Critic A.O. Scott: Modern Fan Culture Harmful to Art and Movies

[Mister Mets]

The New York Times film critic A.O. Scott has decided to go back to reviewing books, and reflected on problems with fandom.

But I’m not a fan of modern fandom. This isn’t only because I’ve been swarmed on Twitter by angry devotees of Marvel and DC and (more recently) “Top Gun: Maverick” and “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” It’s more that the behavior of these social media hordes represents an anti-democratic, anti-intellectual mind-set that is harmful to the cause of art and antithetical to the spirit of movies. Fan culture is rooted in conformity, obedience, group identity and mob behavior, and its rise mirrors and models the spread of intolerant, authoritarian, aggressive tendencies in our politics and our communal life.

But I will always love being at the movies: the tense anticipation in a darkening theater, the rapt attention and gasping surprise as a the story unfolds, and the tingly silence that follows the final shot, right before the cheers — and the arguments — start. I wouldn’t miss any of the movies I’ve seen, even the bad ones.

These comments were discussed in a podcast I follow Across the Movie Aisle with three friends from different ideological perspectives (Republican Sonny Bunch, Libertarian Peter Suderman, Democrat Alyssa Rosenberg) since they often touch on cultural controversies in film. They were generally agreement that there's a problem with fandom trying to shut down discussion of films.

Do you guys think this is true? Are some fans too angry and anti-intellectual? Are they turning into social media hordes?

[Tofali]

Their "profession" is to critic art and NOT to have a following that agrees with their critic - so no I don't agree with their lazy conclusions.

[Kirby101]

Yes this is a problem with some fandom. We see it even here. But it's just as easy to ignore what these people say. No one says you must engage with people on the internet.

[CliffHanger2]

Movie critics themselves are just as toxic. If not more so than any fandom. They wanna be the taste makers of our society and decide which movies should actually exist or not. When I was coming up nobody gave a eff about a movie critic. Now they're so powerful they can sink a movie with negative reviews. It's sad and pathetic but hey they're the victims...whatevs.

[JBatmanFan05]

I think all are true:
1) some fans (of anything) are too angry and anti-intellectual, turning into social media hordes
2) right or wrong or somewhere in between, fans are allowed to do this and critics should expect that on social media because it's "social" media and they chose to engage with it
3) film critics are important, valuable, I always turn to them for reviews, but they rightfully face scrutiny like any aspect of American society. Fan anger at them often comes from somewhere, some can quit, some can try to stay in the game and change unfair perceptions.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

The New York Times film critic A.O. Scott has decided to go back to reviewing books, and reflected on problems with fandom.


These comments were discussed in a podcast I follow Across the Movie Aisle with three friends from different ideological perspectives (Republican Sonny Bunch, Libertarian Peter Suderman, Democrat Alyssa Rosenberg) since they often touch on cultural controversies in film. They were generally agreement that there's a problem with fandom trying to shut down discussion of films.

Do you guys think this is true? Are some fans too angry and anti-intellectual? Are they turning into social media hordes?

It's a fact of fan culture for years. Social media just allowed them to congregate and become a nuisance.

[Bunch of Coconuts]

Hope he doesn't negatively review any Paul Sheldon books...

[Pinsir]

I mean the MCU fandom definitely fits this bill. It's been five years and I still see grumbling about Martin Scorsese in MCU circles. I always wondered if, god forbid, Scorsese got covid and passed if you would see outright celebration from the fandom now that their "greatest enemy" has been defeated.

[Mister Mets]

I think all are true:
1) some fans (of anything) are too angry and anti-intellectual, turning into social media hordes
2) right or wrong or somewhere in between, fans are allowed to do this and critics should expect that on social media because it's "social" media and they chose to engage with it
3) film critics are important, valuable, I always turn to them for reviews, but they rightfully face scrutiny like any aspect of American society. Fan anger at them often comes from somewhere, some can quit, some can try to stay in the game and change unfair perceptions.

While fans are allowed to be angry and anti-intellectual, and/ or turn into social media mobs, it's a bad thing. When it happens, it should be called out.

The problem is when it's seen as more important a side a critic is on than what they have to say. We obviously a similar dynamic in other forms of commentary.

[Brian B]

Hope he doesn't negatively review any Paul Sheldon books...

Now that’s funny.

Anyway, he’s right. I don’t even know if fandom is useful to marketing these “tent pole” features and franchises, anymore.

It’s a slight shame because Scott is one of the better movie critics out there, but best of luck to him. He has to do what he has to do for his career and that’s fine.

[Totoro Man]

honestly, the cultural things that he's complaining about could be found anywhere in our present cultural landscape.

they could be applied to any large group of people that unite on a particular concept or issue. if we replace "fandom" with "crowd" or "mob"... it ends up in the same place.

groups of people tend, by definition, tend to think and act as a group... even if they're made up entirely of intellectuals.

he might as well complain about the Internet Era in general. (I don't participate in Social Media at all, though... and I generally call FaceBook by the name "FascistBook" among my friends because of the tendencies I've noticed with people's behavior. it doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum or a political issue people come from.... social media tends to create little ragtag armies of ideologues who have nothing better to do than pick fights with strangers.)

which leads me to another thing... concerning the podcast. these are all movie critics, writers, and friends... these people are all essentially from the same social strata. they're critics that watch movies and write about them for money. they probably have more in common than they have differences. I would argue that they're definitely representing a "class interest" and want to protect that interest against the ravages of angry fandoms.

my issue with this line of argument is that -some- critics believe that they simply get to TELL readers what the movie is actually about. they don't want an argument or a discussion. they just want you to accept their opinion as the indisputable truth of the matter. (I can't even remember if A. O. Scott is one of those types or not).

at the end of the day nobody really NEEDS their opinion. somebody else will replace them.

I dunno... it could be that he's just watching too many movies and he needs to balance out his life more. personally, if I consume too much and don't create something original, I start to get depressed.

maybe he's bought into the lie that art makes us better people... because it very clearly does not. to pick the most obvious and cheap examples. Hitler was an artist. Mao was a poet. Stalin loved classical music and was a frequent musical critic. art and criticism could just as easily be part of "the problem" as much as it could be part of "the solution".

I don't think he's going to dodge any bullets by focusing on literary criticism. he'll just be dealing with different calibers of ammunition.

[Bunch of Coconuts]

There's certain religions that have pretty toxic fandoms, at times.

[Totoro Man]

There's certain religions that have pretty toxic fandoms, at times.

"certain religions"? you're being too charitable!

I would argue that ALL religions and political creeds HAVE toxic fandoms. it's simply whether they have the opportunity to show their true wretched colors.

basic human nature cannot be improved. even if we wiped out every religion ever created... the problem will remain. a leopard can't change its spots... as the saying goes.

art, books, education, music, politics, religion... there is no human invention that will meaningfully inspire and transform HUMANITY to become "better". we will always struggle to find ways to live with each other.

[Mister Mets]

honestly, the cultural things that he's complaining about could be found anywhere in our present cultural landscape.

they could be applied to any large group of people that unite on a particular concept or issue. if we replace "fandom" with "crowd" or "mob"... it ends up in the same place.

groups of people tend, by definition, tend to think and act as a group... even if they're made up entirely of intellectuals.

he might as well complain about the Internet Era in general. (I don't participate in Social Media at all, though... and I generally call FaceBook by the name "FascistBook" among my friends because of the tendencies I've noticed with people's behavior. it doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum or a political issue people come from.... social media tends to create little ragtag armies of ideologues who have nothing better to do than pick fights with strangers.)

which leads me to another thing... concerning the podcast. these are all movie critics, writers, and friends... these people are all essentially from the same social strata. they're critics that watch movies and write about them for money. they probably have more in common than they have differences. I would argue that they're definitely representing a "class interest" and want to protect that interest against the ravages of angry fandoms.

my issue with this line of argument is that -some- critics believe that they simply get to TELL readers what the movie is actually about. they don't want an argument or a discussion. they just want you to accept their opinion as the indisputable truth of the matter. (I can't even remember if A. O. Scott is one of those types or not).

at the end of the day nobody really NEEDS their opinion. somebody else will replace them.

I dunno... it could be that he's just watching too many movies and he needs to balance out his life more. personally, if I consume too much and don't create something original, I start to get depressed.

maybe he's bought into the lie that art makes us better people... because it very clearly does not. to pick the most obvious and cheap examples. Hitler was an artist. Mao was a poet. Stalin loved classical music and was a frequent musical critic. art and criticism could just as easily be part of "the problem" as much as it could be part of "the solution".

I don't think he's going to dodge any bullets by focusing on literary criticism. he'll just be dealing with different calibers of ammunition.

I do agree that this is more about groups than anything unique to film culture. There are some communities within publishing that are notoriously toxic, so he may stumble into those fights as a book critic. One difference with books is that there isn't as much of an expectation that a critic will experience everything worthwhile, or comment on everything.

Your view on critics wanting to tell people want to think seems to be a mirror for the critic's concern that much of the audience doesn't care what they have to say, and really just want affirmation for what they already think. There may be some bad critics, but doesn't this mean every one of them is dismissive of other opinions.

There is a problem in discussions on culture and current events when it's more about what side someone's on than what they have to say. Disagreements about things that are serious (Are Marvel policies borderline abusive to VFX crews? Should writers and artists whose work is adapted be paid more in royalties? What should be done following allegations of wrongdoing?) and not so serious are just filtered into earlier arguments, with some people acting as if they're lawyers for their side trying to persuade some secret jury.

[godisawesome]

…I honestly feel like his problem is more likely to be an issue of a changing film and franchise landscape on one hand, and plugging into the wrong social media chambers on another. Twitter and numerous other social media types have been proven to have a negative impact on most people’s psyche, and simply having the algorithm shove the wrong people at you can ruin your experience.

But I don’t think fandoms have gotten any worse, really.

I do think that assholes all have megaphones now on social media, and can make themselves seem louder… but professional critics must now compete with a vast ocean of other critics who can variably be barely literate meme makers or highly intellectual, eloquent, and at times even superior reviewers as well…

…in part because we now know most franchises can meet the technical rigor and quality standard that professional critics and industry creators used to be able to discount them ever having.

This means that, more than ever before, preferences as deciding factors in judgement are becoming more and more obvious; you can no longer count on a Star Wars property or some fantasy show with dragons with be inferior in execution to a prestige presentation elsewhere… so the inherent biases we all bring become something more easily called out, and frequently, fans can reach (though by no means “will”) similar or even greater evaluation skills for particular franchises or creators.

A professional critic has to watch dozens, if not hundreds, of different movies a year, and that kind of work load has clearly impacted some of their tastes in ways they may not be ready to acknowledge, while a fanboy or fan girl who has a more personalized viewing list may very well become an expert on that franchise and when it’s up to quality or not.

I mean… Star Wars: The Last Jedi has no heart and no brain for anyone who doesn’t share its specific preferences and biases; if you don’t already prefer self-centered insular protagonists over more empathetic and aware protagonists, or if you don’t wish to mock war films and sci fi shows you haven’t paid much attention to, or if you don’t have some white dude privilege going on… than what Rian Johnson and some professional critics regarded as an incisive, inspirational and relatable examination of Star Wars will in fact be a myopic, jaded, downright anti-intellectual film with strong sexist and racist tones and horrible narrative structure, making commentary it’s too ignorant to think through or properly analyze.

…And I think that Star Wars: The Last Jedi is just the most prominent of these kind of “professionals who have to watch everything and need a break every now and then” reviewers and “gifted amateurs who know what they’re talking about here” fans.