Who will criticize the critics? A progressive response to Cenk Uygur

As a film-lover and as a progressive, I was disappointed by the defense of Ben Lyons given by Air America host Cenk Uygur on the liberal Huffington Post Web site. Many film-lovers would disagree with Uygur, but as a progressive I think that Uygur's approach is backward and uncritical of the corporate media.

Uygur begins with a disclaimer to let us know that he is the former co-host of Lyons' current co-host on At the Movies, Ben Mankwieicz. What Uygur does not seem to consider at all is that it is exactly this sort of disclaimer that is so often missing from Ben Lyons' reviews. Lyons is not a reliable independent source of critical opinion exactly because he too often name-drops his friends in his reviews. Little would viewers know that he is complimenting an actor he has a friendship with because he never gives such a disclaimer himself. Additionally, his movie reviews far too often throw out comments that are clearly meant to be picked up as blurbs for the advertising campaigns of the films that he is supposed to be criticizing.

The result of this is that it is very difficult to take his reviews seriously. Uygur mentions none of this, simply stating that

the whole entertainment industry is built around sucking up to celebrities. You think Ben Lyons is uniquely responsible for this? Are you mental? Have you watched any entertainment 'news' in your life?

But this does not deal with the issue at all--Uygur simply makes Lyons out to be "just as bad" as the entire industry. That is hardly a convincing defense, especially considering that previous hosts of At the Movies such as Siskel and Ebert--or Roeper and Phillips, for that matter--did not indulge in this sort of behavior. Nobody believes that Lyons is "uniquely responsible" for this sorry state of affairs. Lyons is, however, one of the most visible film critics in the country now sitting in the highest seat of criticism and is one of the critics most blatantly responsible for this sort of behavior--and that is what has resulted in the backlash against Lyons.

But what is most missing from Uygur's response is any background of the overall context of film criticism today and the corporate environment it occupies. The mass media is controlled by a small number of large corporations, which means that there is crossover between the owners of the film studios and television networks on the one hand and the publications who hire the critics on the other. ABC/Disney--the producers of At the Movies--is a perfect example of this. In theory, critics give an unbiased opinion of the films they view. In reality, however, they are not only employed by the corporations that produce the work they are criticizing but are also beholden to the friendliness of Hollywood stars, directors, and producers, whose cooperation they need in order to land high-profile interviews. Even worse, it is not uncommon for some critics to give a free pass to far too many movies and include silly blurbs like "It's a thrill-a-minute blockbuster!" in their reviews, guaranteeing their blurb--and their name--will land on the materials for the movie's ad campaign. The critic legitimizes Hollywood so that Hollywood will legitimize them.

Even more significantly, the struggle for survival by print periodicals and the rise of Web sites dedicated to film reviews has meant that a number of film critics have lost their jobs recently. To make matters worse, the Associated Press recently announced that they expect their critics to keep their reviews to 500 words or less. All of this means that today's critics are forced to constantly look over their shoulder and have a number of pressures on them to adapt to Hollywood's standards--presumably under the guise of appealing to the masses--rather than critique it harshly or provide a more sophisticated analysis.

This is not just a question of whether movie reviews should be directed at the uneducated masses versus academic film snobs. This is a question of whether the critic can be considered an independent voice at all or simply a cog in the film industry whose position is dictated by those who control the wealth and is, therefore, unwilling to bite the hand that feeds it. When he declared I Am Legend to be one of the greatest movies of all time and 300 to be one of the greatest films of the last twenty five years--but could not even be bothered to find a space on his top ten list of 2007 for the latter--Lyons exposed precisely what is wrong with many of today's film critics. While some are principled and have no qualms about slamming Hollywood for expecting us to like much of the senseless garbage that is produced, too many are willing to suck up to the industry and its stars in order to get their name on a poster or guarantee an interview.

It is also important to reject the attitude that critics should just tell ordinary folks what they will like and not be so concerned with film history. Considering that Siskel and Ebert had no problem giving two thumbs up to "lowbrow" comedies and action movies when they were well made, Uygur's attitude seems to expect a "dumbing down" of criticism. But far too many progressives look upon the "unwashed masses" with disdain, as though the entire country is composed of beer-swilling red state imbeciles who are glued to the television and will eat whatever is fed to them--politically, culturally, and literally. Uygur does not explicitly express this sort of dismissive attitude but plays directly into it with the belief that ordinary people are not interested in "cinematography and shadowy lighting".

On the contrary, it does not take an Ivy League education to appreciate these things. Anybody who watches a lot of movies--and many people who do not--can appreciate a scene well photographed. Siskel and Ebert, by the way, were always far more receptive of interesting characters and surprising plots--they simply expected films to give us something different and unexpected and encouraged people to have a higher standard than they might otherwise have. The point of the critic, as Ebert once said, is not only to reflect public opinion but also to shape--to encourage people not to settle for less and expect a higher standard from the entertainment machine that puts out films through a production line process and hopes the masses will stroll in the theater with their $10 regardless of quality or originality.

Rather than make excuses for critics like Ben Lyons, progressives should demand more. We should criticize the critics who are only interested in furthering their careers and are willing to make fools of themselves--and their audience--by recommending films that do not deserve the recommendation. We should encourage ordinary people to expect more out of their critics, not less.

With Friends Like These, Ben Lyons Needs More Friends

Originally posted at New York Magazines Vulture blog. I hope to have my response to Cenk Uygur up tomorrow.

When we wrote about the brewing Category 4 Ben Lyons Hate Storm last week, Vulture took a mildly ambivalent stance on the self-proclaimed "movie dude." While a nation of highbrow critics are calling for his head on a platter (their bloodlust is so strong that they're not even demanding said platter be cast from silver), we kind of took the stance that Lyons isn't worth demonizing because he's pretty genial and, ultimately, not that influential. However, we just stumbled across a shoddily composed essay over at the Huffington Post titled "In Defense of Ben Lyons" that has us reconsidering our stance. Penned by a blogger named Cenk Uygur, the piece's crucial thesis statement reads as follows:

Here is my simple message to all the haters — get off Ben Lyons' ass.

And it gets worse from there.

Though we don't know what kind of relationship Uygur has with Lyons (if any at all), we were kinda hoping that someone more well spoken would've rushed to defend the younger of the Two Bens. Uygar's piece is chock-full of tired clichés (at one point, he writes the groan-worthy line "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn that he doesn't have Roger Ebert's encyclopedic knowledge of film history") and weirdly cyclical arguments. His major point seems to be that he doesn't watch At the Movies to find out about "cinematography and shadowy lighting"; rather, he just wants to know if he should take his old lady to go see Benjamin Button or not. After all, as he argues, "How this movie compares with Frank Capra's body of work is a lot less relevant to me than whether my wife is going to be able to sit through it." Good point, we suppose, but we're kind of hoping we never have to meet his wife.

He goes on to rail against the Cahiers du Cinéma crowd by stating that he's "got two Ivy League degrees and I still loved Old School," before launching into his closing arguments with an impassioned chant of "Look, let's keep it real." At that point, his argument really falls apart when he refers back to the "haters" we mentioned from his thesis statement:

Are some of these other critics jealous of Ben Lyons because he has landed such a prestigious and well paying job (and one that makes you famous) whereas they are still working in print? Absolutely.

Way to kick the film critics of America when they're down, Cenk. As the cliché that we're fairly certain he's familiar with goes, there's just no accounting for taste.