By Sasha Glim
New media platforms such as TikTok and Twitch have made film criticism more accessible and democratic than in previous eras, but that has sacrificed expertise and quality, a UC Santa Barbara audience heard last week.
Tyler Morgenstern, assistant director of the Carsey-Wolf Center, told a round table discussion that the new reviewer is more reactive than contemplative.
“The strategy there is leaving the movie theater and having an immediate reaction that’s positive. It’s not an after-the-fact evaluative, it’s in the moment,” Morgenstern said. “That’s the currency of platform spaces as opposed to blogs or a magazine. It’s reactionary. It’s inflammatory. That’s what travels the best in those particular environments.”
The event, called “Criticism Now: Film Writing For a Culture,” focused on film criticism as a profession, and the cultural impact of film writing in the media today. It was co-sponsored by the Department of Film and Media Studies.
Film reviewers can create content on live streaming platforms and social media that goes beyond traditional film analysis, said University of Southern California media and culture scholar Karen Tongson, .
“The critic can inhabit a range of different roles, not just in assessing value, or propagating a certain set of values, or convincing to see or not see [a film],” Tongson said. “They can have an impact on a culture in other ways.”
Not everyone identifies as a critic, said Tongson. Those who have an interest in film and want to share their opinions don’t often take the moniker.
Katie Walsh, a film critic, podcast host, and lecturer based in Los Angeles, said that film writing and reviews can influence how well a film does in the box office and that informs who wins awards. Corporate interest in financial gain drives film criticism, she said. “Criticism matters [to producers] because they care about this metric.”
University of Pennsylvania emeritus professor Timothy Corrigan said practicing film criticism in the classroom can sharpen the way a viewer perceives film. “Being able to write about film, which is always a thinking process, makes you look at and see films better,” he said, noting its benefit to film students.
Panelists at “Criticism Now,” a round table event last week, hosted by UCSB’s Carsey-Wolf Center and Department of Film and Media Studies. From left to right: Karen Tongson, Kim Masters, Timothy Corrigan, and Katie Walsh.
The panel agreed the streaming model has changed the landscape of film reviews and criticism— not always for the best.
“I have a sort of hostility to the tech bro invasion of Hollywood,” said Kim Masters, editor-at- large at The Hollywood Reporter. Streaming services like Amazon and Netflix, believe that they know better than the traditions in Hollywood because they have access to so much data, Masters said.
She also brought up the recent writers’ strike in relation to streaming services. These companies are able to collect metrics that tell them how many people are watching a film, explained Masters. But they refuse to share it, so the writers are unable to argue for a fair wage. “They’ll do anything to hide it, and because they’re so secretive,” said Masters. “How predictive even is their data?”
Panelists said the very definition of film criticism has been changed by which platforms reviews now live on in the modern world.
TikTok creators believe that the ‘film critic’ title conveys snobbery, said Walsh, because it has to do with tearing something down.
Still, in an ever-evolving field, the panelists encouraged writers to continue commenting on and critiquing films. “Some people would not be writing criticism today, or would have even had pathways to becoming critics were it not for [the media],” Tongson said.
Sasha Glim is a fourth year English major and Professional Writing Minor at UC Santa Barbara. She is a Web and Social Media intern with the Division of Humanities and Fine Arts.