Critics are also routinely kept away from preview screenings in order to shield vulnerable films from negative reviews on opening weekend.
“Studios care. They would like to do away with critics; they would like to get rid of those negative voices out there. The amount they care is out of proportion to the critics’ actual power.”
But the relationship isn’t entirely contentious.
“Critics can educate and prepare audiences to better understand and appreciate certain indie, foreign and art house films that are different from mainstream movies,” Hiltzik says.
In some instances, critical response at festivals can help uncover a new actor or director, as happened to Quentin Tarantino (“Reservoir Dogs”) and Doug Liman (“Swingers”) at the Sundance Film Festival.
“Absolutely, they can help raise awareness and help actually close a sale,” says Paramount Classics’ Dinerstein. “Generally speaking, critics do carry a lot of weight for certain types of films, [especially] films with a limited amount of budget.”
But with the ever-evolving state of the movie media, what role will critics have in the future?
“I would love to see movie critics continue to champion those pictures that might get lost, just like Pauline did with `Bonnie and Clyde,’ That’s a key role,” Bart says. “But they should be pop pictures as well as esoteric pictures.”
