Kermode Uncut: Critical Condition

Ken Loach recently said that all movie critics should be sacked and replaced by 'ordinary punters'. I disagree and here's why...

[Maximillionaire]

If "ordinary punters" replaced film critics then people like Michael Bay and Adam Sandler would be getting rave reviews whilst more interesting movies might be sniffed at. Not saying all ordinary people are like that, but a good deal of them are. Sadly, a lot of the movie-going public has a bad taste in films. Check iMDB if you don't believe me.

[imyouandurme]

It's simple: Film critics usually have a more encyclopedic knowledge of film than Joe Blow does. Now, don't get me wrong, Joe might have a lot of movies under his belt; he might even have impeccable taste...but if you think about that, sounds like Joe's becoming...A FILM CRITIC! Average people don't remember a whole lot about the movies they watch. They have a casual attitude towards film, and typically have only watched movies made within their lifetime. A good film critic has studied silent films, or even educational films that no one would even bother to watch. Ordinary people "like" movies. But half the time, what "punters" think of as "cinema" is actually just a cavalier fireworks spectacle masquerading as cinema. Film critics know the difference between a great film and a fireworks show.

[dotstarss]

Ordinary punters are the reason we've got a Mrs Browns Boys movie on the way.

What do they know.

[burmabaines]

I think the main advantage of film critics, or any kind of critic, is consumers can end up picking one or two that they trust and shares roughly the same tastes.

[hanshotfirst]

Mark is just worried about his job. I was a wannabe film critic, and the market has been crippled by the internet. What Ken Loach is basically saying, however, is that I wants his target audience to be the only ones who see the films, ie he wants people who'll like the films to review them. Are critics getting more and more obsolete? I'm disturbingly starting to think so. Mark might be the last of a dying breed. It's scary how much the world is changing. Mark has to blow this horn, it's his livelihood and it's in danger of going down the drain. The New Yorker had a recent article about the death of film culture, and I think this ties in. The world is in flux. It's scary economically too. Anyway, hope the same fate doesn't befall the Good Doctor!

[Wilks]

Mark = "There are many great critics out there, Give them a break"
Michael Bay = "Mark I have many great films out there, Give them a break.!".
Mark = " HAhaahahaha"

[TeamBombersportsUK]

The video game critic Yahtzee Croshaw called it perfectly - if you pander to the punters and always ask what they want, they'll answer more of the same thing. So if we sack film critics and get punters in, they'll generally praise the same things and dislike the same things. Isn't contrast of opinion a good thing? Also critics are generally experts in their field, and I respect that. Mark is clearly a huge knowledge base of movie history, and although I don't agree with him on all his reviews (hey, I like Snatch!), I respect his knowledge and that if he disliked a film for a certain reason, it's generally valid. Critics fire the debate, and I think that's interesting and worth having them. And as others have said, the line between punter and critic is now generally blurring - there are guys on YT (like JeremyJahns for example) who probably started out as just guys who liked watching movies and wanted to review them and now have become critics in their own right. 

[jackchilli]

On the Bret Easton Ellis Podcast he and director James Gray discuss "critics out/punters in" subject. It's very interesting to see them agree with Mark

[handsomebrick]

I would definitely agree that a gap exists between the reasons for which films are created,  and the reasons for which they're criticized.  But film criticism is not merely a profession, it's a branch of film theory.  To complain that people are making a career of it, for which a of cinema is required,   is ludicrous.

[rosscameron]

One day Mark will sort the audio out in his videos and oh how I will rejoice...

[TopOfThePopsRedubbed]

"I disagree and here's why..." says the well-known film critic.

[GreenRupee]

As Mark has pointed out in his book 'The Good The Bad and the Multiplex', bad reviews aren't necessarily a problem. After all, people will go in their droves to see Transformers, POTC, and *sigh* Avatar Extended Edition. I've agreed and disagreed with Mark on my opinions on different films (note: Star Wars) and in the end I'll make a decision independent of a film critic. Critics, however, are there to be reliable informers of what the movie does and doesn't do well, and they have the knowledge to back it up. 

My point being, who wants to live in a world where Transformers 3 gets 100% on Rotten Tomatoes? Going by the box office, that's how it would play out.

[Paperbagman]

Critics are useful. That was a silly comment to make since most people I know (I suppose you'd call them 'ordinary punters') have never heard of Ken Loach or his movies. He should be grateful for being able to make movies when there's so many other almost-unknown filmmakers out there who can't get a break

[paintballing]

I didn't really agree with Kermode's second point. He's saying that when critics are giving good reviews of your films you shouldn't slag them off? I can see how that's fair. But, I would rather a filmmaker who sticks his opinions regardless whether he's being praised or not, rather than just whining whenever they don't like your work.

[helrod]

The only critics I don't like are all to popular now, , , the ones who haven't seen the movies they are reviewing.

[axemanjim]

Don't know about anyone else, but as someone who likes film but knows very little about it, I'd rather listen to an expert who can tell my exactly why a film is worth seeing or not than some random berk on Twitter whose rating of any given film goes up in direct proportion to the leading lady's cup size.

[TheFireflyGuy]

I don't think I could trust the average Joe (or Joanne) to critique a film effectively or fairly. Film critics have (or should have) plenty of experience when it comes to the film industry. Good critics can at least back up their opinions with explanations. For example they can say a film was bad overall because of a number of reasons and then maybe explain why they didn't like it personally. The average person would most likely just say that it was bad or good and then not back it up with anything real.

[BeKindRewinder]

Alternatively there are some truly awful critics out there! Not you of course Mark

[lukeellis]

Surely if an 'ordinary punter' became a film critic then they'd no longer be able to empthasise with working class people due to no longer being one of them?

[thedude]

I go to imdb to read my film reviews, on the whole more succinct, entertaining and accurate film reviews