Fabian Gaffez

It’s no surprise that the job of the film critic has never been in more danger. Film criticism has had an interesting career: at its beginning having no serious appreciation from audiences, then a gradual shift to public proclivity in the 60s, and finally has arrived at a point where anyone with wireless internet and ten minutes of free time can elucidate their thoughts on Avatar (2009). The abundance of opinion in this digital age, the rapidity in its delivery, and the public’s ceaseless desire to always be in the know has made the once well regarded ideas of the film critic a small fish in a sea of online opinion. On Friday January 20th, the Bell TIFF Lightbox hosted a Q&A with the members of its Cannes Ciritcs Week Panel in order to get a better idea of the state of film criticism industry today.
 “There are two types of people who set out to be film critics” says Liam Lacey, critic for The Globe and Mail, “those who set out to be film critics, and those who are too old for the rock beat”.  Cinema gurus Lacey, Jonathan Rosenbaum (former critic for The Chicago Reader), Fabian Gaffez (Positif), and Toronto’s own Peter Howell (The Toronto Star) were all smiles as they greeted a small audience of aspiring and established film reviewers alike. Between them, these film virtuosos have more than half a century of critic experience. Although they sat down to discuss the specifics of their careers, their insight showcased just how much change has come about to the practice and reception of film criticism in the last 50 years.
“I’ve been pretty lucky that my two biggest passions in life, movies and music- that I’ve been able to get paid for and that probably makes you all jealous” explains Howell. Howell, now chief reviewer for the Toronto Star recalls his days as a journalism student at Carlton University. “I remember all of us (students) anxiously awaiting the arrival of the newspaper, hoping to be the first to be able to read the reviews”, remarked Howell with a comment that pushed the panel to discuss their thoughts on the role of the film critic. Rosenbaum, the veteran reviewer amongst the group, remembers seeing every film that came to the chain of theatres his grandfather owned in Florence, Alabama where he grew up. Even after developing from these rural cinematic roots, Rosenbaum insists that the role of the film critic is to “assist in the discussion of film and to improve and shift the level of discussion”, and Gaffez alike feels that the critic is “a go between- a boatman between language and film”.
Besides expressing their disdain for being forced to judge films with a rating system, the panel has a pretty positive outlook for this industry that seems to be eroding with every click of the mouse. Even after lamenting about reviewers and critics forcibly let go (J. Joberman formerly of The Village Voice), Howell says that although “there are so many things going on the internet, it makes sense to be afraid, but to be excited” is the key here. The panel points out that online authorship has allowed for authority to be eradicated, and now any one can have their thoughts about a film heard just as loud and fast as any publication certified authority. Howell says that the film reviewer’s job is to “be a resistor, to persuade your editor and people of your picks”, and with this transgression of authority through the internet it may be that the role of the modern day film critic is getting back to what it was once all about: reading in between the lines.
While this piece chronicles the development of popular online film rating bible Rotten Tomatoes, this clip gives a sense of just how much the world of online criticism as changed in the last ten years. If you read the video’s comments section, its clear that even a site like Rotten Tomatoes, which purports itself as being all about communal criticism, has managed to show signs of adhering to a specific agenda.
%d bloggers like this: