In the words of Manuela Lazic ‘'It isn't news that many people perceive critics as pessimistic writers and frustrated artists who never like anything'' but after countless trolling online Uwe Boll decided ‘'jealous wannabe filmmakers'' was a more fitting description.
After an online petition was set up in 2008 calling for Uwe Boll to cease making movies, the filmmaker, frustrated at what he believed to be unjust responses to his work, challenged those brave enough to ‘rounds in the ring' and his offer, surprisingly, was taken up on. After not realising how seriously the director took the event, with some thinking it was just merely a PR stunt, one unprepared online critic would need aid from an oxygen mask and paramedic after being hit by the German filmmaker. Boll claimed victory beating all five of his components however much to his critic's relief he would quit making movies in 2015.
Whilst Boll's movie admittedly have repeatedly entered lists of worst films to exist, the humiliation and trolling from people who hide behind their screens and undercover usernames is not something any artist should have to deal with. But as you've probably already considered, whilst maybe his movies really could be that bad, were these people really critics educated in the history of cinema? It doesn't seem so.
Exceptional film critics have an ability to spot nuances in all elements of production that the ordinary person would simply miss. For example, the references to The Wizard of Oz in Greta Gerwigs Barbie or the etchings of R2-D2 on the hieroglyphic walls on Indiana Jones, educated critics do more than just simply watch and enjoy a film, they acknowledge the brilliance and hard work of the cast and crew and add appreciation and enjoyment for the viewers. But they have equally been known to get it wrong and have unfairly given bad press to movies that didn't deserve such a stain. At the time of its release, Brian De Palma's Scarface received incredibly poor reviews but as we now know, it has since become a cult classic and a must see. It begs the questions, is the role of the film critic still valued by artists and their audience today, or would we now rather hear from everyday people?
With the rise of the influencer, the presence of the film critic at film premiers have been depleting in numbers, because whilst a journalist has the license to express a negative opinion, an online content creator doesn't quite so. This side effect of the positivity movement is quite a disastrous thing for the landscape of film media. As Nick Bugeja points out: “Film critics possess a great wealth of knowledge of the cinematic medium and of its colourful and plentiful histories'' they are “exposed to many of the great films of both past and present'' and so surely their opinion is of value to us, more so of that of an influencer? Further to this, many of history's great filmmakers, of the likes of the French Jean-Luc Godard and Agnes Varda each earnt a living as critics before they got the funding to produce their own work. So in this sense if we don't allow contemporary film critics that same playing field of their predecessors, then we could potentially be limiting the number of ground-breaking directors of the future.
It does however seem we are more inclined to read the comments from Ayo Edebiri and her famous Letterboxd reviews than we are to spend ten minutes reading the journalism of a post graduate qualified film fanatic. This is not to say one is more entertaining or worthy of our attention. Each valuable we must ensure there is space for both to exist.
