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

[Mister Mets]

…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.

Reviewers should be able to discuss whether work is good even if it meets standards of technical rigor.

I may disagree with it, but there was a well-made video about the problem of films that are good enough.

I dont think film reviewers are a whole heck of a lot different than any type of critics. I know there are various alums the rolling stone absolutely panned back in the day. Led Zeppelin 1 probably the most famous but not even close to the only ones that turned out to be classics.

Now it's easier than ever to find old reviews, and determine if a critic went against a later consensus.

Obviously critics could still good points against something is unpopular, but in favor of something that is despised.

Maybe they did have an affect but not like now. Or maybe you've never heard of movies like Scarface which critics hated. But became a cult classic that pushed Al Pacino's career. And was a top box-office rated R movie. Oh critics get it now. It took their lame-asses decades to catch up with "anti-intellectuals" who got it on the first run. Or even Blade Runner another movie that got mixed reviews when it first came out. But again it took critics years to catch up. So yeah...critics...

Critics are not a hivemind. They may disagree with one another, and an individual critic might not be the one who failed to appreciate a classic.

But movie critics are hostile themselves. So they get that energy back they put out there. Arts and Entertainment don't have to be "intellectual" to be great. That's day one **** any critic of performing or visual arts should know. Heck any real Intellectual knows that. These ppl aren't intellectuals they're just critics. And mostly bias at that.

Does AO Scott say that Art sand Entertainment need to be "intellectual" to be great?

Any Critic who has been doing it for more than 5 or 10 years are useless. They see so many movies they get jaded. Every single one of them. That is why you always see them fall in love with some weird indy flicks that makes no sense to most people because all they want is something different. It doesn't have to be good just different and they fawn all over it. It is the same with Music or Tv critics. They all get burned out and jaded and start looking for the fringes of entertainment.

I'll disagree here since I often find it worth learning from critics who have lengthy careers.

They will experience movies quite differently than someone who doesn't know how derivative a particular work is.

Sometimes they'll be looking for weird stuff, but there are conventional movies that got good reviews.

[Totoro Man]

Unless the NY Times insists it's critics respond to public comments made after a review, Scott did not have to engage or even read what was said.
It is ironic that a critic is having trouble with what people say about his work.

yeah... I've seen Armond White and Richard Brody say absolutely ridiculous crap about movies... I'll think to myself, "damn! did we even watch the same movie?"

and I'm pretty sure they don't bother engaging with the plebeians!

[Totoro Man]

I agree with some posters that fans in general are getting worse and worse.

Welcome to the dark side of fandom.

I would like to believe that many of the people who argue that "fans have always been like this" are younger people who didn't live before the "Internet Era".

in a similar vein, I can't help but assume that they haven't read ANY criticism of anything prior to the 20th Century.

in the past, if you went to a bad concert or movie you complained about it to your friends. later you could write a review in a local newspaper (or write a letter to the theater, etc).

a favorite book of mine in college was Nicolas Slonimsky's "Lexicon of the Musical Invective": where he compiled a series of scathing music reviews from magazines, letters, and newspapers for a variety of classical music compositions. while that book shows that savage audience backlash is nothing new... the opportunities to express these views has been constantly changing for the last two hundred years.

it just seems like people are ignoring the significance of the medium (of the internet) itself. as though the printing press, newspaper, telegraph, telephone, radio, and television didn't have any impact on how groups of people are formed and how they interact with other groups or individuals!

social media, vlogs, blogs, youtube channels, etc.... these things give people opportunities to express themselves in ways and reach audiences quickly that were simply unimaginable 50 years ago.

I don't see how anybody can contemplate a paradigm shift of that nature and then dismissively suggest that "fans" have always behaved in this sort of manner.

"public opinions", at one point, could only be created by people giving speeches and waiting for a response!

I believe that fans and critics ARE getting worse because
1. there are more of them than ever before (more fans leads to the greater potential for more "bad" fans)
2. they have far more opportunities and options to act out.
3. they can find rewards/satisfaction much faster than in the past.
4. they can, and do, encourage others to emulate them
5. fans who might have been indifferent are encouraged to emulate the radicalized opinions of "fans" or "haters".

[Powerboy]

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.

Pretty much this. Anytime anybody likes (or dislikes) something, they will tend to seek out those who agree. That's easier with the Internet. It can get toxic but that's true with any group. To simply say, "Oh someone who likes something I don't like threw harsh words at me therefore they are all like that" is a bit much. As you said, you could apply "groupthink" to almost anything, not just fandoms. In fact, critics themselves have been accused of groupthink, maybe because two critics agreed on something.

[Powerboy]

I would like to believe that many of the people who argue that "fans have always been like this" are younger people who didn't live before the "Internet Era".

in a similar vein, I can't help but assume that they haven't read ANY criticism of anything prior to the 20th Century.

in the past, if you went to a bad concert or movie you complained about it to your friends. later you could write a review in a local newspaper (or write a letter to the theater, etc).

a favorite book of mine in college was Nicolas Slonimsky's "Lexicon of the Musical Invective": where he compiled a series of scathing music reviews from magazines, letters, and newspapers for a variety of classical music compositions. while that book shows that savage audience backlash is nothing new... the opportunities to express these views has been constantly changing for the last two hundred years.

it just seems like people are ignoring the significance of the medium (of the internet) itself. as though the printing press, newspaper, telegraph, telephone, radio, and television didn't have any impact on how groups of people are formed and how they interact with other groups or individuals!

social media, vlogs, blogs, youtube channels, etc.... these things give people opportunities to express themselves in ways and reach audiences quickly that were simply unimaginable 50 years ago.

I don't see how anybody can contemplate a paradigm shift of that nature and then dismissively suggest that "fans" have always behaved in this sort of manner.

"public opinions", at one point, could only be created by people giving speeches and waiting for a response!

I believe that fans and critics ARE getting worse because
1. there are more of them than ever before (more fans leads to the greater potential for more "bad" fans)
2. they have far more opportunities and options to act out.
3. they can find rewards/satisfaction much faster than in the past.
4. they can, and do, encourage others to emulate them
5. fans who might have been indifferent are encouraged to emulate the radicalized opinions of "fans" or "haters".

Yes. I don't think fans are exactly getting worse. It's just that they have a new medium that allows them to express themselves to a massively bigger audience than ever before.

At one time, argue with your friends. Later, maybe, start a fanzine or send a letter to TV Guide. Now, go to your blog or a message board and hundreds or maybe thousands of people will see or hear your opinion.

Good point also that, with the former examples, someone might get a momentary pat on the back. With the latter, one can keep promoting one's opinion and get the thrill of being agreed with or even the thrill of constantly provoking those who disagree.

[Totoro Man]

the thrill of constantly provoking people wasn't even an option for most people until pretty recently. there is an incentive to act out that wasn't there before. instead of clowning around in front of your classmates... for better and worse, people are now clowning around in front of a much larger audience.

I'm going to go on a bit of a tangent here... (forgive my very, very basic summary!)

ancient artillery was line of sight. typically, just a solid projectile. later on, they could create explosive projectiles. hiding behind cover was a useful defense.

later on artillery could be fired in arcs and brought down on people hiding behind cover. timed fuses allowed it to cause even more damage by having the shells burst overhead. different types of range finders, detection techniques, and corrective feedback methods all enabled the outburst of that exploding artillery shell to cause more damage and to be used more effectively.

in its earliest uses, it would have been impossible to direct over 300 artillery pieces towards a single area. this is now a realistic possibility... and has happened thousands of time since the 19th century. the impact of one artillery battery firing directly on a large group of soldiers over the course of 90 minutes isn't going to be the same as that of several hundred guns raining shells down on that same group from miles away inside of 15 minutes.

the principle might be the same... but the actual behaviors that lead up to the shell being fired and results of those that shell exploding are producing noticeably different results.

to bring it back home... the changing methods and technology of taking "potshots" with artillery seems similar to people taking "potshots" at each other through the internet... even if the act of a singular fan "outburst" remains fundamentally the same, the methods and the results of the action are transformed by technical advances and changing tactics.

[I get accused of over-thinking stuff alot... looks like it's happening again]

[Scott Taylor]

the thrill of constantly provoking people wasn't even an option for most people until pretty recently. there is an incentive to act out that wasn't there before. instead of clowning around in front of your classmates... for better and worse, people are now clowning around in front of a much larger audience.

And doing it anonymously, which means a lot more people are potentially doing it besides the class clowns. To carry that analogy forward, people on the receiving end of the clownery tend to take this particular version of the class clowns too seriously, because you don't tend to know for sure if what they are saying is accurate or if they are just clowning around. So this situation is fraught with bad information.

[inisideguy]

And doing it anonymously, which means a lot more people are potentially doing it besides the class clowns. To carry that analogy forward, people on the receiving end of the clownery tend to take this particular version of the class clowns too seriously, because you don't tend to know for sure if what they are saying is accurate or if they are just clowning around. So this situation is fraught with bad information.

Its not even about being a class clown. People have figured out how to monetize being anti whatever is popular. Everyone is more attracted to negative news than positive news. And these guys know it.

[Mister Mets]

Its not even about being a class clown. People have figured out how to monetize being anti whatever is popular. Everyone is more attracted to negative news than positive news. And these guys know it.

I don't know if this distinction is that important. Maybe individual fans aren't intrinsically worse than they used to be, but that's not really what the critic was arguing. It's more about the media environment than human nature.

Yes. I don't think fans are exactly getting worse. It's just that they have a new medium that allows them to express themselves to a massively bigger audience than ever before.

At one time, argue with your friends. Later, maybe, start a fanzine or send a letter to TV Guide. Now, go to your blog or a message board and hundreds or maybe thousands of people will see or hear your opinion.

Good point also that, with the former examples, someone might get a momentary pat on the back. With the latter, one can keep promoting one's opinion and get the thrill of being agreed with or even the thrill of constantly provoking those who disagree.

Anonymous people usually aren't monetizing. The people with unpopular views are open about who they are in order to build their brand. Anonymous trolls have different incentives, and typically someone else is getting that money.

I'll note some people do he class clown thing pretty well. Sonny Bunch is insightful, and I like his two podcasts, but he has made some counterintuitive arguments, like claiming that the Empire in Star Wars was right, or that the Dick Cheney biopic Vice is a superhero origin story.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ely-justified/

https://freebeacon.com/culture/vice-review/

There are some sketchy types who gin up controversies, and try to play all angles Years ago, Gizmodo, part of the Gawker media empire, had a piece by a woman who rejected a guy on a blind date because he was a tournament Magic the Gathering player. Another blog within the Gawker group had a takedown of her, so they can benefit from both sides.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...h=2e8bd0073cc3

One odd thing to me is that the rejection of dominant messages of modern pop culture. South Park, The Simpsons, Wolverine and Deadpool tell us not to take things too seriously. And then all these fans take the things they like way too seriously.

Another common message is to avoid being manipulated, but people still fall for transparent bs.

Pretty much any movie or show depicts mobs of people as bad, but fans still find themselves the equivalent of wizards spreading rumors about Harry Potter, or Daily Bugle readers believing J Jonah Jameson.

[Agent Z]

Unless the NY Times insists it's critics respond to public comments made after a review, Scott did not have to engage or even read what was said.
It is ironic that a critic is having trouble with what people say about his work.

Likewise, fans could also stand to keep some of their opinions to themselves since unlike critics, they don't get paid to say what is on their minds.

[Zero Hunter]

I think most mainstream critics have been neutered. They are all so afraid of saying anything that will get them targeted by the Twitter assholes they soft sell everything. If a movie is popular with the Twitter crowd it doesn't matter if its good or not the critics are going to fall in line. You can not even have legit criticisms of most movies these days if it is a darling of the SJW crowd. They tear anyone who dares disagree with them to bits and start throwing labels which ruins careers so most critics just fall in line and kiss their asses.

[Agent Z]

I think most mainstream critics have been neutered. They are all so afraid of saying anything that will get them targeted by the Twitter assholes they soft sell everything. If a movie is popular with the Twitter crowd it doesn't matter if its good or not the critics are going to fall in line. You can not even have legit criticisms of most movies these days if it is a darling of the SJW crowd. They tear anyone who dares disagree with them to bits and start throwing labels which ruins careers so most critics just fall in line and kiss their asses.

It seems like the Twitter crowd are the ones with the biggest axe to grind against critics.