Is What You Like, Good? Anthony O. Scott, Samuel L. Jackson, & The Debate Over Quality
Film critic Anthony O. Scott recently incurred the wrath of actor Samuel L. Jackson over his weary review of The Avengers. The following remark is a solid microcosm of Scott’s feelings about the film:
The secret of “The Avengers” is that it is a snappy little dialogue comedy dressed up as something else, that something else being a giant A.T.M. for Marvel and its new studio overlords, the Walt Disney Company.
It’s a backhanded compliment, certainly, but Scott’s thesis is that The Avengers is not a work of art (even commercial art) so much as it is the horse to which Marvel and Disney have both hitched a lot of merchandising carts. Some films just feel that way, like when Elvis made movies that weren’t there to touch our souls but because Col. Parker knew The King’s career would benefit from the publicity.
In any event, this review prompted the coolest actor of our era to take to Twitter. Jackson urged:
#Avengers fans,NY Times critic AO Scott needs a new job! Let’s help him find one! One he can ACTUALLY do!
— Samuel L. Jackson (@SamuelLJackson) May 3, 2012
This kicked off a minor Twitter war, culminating in the following exchange between Jackson and George Green (@kramercapriati):
Actually, sometimes IT DOES! @kramercapriati
— Samuel L. Jackson (@SamuelLJackson) May 3, 2012
There’s nothing new about any of this, of course. We comic book readers have heard the rest of you gripe for the last decade how sick you are of capes in movies, and the debate between popularity and quality goes all the way back to when Adam tried to get Eve to be content with all the fruit in Eden except that one apple. One thing that wasn’t available in the Garden of Eden, though, was Flickchart.
At first glance, one would expect The Avengers to absolutely crush other movies on a site like Flickchart where the average community member is very much in that movie’s prime demographic. What credibility can a site like Flickchart have anyway? Its users have named The Dark Knight “The Best Movie of All Time.”
It’s certainly true that the certified classics of cinema haven’t placed as highly here on Flickchart as they have on pretty much any ranked list compiled by critics or film historians. It’s the source of much debate even among those of us Flickchart evangelicals. Consider, though, that just making a ton of money off the fanboy demographic wasn’t good enough to earn any love here for Michael Bay’s Transformers series; the highest rated of that series was the first film, presently at #1275 between Catfish and Dead Man Walking.
What Anthony Scott really seems to want is a more thoughtful comic book movie for a more discerning fanboy. Though he doesn’t seem to feel The Avengers is that film, it’s an ideal that is very much embraced by those of us who are not contented to be wowed just because something that used to be on our Underoos is now sixteen feet tall on a screen causing explosions. Every time a movie turns up in a Flickchart ranking matchup, users have the chance to voice whether they were satisfied by it. At some point in every ranking decision to be made, we ask ourselves “Which movie was better?” but we also ask, “Which did I like more?” There is an ongoing debate whether those are the same question. Doesn’t the fact you like it mean it’s good? I personally do not think so. I am firmly in the camp that what one likes and what is good may be two different things entirely. The example I often give is The Godfather; it’s a good film and I respect it… but it left me cold and I can’t say I necessarily liked it.
It’s not my place to tell anyone how to assess the films they’ve seen, or how to Flickchart. What I can say, though, is that the fluid nature of the global Best Movies list means that our community is stronger with as many participants as possible. Whether you agree with Anthony O. Scott that, “while The Avengers is hardly worth raging about, its failures are significant and dispiriting” or if you side with Samuel L. Jackson that any critic who doesn’t worship at its altar should have his “jaundiced ass” fired, Flickchart is the perfect forum to weigh in not just with some comments, but in a way that will help shape our canon of films.
This post is part of our User Showcase series. You can find Travis as TravisSMcClain on Flickchart. If you’re interested to submit your own story or article describing your thoughts about movies and Flickchart, read our original post for how to become a guest writer here on the Flickchart Blog.
What each person likes is good to that individual person. If you are entertained by a movie, for whatever reason, then it is good. This not mean that anyone else is required to agree. You are not watching a movie for anyone else but yourself, so it is a waste of time to dwell on whether it is objectively good to the rest of the world. The whole point of Flickchart is to rank movies according to how much you personally like them. You are making a list of your favorite movies. Not a list for critics or guardians of culture. Not a list based on a popular opinion. You are making a list for yourself.
I’m not really sure what remedy for The Dark Knight being #1 on Flickchart is being suggested. Should people ranking movies pretend to like it less? Should users only rank movies that have appeared on five or more Greatest Films of All Time lists? Even film aficionados who favor the more intellectual or culturally significant movies do not necessarily agree on which of those are the most worthy of praise. Also, a classic to one culture is not necessarily a classic to another. There is no way to universally appraise greatness, and even if there was, then does that mean those are the only films we should enjoy?
The truth is that most people tend to watch and like what is popular. The people who have a deeper interest in film are in the minority. If, say, Citizen Kane was the #1 Flickchart ranked movie, would that mean that it’s there only because it’s the one “important” film that most people have heard of? Probably. Despite it’s place in cinema history, not everyone gets enjoyment from watching it. There are those who would rank it highly just because it is a popular thing to do. How do we know what people’s motivations even are? Would Citizen Kane at #1 make Flickchart more credible, or just indicate that a lot of people heard that Citizen Kane is the greatest of all films and then ranked accordingly?
High five, Chad. Flickchart is an amalgamation of its members’ favorite films. Nobody should start hand-wringing over the “wrong” film being at number one. We aren’t trying to pass a test here. Overall, at the present moment, “The Dark Knight” is the most loved film among flickcharters. End of story. And that’s the way I like it.
If anything, I trust Flickchart’s method of rating over imdb’s by a good sight.
Money and marketing is the anti-thesis of art. The more each are involved the more that has to be compromised to regain back that money and to appease sponsors.
That being said, not every movie has to be art and just because a movie isn’t art doesn’t make it bad.
If a person likes a movie then in some general sense it’s good. I don’t really care what their reasoning is as long as it’s true to themselves and it’s a little more thought out than, “It’s awesome.”
Hell I liked TMNT because of the Raphael vs. Leonardo fight.
This feels like another one of those ways of saying certain movies are “important” while others aren’t. Which is a load of crap.
Movies are means of escapism so we evade boredom that we are allowed to have because we live in a technological age that gives us more free time. It also lets us not have to think about what we dislike about our lives and death…unless we want to.
People who think only certain movies are “important” are pretty pretentious and just as close minded as any regular movie watcher who doesn’t want to watch foreign movies because they are subtitled.
Obviously I’m not talking about if someone thinks a movie is important to them personally. It’s when they talk about a movie’s worldly importance and see it as a way to measure someone’s overall movie taste. “Oh you don’t think Citizen Kane is a masterpiece? Well then you are a complete rube.”
Some people want to watch movies that will enlighten them, challenge their ideals, or move them emotionally. Some people just like sitting in a seat and watching unrealistic stuff they’ll never be able to do happen to either laugh or wish they had some of the aspects of some larger than life protagonist.
The point is, all movies are good and all movies are bad. It’s nearly impossible to find a movie that everyone is in agreement on.
I don’t really know if this had anything to do with anything, it kind of spun out of control.
Exactly. Anyone who complains about The Dark Knight being #1 on Flickchart is just a taking a self-centered, haughty view. The Dark Knight is #1 because a bunch of people watched it and ranked it. Simple. There are a lot more people who have seen The Dark Knight than have seen any number of art films that may be better. It’s supremely ludicrous to expect the masses to all consume culture in the same way just to fit some snob’s vision of what the greatest movie should be. There are so many movies out there that are deserving to be seen. I’m sure most people who complain about The Dark Knight haven’t seen even a small percentage of world cinema. But they’re just pissy because a familiar “classic” isn’t #1. Most of these people need to get more culture themselves.
The problem with Scott’s review is that it’s pretty much the same as all of his superhero movie reviews. Scott doesn’t like superhero action movies. He goes to The Avengers wanting a coming-of-age film or drama and then gets upset when it’s an action film. So it’s not an issue of Scott not liking The Avengers, he just doesn’t like the genre. He probably could have written half of his review without seeing the film. In my opinion, if he has such an obvious dislike, then he should probably pass off those reviews to a colleague.
It’ll be interesting to see if the backlash softens him no Spider-man and Dark Knight Rises but I’d bet that he puts out the same Mad Lib-esque review, citing the same issues with only the character names and a few specifics changing.
It’s tough to give much of a fair review to a genre you don’t particularly like, especially if the genre doesn’t feel the need to transcend what it is. Comic book super hero films aren’t substantive by nature. Stuff like The Dark Knight or Batman Begins are more of an exception to the rule. Doesn’t negate that there’s quality to those other films. But if that’s not your bag, it’s just not going to work for you no matter what.
Long story short, I pretty much agree with you, SoulHonky. I will say though that Scott gets points for still seeing these films and giving them a chance. That’s more than I can say about myself when I completely dismiss movies outright. :)
All movies are art. Is that so hard to understand?
Some art is made to turn a profit. It is still art and it’s “value” is subjective. Let’s move on.
There is no such thing as objective quality when it comes to films. Machines have objective quality. One steel bar is stronger than another. Movies are subjective, no two ways about it.
My Flickchart is solely determined by my favorite films, the ones I am most likely to want to watch because I love them. Citizen Kane isn’t in my top 20 but it’s pretty high, because I legitimately enjoy it. Other films that I will grant are quality pieces of commercial art aren’t so high on my list: The Godfather, Intolerance, Schindler’s List. I just don’t like them so much.
Instead of saying that a film like “The Godfather” is “objectively
good”, it would me more accurate to say that it has solid production values, good acting and directing behind it, etc. I’m tired of paying lip service to certain films being objectively better than others.