Amongst the plethora of film critics writing in print and online, mainstream status is granted to a select few. The names of these select few are seen in countless movie trailers and on movie posters, validating their status as esteemed critics, worthy of being singled out. These critics have gone beyond their roles as film critics to assume their status as celebrities. Visible in the public eye, these critics are considered integral to the ‘success’ of a film – understanding success here to be the appreciation and value ascribed to a film by mass audiences. This ascription through the critic is now perpetuated by online barometers such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, but the singular celebrity critic retains their niche of being capable and qualified to pass judgment on films.
The implications of their celebrity status have not been broached, but in their rise in the public eye and ability to retain the markers of celebrity, they have shaped the role of the film critic and the means of imposing standards of taste. These standards of taste pose a problem, as the prominent critic is not necessarily the strongest critic, which is to say that the problem of the prominent critic is founded in their ability to at once be heard, whilst also be abbreviated and delimited in their tangible insight. This is evident in the images of esteemed film critics such as Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, A.O Scott of the New York Times, and the trio that emerged out of Chicago: Richard Roeper and Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times, and Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune.
Whilst retaining individual voices and tastes, their public presence poses problems. For example, in seeing the byline “Peter Travers – Rolling Stone” appear in multiple movie trailers, lauding the promoted film, there arises the possibility of accepting the merits of the critic and pairing it with the merits of the film. This is to say that whilst Travers and others of his ilk bring notable criticism to films, their abbreviated quotes only limit criticism. The shortened quotations seen in trailers, such as “Compelling” and “Revolutionary”, are a necessary evil in the rapid world of film promotion. However, the fame of the critic in this context is accompanied by a limited critique of the actual film.
In terms of the ‘fame’ of the film critic, Roger Ebert stands apart. Prolific and iconic, Ebert wrote over a dozen books, hosted several television series’, and appeared on countless talk shows, including repeated spots on Late Show with David Letterman, Late Night with Conan O’Brien, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Oprah, and Charlie Rose. On June 23, 2005, Ebert also became the first film critic to receive a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Recently, he was the subject of Steve James’ documentary Life Itself, based on Ebert’s autobiography of the same name. Chronicling his career and his role in shining a light on films and filmmakers through various avenues, it also intimately explores his prolonged battle with thyroid cancer. Diagnosed in 2002, he passed away to the disease on April 4, 2013.
Professor Charlie Keil, Director of U of T’s Cinema Studies Institute, specifies the primary source of Roger Ebert’s increased fame. “If you were to ask people to name a film critic, he’d be the one most likely to be named,” he says on the University website. “But that is also because of the platform he enjoyed for many years on television. That syndicated program helped to launch him to another level of fame as a critic.”
Liam Lacey of The Globe and Mail further argues that the spotlight on Roger Ebert after his death is just that – a reminder of his notable presence in the film criticism landscape. In his review of Life Itself, Lacey intimates that film writers would agree on the actual merit of Ebert’s contribution to film criticism, as he writes: “Ebert had a lot of experience and energy but was not an exceptionally insightful critic.” In an interview with Archive of American Television, Ebert intimated that “film criticism is important because films are important”. Notably, however, Ebert’s criticism is almost always accessible. Accessibility limits specificity, and the success of his television career stems from his ability to convey simple ideas. This could extend Lacey’s assertion about the lack of Ebert’s tangible merits as an intellectual. However, despite any perceived shortcomings regarding his ability to be nuanced and incisive, Ebert’s celebrity is unrelenting even after his death. Ebert, along with professional partner and rival Gene Siskel, originated “two thumbs up”, which is now the go-to marker of value-judgments. Recently, Josh Gad of Frozen and Pixels fame was cast as Ebert in the Michael Winterbottom’s upcoming biopic Russ and Roger. The reaches of Ebert’s fame keep extending, and will do so long into the future.
Beyond the notions of celebrity and criticism, the inherent merits of a film are indicated and perpetuated by time – impartial and unbiased, time tells the truth of film and has an authority not granted to critics. Cameron Bailey, former NOW Magazine critic and current Artistic Director of the Toronto International Film Festival, voiced his concerns regarding the place of critics in the public consciousness. “My sense is that there’s been a decline in the authority of critics,” he told the Toronto Star. “Not just critics by profession, but also by critical authority, experts that include film programmers and festival directors, telling you that this is good or this is not good and I know because I’m an expert.” This authority went hand in hand with mainstream critics, but their authority is continually displaced through time, which is ultimately the strongest indication of a film’s merits.
Despite the emphasis placed on the value of the film critic by critics themselves, the influence of time impacts their ability to adequately subscribe value to a particular film. Infamously, films such as Jean Renoir’s The Rules of the Game and Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho were panned by critics upon their release, but are now widely considered masterpieces. In this sense, the measures of merit are never fixed, but instead in flux. Whilst I don’t mean to limit the role of the critic in light of examples such as these, it does indicate an ability of film itself to move unbound through history and gain appreciation and validation of its own accord. Whilst the critics’ role is to voice their opinion, those opinions are continually undermined through and by time.
In light of these considerations, the definers of taste and makers of classics are not mainstream critics, but time. The celebrity film critic, whilst retaining their ‘value’ in a cultural space where more and more voices are emerging, are further limited by their celebrity and, by necessity, their accessibility.