
In the world of writing — not unlike that of sports or other businesses — those who can, do, and those that can’t, become film reviewers who take perverse pleasure in tearing down the efforts of those willing to put their names, talent, and oftentimes, hard-earned money, on the line to create movies crafted to elicit any number of emotions out of the viewing public. How easy it is to never step into that arena and take potshots at those who do.
From a Huffington Post piece by Douglas MacKinnon, titled Paul Blart: Mall Cop. More Real Than Reviewers
There are a number of really amazing things about this story:
1. That MacKinnon, who calls out Nathan Lee and Brian Lowry by name, would suggest that it’s an “easy” career path to writing film criticism for Variety or the New York Times;
2. That MacKinnon more than once slams “non-stop negative media narrative about the economy,” and implies that journalists should ease up on reporting all the bad news, and focus on the bright side. You know, like they should have focused on all the good news coming out of Iraq, instead of, like, Abu Ghraib.
3. That MacKinnon is so intent on diverting our attention away from the state of the world that he posits patronizing Mall Cop as not only a recommended “couple of hours of needed escape from the pervasive doom and gloom spread by most of the media” but also a stick in the eye of “elitist reviewers writing for a minute collection of fellow elitists.” There’s a vast media conspiracy that wants you to think! But Kevin James just wants you to laugh!
4. That in showing such distaste not just for film criticism, not just for journalism, but for the wider practice of thinking, MacKinnon manages to make virtually everythng published on Breitbart’s new bastion for conservative film chat Big Hollywood seem positively intellectual and urbane. Nice work, Huff Post!
And one could add…
5) That MacKinnon is implying that the main role of film critics is one of standing in the way of films and Simon Cowell-ing them, rather than (as I and most others maintain) one of interpreting films for an audience slightly less aware (on average) of the medium’s history and conventions, and providing that audience with the information they want to decide whether or not to see a movie.
He almost seems to suggest that critics leap out and mock unwitting theatre patrons, as if reading film reviews were a mandatory exercise, and as if critical response had any discernable impact on the box office for most films…which sort of neatly undermines his argument. If a movie like Blart tops the box office despite widespread derision, wouldn’t that say that newspaper critics are irrelevant in business terms and serve a different purpose? And, if so, doesn’t that make articles criticizing critics over their disdain for certain broad films even MORE irrelevant?
What’s really hilarious about MacKinnon’s genuinely demented rant—if you haven’t read it, you really should, the guy’s fucking nuts—is that it’s in the impassioned defense of a dumbass comedy that knows it’s a dumbass comedy. Usually the “all you critics suck” horse is mounted for the cause of more putatively heart-tugging and/or high-minded fare. I honestly don’t think Kevin James EXPECTED any good reviews for this…
My favorite part: As for that non-stop media narrative that the economic sky is falling, a top investment banker I know in London tells me that the media negativity is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. What does that even mean?! That’s like saying “Yuh-huh, it’s true! My dad told me!”
While I admit to seeing some validity to MacKinnon’s rant, he shoots himself in the foot with his, “…What would our nation — or the world for that matter — do without those who are convinced they are smarter, more refined, more well-read, and more entitled than the rest of us? If these people did not exist, would The New York Times, Variety and other outlets simply implode? Would we really be the worse for their absence?” Yes, yes, we would be much worse off, and if, by MacKinnon’s standards there are different movies for different people, shouldn’t we, even if we call these folk critics elitists, herald that diversity as well by that same standard?
Moreover, doesn’t MacKinnon paint himself as more than a bit arrogant and fluffed with his laundry list of writing accomplishments? Isn’t more palatable to spend time in a room with an elitist than with a low-tier megalomaniac? Like all the rest of you here, I pretty much think MacKinnon is a knucklehead. Bah!