By Keegan Tran
Am I dumb? Do I just not get it? You're telling me a movie shot nearly 40% at night with no lighting who's subtitles read "grunting" for a vast amount of its runtime is being lauded by many film critics as one of the best films of 2020?
In the same way we're allowed to give in to our innate urges and blindly enjoy superhero films, considered to be "low-brow" filmmaking; so to are we to renounce unenjoyable, pretentious drivel. Often times I describe the films produced under the A24 banner as "peculiar caucasian characters played by big name actors acting peculiarly", a sentiment encapsulated by First Cow almost to a T (sans a Chinese lead).
There's certainly fun to be had with our two leads, but it hardly justifies seeing the film through to completion.
Look, I don't hate "First Cow". And I don't want the takeaway from this article to be "I didn't enjoy First Cow, so there's no way you did either!" Truly - I'm glad it exists. What bothers me is the compulsion far too many film critics give in to; that is, to disingenuously place a film that feels like other critics will enjoy and respect you for in your top 10 list. There exists a disconnect in the way critics create their top 10 lists. Are these films you want to push into the spotlight and encourage more people to experience, films they personally enjoyed and will return to, or their highest rated films of the year? It's here that we find glaring disparities.
Take for example Roger Ebert's "Ten Best Films of 2020" list.
#10 - The Assistant (4 Stars)#9 - The Nest (4 Stars)
#8 - Never Rarely Sometimes Always (3.5 Stars)
#7 - Beanpole (4 Stars)
#6 - Minari (3.5 Stars)
#5 - Da 5 Bloods (4 Stars)
#4 - First Cow (4 Stars)
#3 - American Utopia (4 Stars)
#2 - Nomadland (4 Stars)
This is a list undoubtedly populated with diverse and interesting stories; but what sticks out to me is the leaning towards the unknown, the unheard of, and dare I say, the pretentious. It is a list that doesn't prioritize score either. While I'm sure many writers and editors worked together to compile the list, (individual reviews are often written by one writer one editor) it wasn't particularly difficult to find films with similar (or higher) scores on the site, conveniently left out of the publication's top 10. A few examples:
The Invisible Man (4 Stars)
Palm Springs (3.5 Stars)
Color out of Space (3.5 Stars)
Borat Subsequent Moviefilm (3.5 Stars)
Does Roger Ebert as a journalistic entity have a vendetta against mainstream releases, so much so that they review them highly and omit them from their top 10 list? Certainly not, and I'm not so dramatic to suggest that's the case.
You're allowed to like the things you like, as are all of us as cinephiles; and this wealth and diversity of opinion in the critic community has introduced me to many films I never would have approached over the years. My problem comes when critics put two movies (that they may have given identical scores) against one another for a spot in their top 10 and choose the more "critically acceptable" film over an incredibly well made film that just so happens to have been produced by a major studio. It's these compulsions to present oneself as an enlightened and holier-than-though film critic who is above enjoying theatrical releases that I take issue with.
Comments
Post a Comment