THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE MULTIPLEX. WHAT’S WRONG WITH MODERN MOVIES by Mark Kermode (Random House Books, 2011)
Spare a thought for lonely film critics in the age of streaming. They are an increasingly marginalized and, some would say, dying breed.
It’s not as if we really need them anymore. Often they just ruin our entertainment by over detailed reviews of popular movies. Either that or they wind up smugly enthusing about some obscure art house ‘classic’ that only they and a few of their buddies have seen.
Mark Kermode is one of the smartest and self-aware of this endangered species so is well placed to argue for their preservation.
With tongue firmly in cheek, he writes provocatively: “As a film critic, an important part of my job is explaining to people why they haven’t actually enjoyed a movie even if they think they have”.
Kermode accepts that the “rampant subjectivity” of critics like him doesn’t make their views any more reliable than some anonymous blogger or a bloke down the pub. Nevertheless, his intention here is not to write himself out of a job.
In the name of grabbing out attention, he revels in taking a contrary position. This includes slagging off blockbusters like Titanic or Avatar, naming Barton Fink as The Coen Brothers’ finest work and revealing that he regards ‘The Exorcist’ and the best film ever made. He recounts that was once accused by Werner Herzog of being “intellectually warped” and took this as a compliment.
The opening chapter of this book is a big of a slog. It’s a forced, overlong and largely unfunny anecdote to illustrate how and why multiplexes are hellish places. Fortunately, after that, things improve as he makes a strong case to why our “diminished expectations” have reduced the quality and range of modern-day movies. When he tones down the ranting, didactic tone he has plenty of intelligent things to say about the state of cinema in the 21st century.
He argues persuasively that 3D is not about responding to customer demand but simply a big marketing con to get bums on seats with the spurious promise of making the cinema experience special. He also bemoans the trend for remakes of ‘foreign’ (i.e. non English) films that almost always end up being inferior to the original while managing to avoid sounding elitist about the merits of subtitled ‘classics’.
Best of all is the chapter asking the million dollar question ‘What are film critics for?’ Here he gives five key ingredients that make for a succesful critic; these are:
1. Stating an objectively honest (non elitist)opinion.
2. Describing what the movie is about (without adding spoilers).
3. Placing the film in context; i.e, in relation to others in the same genre or on a similar themes.
4. Analysing why a movie works or why it doesn’t.
5. Making the review entertaining.
By the end, I found I agreed with most of his key arguments and appreciated the self deprecating tone and witty voice. It establishes that critics like him may be people we love to hate but they still have a role.
