I probably won't review Suicide Squad. I find myself with nothing of real interest to say about it that hasn't been said already. So here are my thoughts in a nutshell:
Suicide Squad is lacking in a consistent tone, vision or narrative structure and somehow, despite having a fairly novel central concept for a film in this genre, it feels like every other superhero movie ever made. In addition to this, despite being filled with easter eggs and references to the comics, the writers of the film don't seem to have a very good grasp of who these characters are. So much for that. On to the main point of this article...
The release of
Suicide Squad has reignited a controversy about movie critics that's been going on for a long time now. Someone's even started a petition to shut down Rotten Tomatoes. The question is: are critics hurtful or helpful to the film industry? As I'm (sort of) a critic myself I strongly feel that critics are not just a helpful but an important part of the industry. I should clarify that if you enjoyed
Suicide Squad or
BvS that's fine, your entitled to your opinion buts there's no reason to begrudge critics of their own.
A complaint I often hear is that critics are too critical. But being "critical" is a critic's job. The whole point of being a critic is to analyze a piece of art and determine whether or not we think it's worthwhile. Some argue that art is completely subjective and therefore the whole thing is essentially pointless. I wholeheartedly disagree. There are certain objective standards that can applied to any art-form. The main thing is to determine what the intention behind any given piece is and then to decide a) was this a worthwhile endeavor and b) does it effectively achieve what it was intended to. A movie like say,
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen fails to meet the first criteria because it's a cynical cash grab that's designed to appeal to the baser instincts of its audience. The fact that it does this successfully is beside the point. On the other hand a film like say
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier meets the first criteria because it's an installment in a beloved and successful franchise which its fans have a vested interest in seeing continue. But it utterly fails to meet the second criteria due to weak writing and terrible special effects. Finally you have a film like
Batman and Robin that fails to meet either criteria.
 |
| Disparity much? |
It is not my intention here to reduce film criticism to some sort of litmus test of movie quality. This is simply the way, in a broad sense, that I personally tend to asses to overall quality of a film. Obviously a critic can and should go into more depth and try to appreciate a film from different angles. My point is that critics are, in a certain sense, guardians of quality and good taste in the film industry. If the recent DC films have proven anything it's that critical consensus
can have an impact on the financial performance of a film, even if this is not always the case (look at the box office of the
Transformers or
Twilight films for proof of this). Why is this a good thing? Because it would be easy for movie studios to look at success of Micheal Bay or Roland Emmerich films and decide to make more films that are soulless spectacle with little to no heart or narrative coherence. When movies like
Batman v Superman and
Suicide Squad under-perform it makes them reconsider this strategy and pay more attention to what critics are saying. In other words, if critics continue to pan these movies and audiences continue to look at this and spend their hard earned money elsewhere, maybe, just maybe, DC will finally take note and release a movie that's actually good.
No comments:
Post a Comment