Opinions that actually matter: Why we need professional entertainment critics

Do we even need the critic?

This is perhaps a bit inappropriately termed, considering the wealth of information critics have given us in the past. Anyone doubting this needs only turn to the incredibly influential essay by T.S. Eliot titled “Hamlet and His Flaws.” Eliot might very well have ushered in the era of new criticism — criticism that examines the text for deeper interpretation rather than reading it for its face value.

Before Eliot, Hamlet was read in class and students were made to dress out in pantaloons and doublets. We now use snotty terms like “objective correlative” in our essays to show how Hamlet’s central drama is unearned and premature. 

Frankly, no one besides English majors gives much of a damn about Hamlet or early 20th century critics. What we need instead of the question of if we need the critic is much rather why we still need him and will continue to need him into the future.

Film, more than any other genre, has the greatest wealth of criticism to date. Sites such as Rotten Tomatoes have given every viewer an opportunity to show his or her opinion and publish it under the auspices that other people really care about it.

Contrary to the maxim that everybody’s a critic, what Rotten Tomatoes gives us is commonwealth opinion — percent thumbs up versus thumbs down ratings — which is all anyone really looks at. When’s the last time you’ve scrolled through what someone’s actually written about the film? Everybody has the opportunity to be a critic, but really everybody’s just a part of that percentage.

I have no qualms with people wanting to pretend that their opinion really matters. I can empathize. Hell, all I do is publish myself and fantasize that other people are really reading me. However, the amateur critic needs to realize that the validity of his argument is mostly kaput because he simply doesn’t know what to look for. This is where the big dogs like Anthony Lane or Roger Ebert come into play.

What they, particularly Lane, have that the amateur doesn’t is not just an irascible opinion and scathing wit but an ability to see the emotional intent of the film and whether the film and actors are actively working toward it.

This sounds needlessly complicated so I’ll break it down using the recent film “Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters:” Hollywood slop that tries too hard to earn its R rating and casts some big-name actors for box office appeal. There’s not too much to this film. Your amateur critic could disagree. He could say that the gore and one awkward scene of nudity lends the film some handy shock value and that the film on the whole is rather witty.

Your professional critic could agree that it is the shock the film is hoping for but could also argue that the shock is cheap, and the film’s wit is based on clichéd one-liners and stereotypes. While the amateur would enjoy the headstrong bravado of lead actor Jeremy Renner, the professional would tell you why Renner’s performance is annoying, self-satisfied and disengaging — not as enjoyable as other headstrong bravado-based acting as can be found in films such as the “Die Hard” series.

The critic would find meaning and purpose to what the amateur is content to call ‘entertaining’ without really knowing why. Your professional critic really does know why because he or she cares about entertainment and knows what it looks like when it’s done right. Call his or her criticism mean-spirited and worthless if you must, but trust in what they argue. Whether you choose to agree is up to you. Everyone’s entitled to his or her own opinion.