The following article is the first installment in a four-part series on the changing relationship between film critics and the industry at large. Look for the second installment in the Sept. 6 issue.
Pauline Kael said to Richard Schickel during one meeting of the New York Society of Film Critics, "Remember how it was in the '60s and '70s when movies were hot, when we were hot? Movies seemed to matter." Kael, a highly influential film critic writing for The New Yorker, was lamenting a time when film criticism's only duty was to spread the knowledge of film and to encourage its discussion. But that time has since passed. A little more than a decade after Kael reminisced with Schickel, Village Voice senior film critic J. Hoberman considered where the modern film critic fits into the increasing commercial film industry of the future. "Because virtually all reviewers are compelled (as journalists) to write about films before most people have a chance to see them - thumbs up or down like parody Roman emperors - they are only one more part of a vast machine devoted to inculcating the mass urge-to-see," Hoberman wrote in an essay titled "The Film Critic of Tomorrow, Today." The film industry has effectively hijacked its critics, repackaging their articles - thoughtful musings on cinema or not - into sweet little blurbs that sell movie tickets. This practice doesn't exactly foster good relations between film critics and film industry. But leaving the success of a movie up to whether critics praise or pan it involves more risk taking than any production company is willing to accept. Therefore, the film industry decided within the past few years to refrain from pre-screening certain films under several pretenses. Either the film isn't quite finished, or its twist ending can't inadvertently be revealed. The biggest industry excuse, however, is the one that irks journalists most: critics have lost touch with audiences. The critics claim this isn't the case at all. The real reason, they say, for not prescreening a film is simply that it's terrible. Somewhat understandable then is why the industry would hide those films from critics. It expects critics to spew an onslaught of inflammatory language in response to Charlize Theron sci-fi flicks and Usher-meets-mobster movies. So the film industry skips all the headaches and doesn't prescreen them. This decision raises an interesting question: if the movie industry won't prescreen specific films, should the critics give those films any publicity? Five major publications - The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, Rolling Stone and The Chicago Sun-Times - have all reacted differently to films that weren't prescreened for critics. Some went so far as to cover every film this article examines (whether it was prescreened or not), while others ignored those films completely. Siding with the spirit of fastidious coverage, The New York Times reviewed all five films examined, which included "The Fog," "In The Mix," "Aeon Flux," "The Da Vinci Code" and "Snakes on a Plane." The paper's reaction to the first two films released without a pre-screening was tepid but confrontational in a sly and underhanded sort of way. The first indication of this is that the paper didn't send either of its top critics, A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis, to cover the films. Instead, it sent Anita Gates, an unknown and presumably lesser critic on the Times' staff. The second indication is Gates' writing, which evidences an extreme lack of concern. Take, for instance, her lead. It reads, "The new remake of 'The Fog' is mildly scary here and there. It does not play by all the horror movie rules (e.g., the black guy always dies first). And the cast is good looking." She loosens up a bit when writing about "In The Mix" but eventually lapses into the apathy that characterized her "Fog" review. She concludes that review by writing, "A dog named Rufus has a nice scene, and a precocious little girl (Isis Faust) is charming in the way of precocious little girls." But who can blame Gates for her apathy? She's not a lazy writer. She simply understands, just as the Times does, that her criticism won't be changing anyone's mind. Those who want to see the movie have already decided on it, thanks to the movie industry and its excessive advertising. Most film critics ignored the industry's decision to withhold certain press screenings. Only the Times, along with a Boston Globe review of "The Fog," covered the first two films examined in this article. If the film industry won't give us our prescreenings, the critics' silence appeared to be communicating, then we won't give it the publicity. But how effective was that silence? Audiences still saw the movie trailers. Word was still getting out. Were film critics necessary to this process, especially if they failed to mention that certain films, particularly the ones getting poor reviews, didn't get prescreened for the press? No space in either "The Fog" and "In The Mix" reviews published by The New York Times or "The Fog" review published in The Boston Globe made reference to the fact that prescreenings were not available. The only information that suggested their unavailability were the reviews' publications' dates. All three ran in Saturday issues.
Look for part II of "Film Critics and Film Industry" in next Thursday's The Eagle and read about how film critics began reacting to the film industry after one too many screening snubs.
