You know the feeling: You’ve just watched the latest blockbuster at the movie theater, and you’re fully convinced that it’s a great film. Even if it’s not an artistic masterpiece, you enjoyed it, your friends enjoyed it and everyone was happy with it. What’s wrong with a movie that you, and everyone else, seem to enjoy? You go home content, happy with an evening well spent.
However, on the way home, a question creeps into your mind that has become nearly incessant in our modern, terminally online society: What does everyone else think about this movie?
So you search for movie reviews.
Unfortunately for you, the vaunted movie critics hardly share your perspective. Uninspired, repetitive, tired, mediocre: these are the terms they use to describe what you just watched. Your movie failed, and that’s obvious. It did not embody the ultimate ideal of artistry and perfection, and if you enjoyed it, you probably just don’t watch movies the “right” way.
Needless to say, you feel discouraged. Sure, the movie was still entertaining, but somehow that film which was so great five minutes ago seems suddenly dulled in the onslaught of these artistic insults. The dogmatic interpretations that the critics offer seem impenetrable; perhaps they really are right, and you just aren’t watching the movie correctly.
This isn’t just a phenomenon restricted to movies, of course — the culture of elitist criticism can be found in all types of art. Books, movies, music or whatever else people enjoy; nothing is safe from the expert art critic’s omniscient insights and discerning judgments. Obviously, not all art critics embody the spirit of cultural elitism; there are many who provide genuine insights into and critiques of art without unnecessary pretension.
However, for those critics who insist on creating dogmatic interpretations and using pretentious French words to describe their artistic preferences, you’re wrong.
These critics — the ones who would probably unironically refer to “Sausage Party” as a revolutionary “coup de grace” of film — often make a fundamental categorical error: They assume that movies function purely as artistic pieces and not as entertainment. Although art and entertainment are not inextricably linked, they are also not mutually exclusive. A movie can be interpreted as art, it can be enjoyed as entertainment, or both.
What do I mean by this? To give you an example, let’s take “Hotel Transylvania,” a movie widely beloved by audiences but disdained by critics. According to the Rotten Tomatoes review aggregator, the film currently stands at 45% for critics and 72% for audiences. That’s a pretty large differential, so what explains it?
The answer is that many critics do not like the movie because it is not made for some artistic purpose but instead is simply meant to entertain. Some critics grasp this fact, of course. However, others do not.
Some critics lambasted the movie because there was “not much originality” or because it was an “utterly hollow” film. One critic even goes on to state in the closing paragraph of his “Hotel Transylvania” review that the film contributes to “overuse and decades of parodies [such that] classic monsters now mean absolutely nothing at all” as if the director had just perpetrated some crime against humanity by creating a funny movie.
In short, although they do sometimes comment on the entertainment element of the film, they fail to consider that movie critics are not the primary audience of “Hotel Transylvania.” Children and people just looking for something lighthearted are, and they don’t care whether or not the movie is too cheesy or devoid of existential meaning.
Two things can be true at once. I’m not telling you that you — or anyone else for that matter — has to love or even like “Hotel Transylvania,” any other movie or any particular piece of art in general. However, I am noting a mistake that some critics — both the ones who write for publications and those who just think of themselves as art enthusiasts — make. Not every movie has to be made for every person. Some movies are artistic, some are entertaining and some are both.
You can have your opinions on whatever you like, but I advise you to think about the perspective of the artist. What does the artist intend to say? Who does the artist intend to speak to? And what impact does the artist hope their work will have? These are the questions that must be asked before a genuine review of any art can be made. And it is then, and only then, that an artist’s work can be rightfully judged.
Kaleb Blizzard is a philosophy sophomore and opinion writer for The Battalion.
