Film critic Roger Ebert’s autobiography is out, and I’m sure it’s terrific: Ebert is a lively writer, and he has many good stories to tell. One tale from the book that has been recounted in several reviews, however, caused me to slap my forehead. Ebert says that he adopted longtime New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael’s approach to film reviewing, which she wrote was, “I go into the movie, I watch it, and I ask myself what happened to me.”
Ah HA! That’s why Pauline Kael was such a destructive film reviewer, and the predominance of her attitude is why reviewers of stage and film do far more damage than good. Once upon a time, when critics had professional standards and cared about fairness, the accepted approach of someone who reviewed films or plays for public consumption wasn’t how a work made the critic feel, but rather how it was likely to make a typical audience member feel. It doesn’t take much insight to decide whether one likes a play or a movie; anyone can do that.
A film or play critic is hardly a typical audience member; for one thing, they see too many shows, and are easily bored. If Roger Ebert hates horror movies and I like them, what good is it to me to read Ebert’s arguments about why “Drag Me to Hell” stinks? An ethical and skillful reviewer can put his or her biases aside and apply expertise to assessing whether a film or play will appeal to someone else. I don’t care whether Roger Ebert likes a movie. The question is, will I like it?
Most critics, and I include Ebert, see their role as persuading someone who hasn’t seen a work that they should or shouldn’t spend money on a ticket based on “what happened to” the critic, because, after all, the critic is wise. All of us have missed a lot of of good movies and plays because of this, because even if at some level we recognize that critics elevate their personal biases to universal standards, it is difficult to get enthusiastic about paying money to see a show that the most prominent critic you know has condemned as entertainment for fools.
Here, I believe, are the standards that critics should apply, my Ten Commandments for Ethical Reviewers, framed for theater reviewers, but equally applicable to films in most respects. Feel free to send them to the critic of your choice.
The Ten Commandments for Ethical Reviewers
1. Remember that your primary mission is to support and encourage support for the art, not to show off your flair for invective.
2. Everyone has biases; disclose yours whenever they are relevant.
3. Write each review so that those who would like to see the kind of play and production you are reviewing will know it, even if your review is negative.
4. Don’t review accents, line flubs, budgets, reputations, awards, past performances, lobbies, or, least of all, politics and ideologies.
5. If you have to pan a show, don’t enjoy doing it. Every bad review hurts people, careers and organizations.
6. Don’t second-guess the artists. Review whether the choices that were made accomplish their evident goals; don’t tell us how you would have done things differently. You’re a reviewer, not a director, not a playwright.
7. Be hardest on work that is lazy, unprofessional, badly rehearsed, poorly researched, mechanical, insulting or incompetent.
8. Be most encouraging about work that is creative, bold, original, well-rehearsed, energetic or courageous…even when it isn’t completely successful.
9. Stand up for the work and the artist; give them the benefit of the doubt.
10. Above all, be fair, and be respectful, as long as the production is fair and respectful to its audience.
Ethics Alarms 
Hooray. I was going to do a piece on reviews, but you nailed it. As a ballet lover i’m always distressed to see the LA Times dance critic pan world class performances of the world’s best companies because the costumes aren’t to his liking, or because the company added or subtracted a variation or a bit of a scene.
As a result of his unethical review lots of seats go unsold and ballet companies lose precious income. And some go under because of him and critics like him.
Ehh… not totally sure I agree, though I can’t fault it specifically.
I do a Youtube show where I rent something on Netflix and talk about it. I’m not so much a critic as some guy talking about movies. For me, a movie critic is only good if I know where I stand with them, which means I have to read lots of their reviews AND see lots of the corresponding movies to see how our opinions jive. I find Ebert useful, even though I disagree with him more often than not. He DID like O and Land of the Lost…
I’m definitely not a critic, since my most common reaction is “Ehh… it was all right.” I just talk about movies to see if I can inspire some discussion and provide a bit of entertainment, but it’s primarily a way to force me to use my Netflix.
I may not be a critic, but on the other hand, I see no reason to pretend I’m anyone but me watching a movie and responding as I did to it. That might make me unhelpful, but I know two things:
1. I don’t know what a typical audience member likes or dislikes.
2. Forgive me, but I don’t give a shit what a typical audience member likes or dislikes.
Rather than me acclimate to some everyman that might not exist, I’ll just say what I thought and people can figure out if they can trust me by seeing if we ever liked the same movies and see if our tastes align. If that means I’m not a critic, fine by me.
Aside: I think we can generally say that movie criticism and theater criticism are two different fields, correct?
There is nothing at all wrong with a reviewer simply saying what he or she likes, but that’s just opinion writing, not a professional review, which is supposed to tell us “is it any good?” not “does the critic like this stuff?” If a movie amassed 10 reviews fron strangers to say I should see the movie, why is the opinion of 10 people I don;t know of any value to me in deciding whether to seethe film, unless they are making an expert judgment based on what the public likes?
I read one good review of the last Transformers movie in which the reviewer said, “It’s crap, but audiences will really have a good time, I think.” Well done.
I see no real difference between film reviewing and theater reviewing. Nobody is any good at either.
Well, what I mean by that is that it’s easier to say Transformers 3 sucked and not hurt anyone specifically than some people’s version of Antigone. It’s kinda pickin’ on the little guy.
Nah. The standards should be the same….you can be as entertaining with a small budget as with a large one.
I don’t fully agree with 4 or 6, but the rest seem solid.
I think that comparison to reputations and previous work is important information to a possible consumer. Michael Bay has a reputation for and body of work displaying clear action sequences. If his new picture is muddled, I’d want to know.
I also believe that sometimes explaining what could have worked has its place. I don’t see how you can say “X didn’t work” without noting why X didn’t work, and that’s most of the way to how X could have worked.
For an ethical reviewer, I highly recommend Mendelson’s Memos. He does a good job of explaining his biases, reviewing the work based on its intended audience, and giving the reader information to determine whether or not they would like it. He’s also good about attacking the improper storylines around movies and calling out when the industry is putting out bad information. One flaw: he does occasionally dip into politics at the same location as his reviews of movies and the industry, but he keeps it in different posts.
All critics are useless and serve no purpose but to feed their own egos. There is only one critic in this town that I respect and that is on the basis of his writting not his opinions. The rest can sod off.