"Traditional," "evolving," "models," and "criticism" are all words that might have turned most people off already, but bear with us here: today's 2.5-hour (longer than most movies!) panel discussion on the nature of film criticism at the Coolidge Corner Theater was actually at least as enlightening as annoying, if not more so. Moderators Cynthia Lucia and Richard Porton led panelists Phillip Lopate, Scott Foundas, Glenn Kenny, David Sterritt, Owen Gleiberman, and Ty Burr in discussing the development of criticism over the years and the specific challenges facing critics today. From dissing Bonnie and Clyde to dissing The Pirates of the Caribbean, the panelists certainly had the "criticism" part covered, but they also revealed what they love about films and what keeps them going to the theater despite a decline in the overall quality of film.

The panel began with a clip of Bonnie and Clyde and commentary on the film's role as the catalyst for a paradigm shift from creating movies with three distinct acts to making films in a more open--and possibly more difficult to interpret--form. Bosley Crowther's scathing review of Bonnie and Clyde, which derides the movie as slapstick camp, was contrasted with Pauline Kael's review, which praises the film as "contemporary in feeling" enough to enable the audience to feel "alive" in response to it. The 1960s saw a rise in edgy filmmaking and was one of the first decades in which commercial films began to take serious risks. It was also the decade that gave rise to film studies as an academic discipline, allowing critics and students alike to study films more in depth and take them more seriously as art rather than entertainment.

The distinctions between Crowther's curmudgeonly-seeming reaction and Kael's excitement at the initial, visceral response to a film were used to segue into a discussion of film critics' differences from the audience--that is, critics are responsible for presenting their own (well-explained, well-founded, and well-reasoned) opinion on a film, not for speculating on how an audience might enjoy it. To do the latter would be especially difficult for critics considering that they usually screen films in private and therefore don't have access to a more general audience reaction. Some critics mentioned that blogs and the internet have been successful in creating greater community and interaction between critics and audiences, though it's still true that the critic is ultimately responsible for writing his or her own point of view, not anyone else's.

The panel debated Kael's inconsistent dismissal of "film art" and preference for the instinctual over the artistic, wondering which ultimately should take precedence. Ultimately, the panel found that the irony of indefensible acts committed by likable characters drove the appeal of Bonnie and Clyde.

After the discussion of the shift in movie-making priorities, a clip from Eyes Wide Shut was shown, and the panel talked about the nature of "auteur" directors and critics being too critical or too understanding of their failures. Panelists discussed the idiosyncratic response to the film and the seeming lack of interest in it being meaningful as a work of art rather than a Kubrick project.

The panel then opened it up to questions, of which there were many--some better formulated than others (asking for audience participation is always a crapshoot). The first question concerned the nature of the standards that the different critics use when evaluating the success of a movie, and gave rise to several stimulating answers.

Phillip Lopate likes films to show "wisdom, sublimity, and compassion," and prefers them to demonstrate "visual rigor" in focusing on one aesthetic style. Glenn Kenny feels that properly written reviews and criticism should allow readers to infer the standards of judgment the critic is using, and suggests that those standards can vary by film, depending on what a particular movie is trying to be. Owen Gleiberman confessed to being an aesthetic conservative who prioritizes narrative in films, and Ty Burr pointed out the importance of being aware of one's own "blind spots" as a critic (such as being predisposed to prefer narrative films). Finally, David Sterritt proposed that every movie is a "way of thinking" about the world, and he prefers movies that open up his thinking. Because he remains open to change in this way, his standards are constantly evolving. All critics on the panel emphasized the subjectivity of criticism, expressing the necessity of knowing one's own standards for a critically successful film but avoiding the suggestion that there should be "standard" standards throughout the industry.

Other questions concerned critics' tactics for dealing with time constraints. Burr suggested sleeping on a movie, noting that he much prefers to have time to digest a film to having to review a film immediately after viewing it. Lopate suggested two stages in crafting criticism: first, noting one's gut instincts and feelings about the film, then decoding those responses to form an opinion on the movie. The panel generally concurred that more time is better. Dave Kehr's On DVD column and Gary Giddins' coverage of DVD releases were mentioned as examples of excellent criticism responding to films that are not necessarily "of the moment." And though "end of year" best lists are sometimes thought of as hokey and meaningless marketing ploys, one panelist supported them as an opportunity to watch films again and re-consider his response to them. All panelists concurred that they had changed their opinions drastically about certain movies over time, indicating that there's never necessarily a "right" or "wrong" perspective on a movie--just a subjective perspective, convincingly argued. Additionally, because cultural context changes, so too do opinions of movies change over time, reinforcing the concept that no one interpretation is necessarily correct.

In response to a question about the unnecessary dismissal of mainstream films, Gleiberman criticized our "blockbuster culture" for creating among critics a tendency to rally around specific non-blockbuster movies, regardless of their quality. While certainly most independent movies are to be lauded for their independent spirit, the mere condition of being independent does not a successful film make, and Gleiberman emphasized focusing on quality regardless of the film's studio or origin. He described "blockbuster oppression" as creating predictability among critics, who all rush to laud the same independent films perhaps without fully analyzing or interpreting them before lending their support. The immediacy of information-sharing on the internet also allows critics to learn other critics' perspectives before posting their own, perhaps increasing the tendency of critics to agree, particularly with regard to smaller movies that they want to champion or somehow "protect" against big blockbusters. The concept of competency vs. risk was brought up--just because a movie takes risks and approaches filmmaking from an independent perspectives doesn't mean it will be successful.

Though Gleiberman's desire for more independent thought among critics is certainly valid, David Sterrit pointed out that "the man kinda needs to be fought." Still, it seemed to the panel that the best way to fight the man is through fiercely independent critical opinion, not false alignment in support of mediocre movies.

Glenn Kenny mentioned the social component of movies, describing blockbusters like Spiderman or the Pirates of the Caribbean films as "the thing to do." Scott Foundas concurred that there are some "critic proof" films that people will go to see regardless of critical reviews or even their own appreciation of them--these big movies have become events meant to entertain, not art meant to be meaningful. The panelists lamented that some major movies seem designed for "channel surfing" and enabling moviegoers to leave and get popcorn without missing anything. There's no need for character or plot development, just action--and as a result, there's no empathy or viewer involvement. Viewers become as passive as the characters, engaged in activities that make no sense but are merely meant as temporary distractions from the real world. Trailers these days reveal the entire plot in 30 seconds, freeing audiences to enjoy action scenes without worrying about following a story that they already know.

A final question asked the panelists whether the audience is to blame for the declining quality of films. The consensus seemed to be that it's sort of a chicken and egg problem, with the collapse of mid-budget films partially resulting from declining audience attendance. There also seems to be some media responsibility, with some of the panelists citing the practice of deeming certain movies "too cerebral" or "too difficult" as if movies originated as mindless entertainment instead of devolving into their current state.

Overall, this panel on film criticism was a fascinating experience that will certainly change the way we think about films--at least until the next mind-numbing blockbuster we see. We congratulate the Coolidge for putting on such a cool event, and hope there will be additional symposiums on film-related topics in the future.

Movie images from Wikipedia.