A O Scott's Existential Ruminations

In an article in the new york times A O Scott muses on the relevance of film critics after two films, The Da Vinci Code and Pirates of the Carribean sequel, which were both universally panned, went on to become highest grossers of the year so far...

So why review them? Why not let the market do its work, let the audience have its fun and occupy ourselves with the arcana — the art — we critics ostensibly prefer? The obvious answer is that art, or at least the kind of pleasure, wonder and surprise we associate with art, often pops out of commerce, and we want to be around to celebrate when it does and to complain when it doesn’t. But the deeper answer is that our love of movies is sometimes expressed as a mistrust of the people who make and sell them, and even of the people who see them. We take entertainment very seriously, which is to say that we don’t go to the movies for fun. Or for money. We do it for you.

I think movies are still far more democratic than other cultural media, specially as compared to literature where a very rigid hierarchy is in place. It also explains why the chief film critic of the new york times, a man obviously of some talent and calibre, has to spend his time writing about crap which the people are anyway going to see, regardless of what he says. The most that he can do is to invent a few one liners and make the review funny and amusing (which he does very well, read his reviews of the two movies). More than amusing the reader with elegant phrasings and witty wordplays (Anthony Lane of the new yorker is a master in this genre), the job of a critic should be to provoke the reader, show the reader new ways of looking at things, share some expert information with him and discuss the work with a proper context. If that means limiting the discussion to selected movies, then let be it. Is new york times expected to review each and every book that is released? All those paper back crime and horror books? Why should it be different for movies?