GoodTrash Media

Ok, there have been a lot of reviews and podcasts (some even from our very own site, here, here, and here) about how bad Batman v Superman is and that no one should bother watching it. In the wake of the financial success of that disaster of a film there have been other equally disastrous predictions about the state of film criticism.

Nearly everyone with any association with film criticism and a newspaper column, website, or a twitter account said the movie was bad and you should not see it. Oh but you did! And this movie is going to make a billion dollars. Obviously, the conclusion can only be that we critics do not matter and we can all move on to being ignored in some more important area of human existence. Clearly I am writing this piece, or maybe it’s Dalton Stuart from the future writing in a dream to assemble the GoodTrash Media Network to save criticism….nah, I think I just want to say this stuff matters and to argue against it mattering using box office numbers is precisely why it matters.

The real thought here is about the difference we make here at GoodTrash Media between criticism and analysis. Every week on GTGC we announce that “it’s not a review show it’s an analysis show” even though there is a review portion. Even our most review-oriented show, Back To the Movies, does more to analyze the film in question than simply make their recommendations at the end. The distinction for us is that criticism = review and analysis = something more like the “think piece.” I realize that criticism is also used as a broader term that encompasses both ideas, but I think the distinction is important because one desperately needs to be affirmed by box office numbers and the other could not be made to care less.

These two poles have always existed in film studies. They have always been wrestling with the two tensions between film as art object for analysis and as an industrially produced commodity. If all we are doing is product review, I just as soon close the shutters and go home. Unfortunately that is exactly all some of our colleagues seem to think we are doing. If we say a movie is bad, (and those value judgements are all we are saying) then of course if the public does not listen to us, naturally that would give us some pause as to our value. If, however, what we are doing is having a conversation with the seventh art, situating it in film history, current events, and theoretical frameworks; suddenly the goalposts are in a different place.

I have no interest in being a advocate for the Hollywood (or Bollywood, or London, or Paris) machine that tells them what to make or the consumer how to vote with their dollars. Don’t get me wrong, I have quality opinions (and I share them!) but the film industry has always been a mixed bag. The mixed bag is what makes the analytical conversation so interesting. Films of high artistic value, like say, Cemetery of Splendor, or mass-produced commercial objects like Batman v Superman all provide interesting lenses through which to examine the world. And they always have. Movies on both ends of the spectrum have always been made and there is not much chance that either will ever go away.

I think the mere critic may take herself too seriously in that she may suppose that her job is to somehow act as a quality control in the corporate machine. Then when the machine does not respond in kind, a sort of existential crisis ensues. I think the failure of the press to influence the box office performance of Batman v Superman is exactly the moment needed for a contemporary film criticism that is far too much review and far too little analysis. Forget whether it is good or not or trying to lobby a corporation to make more product in flavors you prefer. Instead let’s talk more about what a film like this means to the history of the character, contemporary society and what it means to be human. Let that be the determinate whether the film is a success or failure, not your ability to persuade the public to see it or not. This is what is going to push the medium forward; to bypass the quality control in favor of a discussion as to why cinema matters.

Frankly this is why we have Batman v Superman in the form we do. The critical analysis of Man of Steel (not the reviews mind you, which were middling, and yet the film was still a financial success) in terms of post-9/11 trauma and the collateral damage of superhero movies changed the script and long-term plans at Warner Bros. Folks, it may be true that film reviews do not matter, but even to the mighty blockbuster, analysis still provides a powerful force.

Analysis matters. There is a place for review in that it helps a reader/listener make a decision for Friday night, but if that’s all we are doing we become the worst kind of parasites, feeding off what little sustenance cast off by various corporations. But there is a higher purpose: we can speak truth to power and sometimes power listens. I cannot say that all the ideological problems of Man of Steel were solved by Batman v Superman, but the studio and Zack Snyder tried.

They responded.

We were heard.

Spoiler alert: the power of analysis may make film critics as hard to kill as the last son of Krypton, and just powerful and therefore dangerous. We don’t have to play by their rules, just like Superman. The only kryptonite that can stop us is to allow the Hollywood machine define us and the box office validate us. Criticism can be heroic if it stands outside these industrial concerns and instead becomes a symbol for higher purposes like Truth, Justice and Analysis.

Can we talk more about doing good versus the butterfly effect of unknown consequence? Maybe we should talk about our reactions to trauma and perhaps situate Bruce Wayne and the other characters in the world post-9/11. Maybe we should talk about Wonder Woman! Forget how much money this catastrophe made and think about how many great conversation starters it makes. Let’s get down to the real business of film criticism, analysis!