Populist and Elitist Film Criticism

As a follow up to my previous post, here is an analysis of a rift between "elitist" and "populist" film criticism, embodied, respectively, by Armond White of the New York Press and Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times. Things got ugly recently when White claimed that Ebert destroyed film criticism while Ebert has labeled White an Internet troll. Writing for Moviefone, Jack Matthews describes the difference between them and how that difference shapes their response to films and each critic's relationship to the audience:

The critics may quibble over those labels, but for this discussion, an elitist is a critic who believes his primary responsibility is to educate readers so they may better understand the film medium while a populist, using his knowledge and tastes, sets out to explain his responses to films. One assumes the voice of authority, the other assumes the voice of a confidant.

White is a classic, unapologetic elitist and one of the few to ever work for a general interest or mainstream publication. For good reason: As White's editors are being constantly reminded, the inherent insult to readers' intelligence by White's approach is risky business. His haughty, theoretical approach is the stuff of academia and film journals.

On the other extreme, there couldn't be a greater symbol of populism than a thumb being aimed up or down in judgment. If all popular criticism followed that example, White would be right in saying that Ebert destroyed film criticism. A simple up or down vote on any subjective issue obliterates all nuance, which is the essence of criticism.

One one hand, White certainly has a point. The abundance of amateur and online film criticism has created a surplus of voices (and I'm aware of the irony of writing that on a blog). And although it is great to see all of this enthusiasm for discussing film, the quality of many of those voices is questionable - just look at any message thread on IMDb.

I have some things in common with White both in education (we both have MFA degrees) and in critical aim (to educate readers about film and make them better consumers). But at the same time, I think its important to temper our expectations as film goers, which is where populist perspectives come into play.

But populist perspectives have their own pitfalls. With so many viewer's cinematic knowledge extending only as far back as the previous summer, the public's critical perspective is very shallow. A solely populist approach would not allow for films that are challenging or different and encourage endless sequels and spin offs.

To use a recent example, The Sorcerer's Apprentice is not The Godfather, but it isn't trying to be either. If we eat at McDonalds we shouldn't be surprised when we get fast food and there is no point in complaining that the dish is not gourmet cooking. But, to continue with the analogy, if all we eat is fast food then we might not be able to tell the difference. In reviewing a film like The Sorcerer's Apprentice, the critic ought to identify the film for what it is and evaluate it on its own terms but at the same time maintain a broad enough critical perspective to distinguish between disposable entertainment and cinematic art.