Down With Criticism26 May 2003 I've had it with critics. Most critics are failed writers who decided that if they can't make a living in their chosen profession, no one else will either if they have anything to say about it. Anyone who claimed the "The Matrix Reloaded" was bloated or lacking in story probably didn't have the background in Christian and Hindu theology necessary to understand it. And like most humans, critics dislike what they don't understand. I see it all the time. Reviews that, rather than being a balanced critique of a work, end up being nothing more than a sniping diatribe about everything the artist did wrong. If you can't build, tear others down. Recently, I went to see "The Matrix Reloaded." I won't say it was a work of art -- though it may be -- but I enjoyed the film. I will admit that when I walked out of the theater, I didn't have the "wow..." feeling I had after seeing the first film. It just wasn't that kind of movie. But like many of my favorite films over the years, it kept me thinking about the themes and questions raised by the film for days afterwards. I'm still pondering them, in fact. I've seen critics pan "The Matrix Reloaded" as two and half hours of special effects we've seen before and no story to hold them together. These critics are lazy, pure and simple, refusing to look beyond the surface of the action movie to consider the philosophical questions that lie beneath. If the first movie asked, "What is real?" then this move asks, "What is choice?" The question of whether free will exists or that everything can be boiled down to simple causality is behind nearly every scene in the film, and vaults into the foreground in the film's last half hour, when Neo has to confront that question when he learns the true nature of the Matrix. Does that sound like a mindless action flick to you? Critics without a background in theology will probably not realize that while Neo was a Christ figure in the first movie, in this second he's more like Shiva. I won't explain what I mean by that, so as not to spoil the story-turning surprise at near the end of the movie, but it's there, nonetheless. While the first film was a pretty standard paint-by-numbers "hero is a chosen one that rises up to liberate his people from their oppressors" myth in a black trenchcoat, the second movie turns all those assumptions on their head, and the end result is something much more interesting and I can't wait for the final installment to see how it all turns out. I stopped reading reviews before I saw a film years ago. It was painfully obvious to me that some critics don't like anything, largely on the basis of them not having produced it. I don't go to the movies to jeer at the filmmakers for their mistakes, real or imagined. I go to be entertained. In the final analysis, that's the only standard I hold movies -- and books -- to. Did it entertain me? If I enjoyed the work, then it was good, at least for me. Criticism can have a useful role to play in our society, if it makes art better. But it seems that most critics -- oddly, the most popular ones -- make no distinction between constructive criticism and mean-spirited ranting. A recent review of the movie "Daredevil" -- a movie which I rather enjoyed, having read the comics as a kid -- stated that you can actually feel yourself becoming dumber while you watch it. No reason for this comment was given. No suggestion was made how the filmmakers could have done better. The best the reviewer could do was comment that the film's director was "Ed Wood with a budget." Pithy, but ultimately meaningless. I can't stand reviewers whose sole purpose seems to be bashing other people's work to demonstrate how clever they themselves are. It's a waste of my time, and for readers that don't take everything they read at face value, it only belies the reviewer's insecurity and inadaquacy. This isn't to say that negative comments are out of bounds. If a movie truly is bad ("Planet of the Apes" comes to mind, I still want that two hours of my life back) then a reviewer should say so. But say why it was bad, where the filmmakers fell short and how they could have made it better. Who knows, if the reviewed movie is a hit ("Daredevil" was) such constructive criticism might make the sequel better. I suppose what it all comes down to is a variation of what we were all told as kids. If you can't say anything constructive, don't say anything at all. Tearing others down doesn't really make you any bigger. In the long run, it makes you smaller, and we all know it. Jeff Kirvin
Jeff Kirvin is available for consulting on mobile technology. Email me today! |