In Defense of Critics
Before you spend $14 on a movie ticket, wouldn’t it be kind of nice to know that only 7 percent of people liked it? But art isn’t a popularity contest. So is it a critic’s job to tell you what you’re going to like, or to tell you what’s great? And what does “great” even mean?
A.O. Scott wrestles with those questions in a new book, "Better Living Through Criticism." He’s one of two chief movie critics at "The New York Times." His reviews are often witty, always thoughtful and open-minded.
Kurt Andersen: In the book you write about a Twitter spat you had with Samuel L. Jackson who did not like the review you wrote about the first “Avengers,” which he was in. He basically says both, "Hey, ease up, it's just a popcorn movie!" and "Hey, it's a great movie!" Is that typical?
A.O. Scott: I think that is typical. I mean, I don't hear a lot from movie stars. What I found useful about it was, it did summarize a general hostility to criticism: you're either overthinking things that are just for fun, or you're dragging down things that are perfect unto themselves. And either way, you're just not getting it.
As you write in the book, good taste requires interrogating yourself about why you don't like something.
Why you don't is sometimes more important or more informative than why you do. Why do you resist certain things? Whether it's a snobbish dismissal of popular culture — I think that is over, and it's been replaced by what I think of as pseudo-populist counter-snobbism, which is automatically dismissive of anything that is too difficult.
There are the critics I read and agree with. And then there are the ones who I mostly agree with, but sometimes where I say, “Maybe I'm not going to see that movie, because it's the kind of movie he loves and I don't.” Then there are those with whom I disagree so consistently it's a perfectly reliable guide.
And I think those are sometimes more reliable, the antithetical ones. Also, I find that there are critics whose taste I disagree with who I nonetheless find interesting to read, because I think they're smart people and their perspective on the world is fascinating to me.
What can movies do that television can't?
They can do two opposing things. They can go very large, to a kind of spectacle. But also, they can go smaller and quieter and more intimate. I feel like television still lives in the medium shot. And it's still verbally driven. Even though television has become more visually interesting, it is still a writer's medium. What I find is, I can be sitting in the next room from my family watching TV and I can feel like I haven't missed anything. Cinema is where I can watch it without the sound and still feel like I know what's happening. There's a sense of focused attention and therefore of intimacy and quiet that works in film and not on television.
