Elitism Killed the Critical Star: Print Critics Whine Their Way to Irrelevance

BenjaminShapiro.com ^ | 4-13-10 | Ben Shapiro

[UltraConservative]

Yesterday, Howard Kurtz wrote a sad-sack column about the death of the legitimate entertainment critic. “It can be revealing to find out what people like you, uncredentialed as they may be, think about the new Meryl Streep movie, Philip Roth novel or noodle joint down the street. But why does that supplant the need for full-time reviewers?”

Kurtz’s column follows hot on the heels of a smiley-weepy piece by A.O. Scott in the New York Times, entitled “A Critic’s Place, Thumbs And All.” His conclusion is that arts criticism will always be around, since “The future of criticism is the same as it ever was. Miserable, and full of possibility. The world is always falling down. The news is always very sad. The time is always late. But the fruit is always ripe.”

It is linguistic Hegelian dialectics like that A.O. Scott paragraph that tell us why “mainstream” criticism is dying: who the hell wants to read that crap? Kurtz’s piece is whinier, but at least it has the merit of clarity. He hates the common man, and he thinks that even though the common man may give you better advice on whether or not to see a movie, that common man is still common. There’s a refreshingly honest elitism in Kurtz’s commentary.

To read more, click here.

[1rudeboy]

Sorry, guys. It ended with H. L. Mencken. That bar will never be reached, again. Not when you all are reviewing American Idol and telling us that it is good or bad for us.

[a fool in paradise]

It can be revealing to find out what people like you, uncredentialed as they may be, think about the new Meryl Streep movie, Philip Roth novel or noodle joint down the street. But why does that supplant the need for full-time reviewers?”

And why do I even need to buy into the dominant media's (ad driven) consumer culture that typically rewarded ad buyers with positive plugs?

Meryl Streep? What's she been in worth seeing in the past 25 years?

Philip Roth? Will he last the ages?

Noodles are cheap enough to make at home. Why would I pay $10 for a bowl of cheap soup stock?

[GeronL]

Oh please. We don’t need the MSM to tell us what is good or bad.

especially in an era when its all horrible,

[chickadee]

If these old foofs want some tattered remnants of relevance, they will need to post their self-cherished “artistic” criticism on Twitter.

I gave up reading most reviews years ago when I realized that these puffed up charlatans were helping Hwood pick my pockets to see crappy films.

[a fool in paradise]

If it wasn’t for music critics, we’d never have heard of Elvis Costello or Sinead O’Conner.

[RichInOC]

“The future of criticism is the same as it ever was. Miserable, and full of possibility. The world is always falling down. The news is always very sad. The time is always late. But the fruit is always ripe.”

David Burge hacks into Tony Scott’s account at the Times. Hilarity ensues.

[dead]

At the NY Times, entertainment critics never die, they just start writing about politics.

[hinckley buzzard]

The fact is that artists and critics have been at war with each other for generations. Read Pope's "Essay on Criticism" for a taste of the writer's most biting acerbity.

As for the public, most have never heard of a critic and could not name one. And in reality, with the great levelling of the culture, they are not missed.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Talk about poor reading skills. Ben Shapiro takes the cake.

And talk about hypocrisy. He complains that Kenneth Turan uses the term 'dark pearl' in the same sentence that he trots out 'Manichean'.

What a tool.

[x]

Is it elitism or populism that killed off culture critics?

When respected critics praise outright junk, who needs them?

The example says a lot:

For Scott, it’s all about being vague enough to never be quite wrong (or quite right). It’s about not having to take a stand. Take, for example, his review of Date Night this week. “It must be said that ‘Date Night’ … is superior to most recent movies of its kind, the marital action comedy.” So I should see it, right? Not so fast. “This is not saying much: better than ‘The Bounty Hunter’ or ‘Did You Hear About the Morgans?’ is not quite the same as ‘good.’” Okay, fair enough, so I’ll skip it. But wait – not so fast. The movie “does have moments of pleasant mischief.” But it also “tread[s] water for 90 minutes.” In the end, we’re left with a sense that Scott doesn’t really feel we should see the movie, but he’s not going to just tell us that straight out.

You can get a jerk on the street or an online idiot to tell you to go see Date Night or the latest Adam Sandler film or watch or 30 Rock.

When professional critics recommend outright garbage or can't make up their mind about whether to recommend it or not, why bother with them?

[x]

The bigger problem even than critics’ refusal to criticize is the elitism that Kurtz represents. Three words: Lost In Translation. Nobody has ever liked that movie. Ever. Nobody. In the history of mankind. Not a single human being. I have a review for Lost In Translation that is actually shorter than the title of the movie itself. Two words: living death. It tells you all you need to know. You shouldn’t see it, and if you do, you should ensure that you have a defibrillator on-hand.

That movie was actually pretty good.

It's not praise for the quirky off-the-wall thing that infuriates.

It's the way critics (especially you, Roger Ebert) line up behind what they think has mass appeal (like Judd Apatow films).

[mrs. a]

“Oh please. We don’t need the MSM to tell us what is good or bad.”

But...but...they are CREDENTIALED!!!!

[BenKenobi]

Given the filth that they push these days, I don’t trust any of them. Completely worthless. Sure wish they would go someplace else.

[Darkwolf377]

The problem with Kurtz and most other people, when talking about critics, is that we're living in the Thumbs Up workd of Ebert, when the best critical writing isn't about TELLING you to see something or not.

Pauline Kael may have been a big lib, but no one ever criticized the easy liberalism in so much Hollywood product, and she never wrote "Thumb's Up!" She saw a movie and then wrote her thoughts and feelings about it--YOU decided whether to see it or not based on what YOU gleaned from others' impressions.

I just watched a movie--do I recommend it? How can I answer that--who's asking, my mom, a teenager who likes horror movies, someone who likes love stories?

Siskel and Ebert and the morning chat show "reviewers" have helped the ongoing blanding of our culture. Don't tell me whether or not to see something, you tell me what YOU liked about it and I'll decide if that's what I like.

[marron]

The truth is that if the critics like it I probably don’t.

I learn a lot more from viewer reviews than I do from the critic reviews, in fact if I read reviews at all its usually only the viewer reviews.

Same with books; I’ll click into Amazon and read the reviews from readers, some of which are very good. Some of whom know quite a lot about the subject at hand.

And, same with opinion journalism. There are some very good ones out there, but I find most of them on the internet, and not in my local paper. When’s the last time my paper printed Steyn? Never. When did they print Michael Yon? Never. So why waste my fifty cents?

And some of the commentary by folks here at FR can be as good and informative, again you find that there are people posting who know quite a lot, and when you make a mistake you probably know about it within minutes whereas when the editorial writer at my local paper is full of bull, when does he ever retract it? So why waste my fifty cents?

[marron]

One more vote here for Lost in Translation. I liked it quite a lot. I’ve seen it several times.

[GeronL]

oh right. I guess thats one argument.

Where does one get credentials?

[mrs. a]

“Sure wish they would go someplace else.”

Preferably out of the country. Do we really NEED any more toxic waste dumps here?

[mrs. a]

“Where does one get credentials?”

I don’t know - Uncle Stubby’s Bait Shop?