The divide between critics and the general public is probably a subject as old as the invention of cinema by the Lumière brothers. But in recent years, has the gap widened further? With as proof the last Asterix and Obelixreviled by critics, but which turns out to be the best start for a French film in theaters for a long time.
Some speak of the best start in 15 years for a French film, even if the attendance figures are debated, as the tickets sold in preview were counted. But the fact is that with 1.6 million admissions after a week in theaters, Asterix and Obelix. The middle Empire had a dazzling start in France, while the national cinema was going through a serious crisis.
Even in Quebec, Guillaume Canet’s film made a good impression, rising to second place in the box office during its first weekend with more than $200,000 in profits. He is preceded by Avatar: The Way of Waterr, entrenched for eight weeks, although the Hollywood blockbuster has not been spared by the press either. This is what makes the businessman Vincent Guzzo, owner of the cinema chain of the same name, say that the opinion of critics does not count for much in the end.
“Whether the critics say a big-budget movie sucks, or whether they say it’s not that bad, who cares. Elvis Gratton And The Boys made big numbers, even if the criticism demolished them. I don’t want to be impolite, but the vast majority of people are a little fond of your 1 star and your 5 stars, ”he sums up, with the flowery language that we know him.
Maverick, Vincent Guzzo is not kind to journalists. Like politicians, he accuses them of being increasingly disconnected from the rest of the population. “Me, when I see a film, I don’t watch it as Vincent Guzzo. I look at him as a businessman, as a theater owner. I think of the commercial potential of each film. And critics should do the same. Rather than giving your personal opinion, try to put yourself in the shoes of Mr. Mrs. Everyone,” he suggests.
Still an impact
To reduce critics to an elitist vision in this way is frankly dishonest, retorts cinema professor Jean-Pierre Sirois-Trahan. This reproach, widely relayed in the world of commercial cinema, simply does not pass the test of the facts, notes the one who gives a course on criticism at Laval University.
“Surely there are elitist critics, but criticism is not elitist. The proof is that the reviews have generally been good for Top Gun, while it was the most popular film last year. There are those who will say that everything Hollywood does is bad, but these are not critics, these are activists. True critics believe that all movies are created equal, whether they have a budget of $10,000 or $10 million. There are good commercial films and bad independent films,” he says. Jean-Pierre Sirois-Trahan recalls in the same breath as the first Avataras well asAsterix and Obelix. Mission Cleopatrae, had been praised in the media, as commercial as they are.
For this teacher, criticism has above all a long-term influence on blockbusters. It is she in part that will elevate this or that film to the rank of classic in posterity. Critics also have the power to influence directors in their choices. “Tarantino himself said he was influenced by Pauline Kael [légendaire critique de cinéma du New Yorker] “, he illustrates. In the immediate future, however, he concedes that a bad review is more likely to put down an Almodóvar or a Dolan than a Marvel film.
Whether critics say a big-budget movie is a turnip, or whether they say it’s not that bad, who cares. […] I don’t mean to be rude, but the vast majority of people take a bit of a liking to your 1 star and 5 star ratings.
The Christmas movie December 23, for example, received a mixed reception in the media when it was released, which in no way prevented it from becoming the highest-grossing Quebec feature film of the year, surpassing the $2 million mark at the box- office. The distributor of this romantic comedy, Patrick Roy, however, believes that the numbers could have been even better if the reviews had been more favorable. In short, even for a film intended for the general public, criticism would indeed have an influence, even marginal.
“It’s impossible to say how many more people would have come, but it’s sure that if Sophie Durocher in THE Montreal Journal had liked it, it would have had an impact. But I still think the criticism is less important than it was. The gap has widened in recent years and people trust more what we write on social networks,” said Patrick Roy, president of Immina Films.
A different experience
Critic Michel Coulombe acknowledges that people in his profession live in a bubble, perhaps even more so than before. But it is not really out of snobbery that the gap is widening, in Quebec at least, specifies the one who can regularly be heard on Radio-Canada. If critics are increasingly disconnected, it is mainly because of the advent of platforms, according to him.
“Me, for example, when I looked Rome Or The Power of the Dog, I was with other journalists in a room. It’s not at all the same experience as alone at home, on a laptop or on a tablet. They are two very contemplative films that you can only fully appreciate in the cinema, in my opinion. I would understand if people who watched them on Netflix did not like these films as much, ”explains the author of the book. Quebec in the cinema.
That said, critics and the general public have always had often diametrically opposed tastes in cinema. And the two solitudes are not about to get closer. “ The public and the critics, it’s always like the heart and the reason. For Asterix, for example, the critics look at it with distance, without emotion. The public looks at it with something that comes from attachment, nostalgia, shared memories. So even if the review is bad, it doesn’t really matter in this case, ”slices Michel Coulombe.