The question has divided moviegoers for decades. Today, two camps clash. On the one hand, mass media offer stars or other rating systems to mark the imagination and attract their readers. On the other hand, critics from specialized journals and artists believe that the stars represent a reductionist system that is detrimental to criticism.
However, if the debate has aroused passions for so long, why talk about it now? Recently, Quebec media, including The duty, reported that the divide between critics and the general public was widening. A broader reflection on the role of critics and on the very constitution of critical texts naturally imposed itself, in order to better define the relationship of critics to the public.
Since the stars often remain the first point of reference for readers in the text, it is appropriate to ask: are they as important as they say? Why do the media need it? And should we change the method?
Last September, The Press decided. The daily, which had published stars with its critics for years, changed to a rating system out of 10. The case raised strong reactions, including an open letter from director René Richard Cyr. Reacting to the rating of 8.5 attributed to one of his pieces, he said he was disappointed with this new system “just as laughable and paternalistic as the stars that we have suffered for too long already”.
The readers of The Press were also numerous to speak out on social networks and in an online survey. “The decision pleased all our journalists, says Frédéric Murphy, director of the Arts and Being section of The Press. We didn’t expect so many reactions, but I still think it was the right thing to do. […] We wanted to continue to guide our readers while allowing ourselves more nuances in the notes. »
“Simplistic and simplistic”
The stars, however, do not make everyone happy. Alice Michaud-Lapointe is a film critic and doctoral student. She also taught criticism at the University of Montreal. “There’s something playful and functional about the ratings that come from sites like Rotten Tomatoes, which are designed to compare reviews,” she says. But the ratings that accompany the texts in the media go against the exercise of criticism, which must, by definition, admit more nuances. »
Mme Michaud-Lapointe, who writes for magazines 24 Pictures And Offscreen — who do not accompany their texts with notes — describes the star system as “simplistic and reductive”. She points to three main reasons. First, “the review exists in a given artistic, cultural and political context”, but the rating “does not specify this context, and the review almost never explains the rating that accompanies it”.
The doctoral student then explains that “a lot of things get lost in the margins with the stars. Nanars who can be interesting will often receive a bad mark and be automatically hidden. She further argues that “the odds can produce a violent effect. When it is negative and it accompanies a devastating text, it can be perceived as an unnecessary additional humiliation for filmmakers, especially for first works”.
So, should we remove the stars? Mme Michaud-Lapointe thinks so, but only “in their current form, where they risk harming reviews,” without objecting to other ways of rating films.
Where do the stars come from?
They have been used by the media to rate all kinds of works of art, especially films, books and plays, since the beginning of the 20th century.e century. One of the earliest examples, in film, is attributed to critic Irene Thirer, who began using a three-star system in the New York Daily Newsas early as 1928.
At Duty, stars have been around for a very long time. They are a form of universal notation, in several fields, for example in restoration or in literature. they have a role of curation to draw a complete portrait of an environment and to compare reviews with each other.
It wasn’t until the 1950s, however, that the practice became mainstream for the mass media, influenced by journals like The Notebooks of the Cinema — today, paradoxically, magazines are massively abandoning the stars. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Canadian daily newspapers such as The PressTHE Globe and Mail And The duty followed the parade.
“Before, we published a sheet with stars about a week after the publication of the review, says Martin Bilodeau, general manager of Mediafilm and former critic at the Duty. Like several colleagues, I was against the arrival of the current system, because I found that the stars imposed themselves as a distraction from the text. »
Today, Mr. Bilodeau is divided: “The notes can also serve as a reading proposal. It’s very healthy to have an ecosystem where different points of view coexist. »
“Like a tradition”
The Mediafilm director says he understands why some people abhor the stars, but insists such ratings “serve an educational function”. He says that the general public, less cinephile, “risks going to see a film thanks to the notes, like me, when I was little, thanks to the ratings of Mediafilm”.
” At Duty, the stars have been around for a very long time, explains Émilie Larivée-Tourangeau, deputy director of cultural information. They are a form of universal notation, in several fields, for example in restoration or in literature. They have a curatorial role in drawing up a complete portrait of an environment and in comparing reviews with each other. »
Maxime Demers, film critic at Montreal Journal, agrees: “It’s like a tradition. The five-star rating system already existed when I arrived at the Log, 22 years ago. Our readers are used to this system, which has the advantage of being clear and simple. Frederic Murphy also admits that The Press adopted stars — or marks out of 10 — partly out of habit and because the practice had taken hold elsewhere.
All stakeholders contacted by The duty recognize, however, that “traditions” in the world of criticism never last very long. “The thinking never ends, but the intent behind the criticism shouldn’t change,” says Murphy. While the general public can rate films themselves on several platforms, we are also witnessing slippages, and readers need to find their way around. Criticism remains all the more important. »