Critique of Criticism

Before I begin, I should state what my purpose is here. I am studying classic film theory to see if and how relevant it can be to a practicing independent filmmaker today and in the future. My judgments are not qualitative, but are based on this perspective. I have thus far, and will continue to key on very specific parts of Auteur Theory that can be useful within this context. Here, however, I will detail why I reject other aspects of criticism in general, as they pertain to the criteria I have laid out.

I have observed the large role played by the critic in critical studies. Of course this should be obvious, but the critic commands too large a role and can directly cancel out some parts of his or her framework. The hierarchy of importance in most studies appears to be:

1. Critic, who imposes meaning on films after the fact
2. Director, whose work has no meaning without the critic revealing to the masses, even if the director himself had an explicit purpose
3. Audience, who must rely on the critic to filter and value movies

I should note that two and three above might be switched, depending on the school of thought, if required by the theory.

The role of critic as filter is certainly important, as are all filters. However, because we are concerned with the filmmaker’s perspective, unless a producer is specifically targeting the loyal following audience of one particular critic, which in most cases would not be productive, focusing on a critic’s perspective would be harmful noise in the creative process.

Critics also tend to completely ignore context and conditions. The usefulness of this practice is important; if a critic's work can be marginalized tomorrow by changing conditions, then what inherent value does that work possess? In many cases, the results of film study must be beyond context in order to have any longevity or legacy. However, this will eventually limit the effectiveness or credibility of the work. For example, the outlook of some British theorists on authorship resembled that of the Cahier critics. However, because both devalued context, they had very different opinions on Hollywood. The French New Wave critics, who were completely deprived of American films, romanticized Hollywood once access was restored. Their British counterparts, who felt over run by American cinema, completely rejected it. This rejection of context is of little use to a filmmaker. If I make a film that could be a critical success 5 years after I make it, and perhaps achieve a real following even later, it is likely that that work will never be of much value to me. In order to see any return at all I am likely to take a very unfavorable deal, lose all rights completely or, the work itself could become orphaned, lost to the world completely. If instead I am able to apply the knowledge of the critic to my present or likely future conditions, there is a greater chance for me to be able to profit from that knowledge.

It seems that criticism, in general, is not self-aware enough to be useful for filmmakers. By ignoring the privileged place of the critic, and the present conditions within which the observations are made, criticism is quickly devalued. If instead we can apply this observation and theory to the context of any time or place, we then have a framework that can be helpful for the production of new artistic works.