Essay -
Elitism and Stupidity in Film Criticism
From observing, mostly Anglophone, film's critics opinions regarding movies I came to develop some impressions of the perception of film criticism regarding movies that reflect a profound level of stupidity and elitism which is rooted in the inferiority complex fans of films have in regard to more developed art forms like music and literature. And also reflecting the overall drive of Western art over the past few generations toward novelty and the sacrifice of any aesthetic standards.
What I mean by that is that movie's critics opinions are extremely biased by a sense of elitism that is a manifestation of an inferiority complex and also influenced by trends in painting over the past few generations. It explains why film critics tend to praise movies like Malick's or Kiarostami's movies while they heavily criticize popular movies.
A film critic wants to feel like his life's dedication to movies makes his/her taste superior to the "casual" film watcher. To "prove" to others of his/her superiority of taste the film critic usually criticizes movies that the public likes (or reviews under very high standards popular blockbuster movies) while praises the types of movies that the public usually dislikes or underestimates. For example, personal movies are favored by film critic's opinions while epic movies, which tend to drawn in larger audiences, are regarded as inherently inferior: that's a reaction of the popular audience's perceptions.
This explains why among Western film critics (or even animators), Miyazaki's personal movies like Totoro and Spirited Away are more well regarded than epic movies like Nausicaa and Princess Mononoke (at least they always place higher in polls like Sign and Sound 2012). In Japan these perceptions do not exist, usually in polls (involving film critics, animation critics, animation fans and film fans) the ranking is 1st - Nausicaa, 2nd - Totoro, 3rd - Mononoke, 4th - Spirited Away. This bias against epic films is tremendously stupid and reflects a profound inferiority complex that overwhelms objective critical judgment.
Interestingly, movies that are mainstream in different times or cultures tend to become more well reviewed than movies that are mainstream in our current environment. For example, Hitchcock's movies were not regarded as art when they were made instead were regarded as popular entertainment just like Dragonball is today, after he left the popular spotlight, his movies acquired the status of great art of timeless significance. Same applies to Akira Kurosawa whose movies were popular entertainment in 1950's Japan but in Western countries today are "arthouse" masterpieces.
Another example is that while a Japanese director Mizoguchi whose most famous films are from the 1950's, which are simple films, are described as "pure and intense", while a modern mainstream guy like James Cameron, whose films, which are also simple, pure and intense, is called a simpleton's director. Maybe in 50 years, The Terminator will show up in the top 50 of a Chinese poll (which then will probably be the dominant cultural power in the world) like Ugetsu shows up in critics polls today.
This is more of a Western film critic thing as well. The opinions of critics from other cultural spheres and other mediums appears to be less biased against current mainstream stuff. For example, in Japan its common to see popular and simple mainstream manga rated very highly in polls involving professionals in the industry or critics. And in Iran, the highest rated films are not as philosophically pretentious as Kiarostami's, whose films do not register in the country's top movies lists.
Why directors like Kiarostami and Malick are so praised by film critics? Well, I believe that the most important factor in explaining why critics love them is to note that a randomly picked normal person will almost certainly hate and feel it's like torture to watch a movie from these guys. Therefore, critics "love" it because it shows how superior their taste is from "casual" film watchers. I know that feeling of "superiority" because I also feel good when people feel it's like torture to listen to my favorite metal albums. This feeling exists and its a powerful element in understanding the opinion of movie critics and "serious" fans.
Another factor is that movies that are explicitly philosophical in content, even if they are not good, like The Tree of Life, "prove" that film is a serious "artform". Since film critics need to show off that their art is "serious" because they just cannot accept film for what it is (which is escapism, 99% of the time), they feel the need to praise movies that prove that, even when they are not exceptionally good. Another reason is the lack of explicitly philosophical films so the few that are explicitly philosophical are praised to heavens for being novel. While novelty is important in art since consuming the same thing over and over will get boring, it's also overrated by many, because "new shite is still shite". Although new bad stuff has to be made so that hundreds of new things will eventually culminates in a new masterpiece.
One good example of the profound stupidity of film critics is their hatred for Gladiator (2000). Gladiator is one of the best blockbuster movies ever made and it's Hollywood at it's best, it's even perhaps the best original blockbuster movie (i.e. not adapted) made since. It's a movie based on visceral impact and is characterized by a deep emotional intensity created through a relatively simple plot and it's its simplicity its perfectly executed. Also, by recreating the ancient world in all it's glory (even if not historically accurate in some cases) it's a movie that allows viewers to "travel" to another world. Movie critics hate simple and intensely emotional narratives because they are insecure of their passion for film and for the same reason they hate well executed world building because it's "escapism", instead they look for "intellectual" movies that are "difficult" to watch. As a result, movie critics (and pretentious film buffs) eventually hated Gladiator precisely because of the factors that made it a great movie. Which is an example of the great stupidity of movie critics and which makes their profession really problematic as well.
Genuinely smart people, when they want to engage in intellectual stimulation, they become mathematicians or philosophers. Trying to find what you can find in a textbook of algebraic topology or in an academic journal of philosophy in a movie is stupid and reveals more about the person than about the movie: it shows that person wishes his/her hobby to be serious intellectual enterprise instead of accepting it for what it is. Movies are primarily an entertainment/artistic medium and not an intellectual medium and there is a profound difference between "artistic achievement" and intellectual or scientific achievement. This difference escapes the grasp of most movie critics and "serious" film buffs.
A difference that's often forgotten by movie critics. I like Roger Ebert's opinions because he transcended these limitations present in many film critic's minds and was more able to see greatness in popular stuff while criticizing "high art" movies. I remember agreeing with almost all of Ebert's opinions. That guy was really good in understanding movies even stuff like Japanese animation which most western critics are absolutely ignorant, his opinions were not that ignorant although he sometimes revealed ignorance when reviewing Spirited Away and being impressed by the level of detail on the backgrounds as if that wasn't standard in Japanese animation.
While there exists a difference between "art" and "entertainment" it's hard to poinpoint and it's not correct to say that "art" is superior to "entertainment". Many times people say that Kurosawa is art while Star Wars is entertainment when in fact both are similar: popular entertainment that happened to be art as well.
Finally, this reminded me of Kino's Journey, an animation that shows a town where all people are addicted to books and that literature critics are kept in a tower in isolation from society for their snob opinions to not perturb the enjoyment of books which is by itself a personal thing: it's the interaction between the individual and the artwork, since each individual is different then each individual will have a distinct experience and so there is no way for film critics to truly evaluate something and their arrogance makes it even more difficult for them to truly understand movies.