Jonas Polsky

by Jonas Polsky

A critic is a person who provides an analysis on a work of art, be it a movie, book, album, or performance. Critics take their reviews very seriously, and are often the subject of criticism themselves, by the public, or creators of the art being reviewed.

Culture and critics alike appear to have lost sight of the function a review serves, and whether we should have them at all. Henry Fielding famously said; “A newspaper consists of the same number of words, whether there be any news in it or not.” Literary and film reviews often follow this logic and provide reviews without consideration to their necessity.

Without reviews, a consumer may enter an expensive Broadway performance completely ignorant of its quality. In situations where the show is bad, critics would provide a warning against it to the public. On the other side of the coin, if no one knows that something is great, a critic can steer them in that direction so they may experience it as well.

That’s what a professional critic boils down to: A person who prods readers in the “right” or “wrong” direction to prevent them from wasting time or money on something they won’t like. Without criticism the world of art and entertainment would be an alley of carnival barkers herding patrons into tents to view what is essentially a mystery.

Considering this benefit, a critic is serving the public good. If someone were continually disappointed by art they purchased, or performances they attended, they may swear them off altogether. Instead, the critic gives them a preview of the content and quality so they can make an informed decision.

This heroic critic looks out for the good of all; an impartial judge, sticking to the facts, and shining a beacon on the world of entertainment. That was the original intent, but do modern critics understand their role? As the content on television and the internet snowballs, reviewers are asked to comment on anything and everything that can be experienced.

Say for example you receive a free album, or watch a free performance. How would a critic’s assessment of either of those things help you? Why read a review of a blog, or a television show they can watch for free? In these situations the critic exists for their own benefit. The consumer risks nothing, so there is nothing the critic can “protect” them from. The reviewer has forgotten their original intent and speak for the sake of hearing their own voice.

The larger pitfall of a critic is specialization. As a consumer you may watch a dozen movies per year. You see the trailers, actors, story, and make a decision to pursue, or avoid that movie. The critic has no such choice. They are forced to watch dozens of movies, even if they fear in advance they will hate it.

Not surprisingly, the critics frequently hate most of the things they review. They’re sick to death of them. I love movies, and a few years ago I started a movie review blog. After a few weeks of watching up to four movies per day, I couldn’t force myself to turn one on. I stopped watching movies entirely for a little while after that experience.

Ideally you would have a critic review things they were already interested in, or take breaks to avoid exhaustion. Unfortunately critics have to pay the rent like the rest of us, and they can’t do so with part-time work.

The end result is someone who is tired of the media they’re writing about, and the reviews become their own expression of despair, and ignore the needs of the reader entirely. In order to be more extreme, or maybe from the critic’s own boredom, the reviews become increasingly harsh. These polarized write ups trash everything about the subject to the point of absurdity.

There the critic stands, wielding a poison pen, lording over performances they want nothing to do with. As a side effect, the reviews no longer provide an unbiased message for readers, and benefit no one but the publisher who has filled an otherwise blank page.

As consumers and writers we need to refocus on the original intent of reviews; helping the public make an informed decision. Critics should remind themselves of their task, protecting the needs of the public, and championing great art. If they refuse to function in this manner, then their reviews are meaningless.