Why All Movie Fans Are Critics and All Movie Critics Are Fans

Scene from Batman v. Superman

Like clockwork, there is a certain time of year when things get a little dirty between "fans" and "critics." Every year there's a handful of films, often big studio blockbusters, that get assaulted with bad reviews from critics for whatever reason. For a medium that is entirely subjective - and thus no one thought-out opinion is better than another - it becomes a bizarre turf war between between a group who claims to love film through being "open-minded" and a group who claims to love film through rigorous assessment. Batman v. Superman's actress Amy Adams has thrown her name into the ring this time, and it's only fueled the fire yet again. Should we hate each other merely because one is seen as taking the fun out of movies? I think instinctively film is a medium meant to be enjoyed and thus to be a fan is to be critical of the work. There's no way around it. 

The further into the internet's existence that we go, the more likely it is that we're going to see filmmakers insult critics for not liking their work. There was Kevin Smith's mentally challenged kid allegory for Cop Out. There was Nick Swardson's flimsy defense of Bucky Larson. Even last year saw Max Landis go on a Twitter rampage when critics hated American Ultra. The idea of a critic being loathsome even features prominently in an Oscar-winning (Best Picture no less) film called Birdman. Let's face it. The perception of the critic is one of self-importance and whose tastes are as pretentious as they come. If you look at any message board running the Adams story, you will find the comments section spitting vitriol at critics while claiming that they only like Oscar bait or art house movies. While this is only part of the equation, it would be like accusing comic book movie "fans" of being the anti-social characters on The Big Bang Theory. Nobody wins this fight.

I'll admit some bias here. I love film criticism. I flock to YouTube for a good analysis video as well churn out pieces for anything I remotely love. Film is a magical medium that transports audiences to a different time and place while being one of the few mediums to effectively play with the concept of time. Film is immersive and fascinating, and I don't fault anyone who wants to keep the mystery alive by not knowing how special effects are done or give into the revelation that Superman is just attached to invisible wires. Then again, the process isn't really what is being judged, whether viscerally or critically. It's whatever the final product is being released to theaters in which studios convince thousands of people to pay and sit in a dark room with a bright wall. Film is subjective and in the right moment can be inspiring. It's generally why some people devote their lives to making that fantasy come to life.

With that said, I guess that I would be a fan of film. I love its endless hold on me. This is where things get tricky. When Adams said that she was making the movie for the fans and not critics, it raised a lot of questions. For starters, fan is a broad term. I understand that there are those that loathe superhero movies and will trash anything with a cape on it. However, let me pose a deeper question: what fan isn't a critic? The basic regulation of this definition is to assess the work of which you have just seen. CinemaScore has made a career out of asking audiences for their opinion with lettered scores. They were qualified enough to be fans when they arrived, but should we not trust their judgment when they become critics who answer CinemaScore cards? 

In fact, a fan is someone who is so critical of other works that they have designated a particular brand or product as being theirs. It is actually pretty easy to get an answer for this. Ask someone "Why do you like Superman/Batman?" They will usually give you rational answers ranging from "He's awesome" to "He stands for justice" (or some deep comic book cut). The fact is that they are experienced enough with the character to know what they like within it. Just because they don't write a two page review of the work (though there are needless short-for-shot trailer analysis posts to consider) doesn't meant that they won't passionately be vocal about the film on Facebook or Twitter, telling their friends to go see a movie or that something just plain sucks. But why does something suck? It's here that the fan becomes the critic and won't forget a single detail in their diatribe (lest we forget The Phantom Menace).

I'm not going to lie. Critics are generally a confusing bunch for specific reasons. Unlike general audiences, they get to go to film festivals and advance screenings (to build "buzz"). Kevin Smith made a note of this during his anti-critics phase following Cop Out, suggesting that he takes his "fans" to see a movie for free. Of course, the life of a legitimate film critic is seeing the work that you love and hate - often ad nauseum. The average critic sees hundreds of movies per year, and it is only likely that, mixed with their occasional college degrees, they will be influenced by films differently. A good critic is one who can give a balanced opinion reflecting the pros and cons of a work, even if the general subject matter doesn't appeal to them. I'll admit that I haven't always been the best at this, but critics have to be biased in order to give their yay/nay vote. It is true that maybe critics aren't needed for big studio blockbusters, but the small indies have definitely thrived off of acclaim because of them. Word of mouth works for both fans and critics. The only difference is that critics unknowingly can do it before a film is released to raise interest for an otherwise unknown movie.

But what is to say that critics cannot be fans? It almost seems asinine for these not to be exclusive or, at very least, two sides butting heads. I'll accept that there are those who merely want to enjoy a movie and don't think about it. However, there's still that inkling for some to answer "Why did I like this?" You don't have to be a professional critic doing the film festival circuit to think that a piece of dialogue or action sequence was powerful. Critics do it, but just with a vocabulary and focus that makes their opinion accessible to their target audience. It is their job to assess what does and doesn't work within a production. In any other format (such as school or a work environment), criticism would be used to better people in the future. Film audiences somehow feel the need to segregate themselves by suggesting that the other side "Doesn't get it."

Here's the radical thing about film: It's subjective. Even within the world of "fans" and "critics," there's rarely a harmonious agreement. You are allowed to love and hate whatever you want. It would be desired if you understood why that was, but there is no one stopping you from loving a movie with bad reviews. It may push a few buttons, but I guarantee you that there's "fans" who are antagonistic to those who disagree, too. I understand that artists are sensitive and don't always take criticism well, but the choice to call out critics as awful for doing their jobs is like insulting the burger flipper for serving food with mad cow disease. If you don't like them, don't listen to them. However, don't go out of  your way to insult them either - unless they are of the antagonistic variety like Jeff Wells. 

I recognize that this is a touchy subject and both sides will always have animosity towards each other. However, I think that people who watch movies, whether casually or for a living, are fans by nature. They are passionate and only wish the best for everything their eyes see. So please, don't go around thinking that one side is wrong and awful if it's merely an opinion. We all have different tastes and that's the beauty of film. It can cater to everyone's ideals at different times. After all, critics don't hate all superhero movies. Think The Dark Knight, The Avengers, even this year's Deadpool. All of them have resoundingly positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. At that point, critics are fans. It only seems right that they could be called this when something isn't good because honestly, are you really going to have a movie ruined by a bad review? If so, you may need to grow thicker skin before you type an irrational complaint.