I hold film reviewers to a higher standard.
When I read a review from critics, I expect to read a thoughtful analysis of the film they chose to review, as opposed to asking some random moviegoer off the street.
An everyday moviegoer is not trained in the art of film analysis. They haven’t spent time perfecting their craft of not only considering a film’s direction, screenwriting, and cinematography, but also analyzing its themes, morals, and statements it makes; then putting these thoughts down on paper in order for the masses to read and understand before they make the choice to watch – or not to watch – the film.
That is why I was surprised when I read this review from Katie Walsh over Clint Eastwood’s upcoming film, “The Mule,” starring himself, Michael Pena, Bradley Cooper, and Lawrence Fishburne. The movie loosely tells the true story of the oldest known drug mule in United States history.
She is not the only culprit not to analyze a film before writing a review, simply the latest one that came across my feed.
Her review of the film is less a thoughtful critique and more a vehicle for her to decry Eastwood and her perceived racist message of the film.
Even in her review of the film, she fails to provide analysis over the film or its filmmaker, but instead opts for an ad hominem aside near the end of her review:
“There’s an interesting anti-capitalist strain here, but then you remember who made it and think twice.” She writes.
That is not a valid critique of the film itself. No matter the actual views of the director, critics are to judge the film based on its own merits, not on the who happened to sit in the director’s chair.
She is a film critic, so I expect her to provide a thoughtful analysis. I expect thoughtfulness. I expect it not because I’m imposing my own rules on her, but because thoughtful analysis is implied when one calls themselves a film critic. To critique something is to provide thoughtful analysis – it’s in the definition of the word.
Moving to her critique of the film: it’s one thing for a movie to follow a racist or murderous character, it’s quite another to send a message that it’s okay to be a racist or a murderer. One of my favorite shows of all time is Breaking Bad, but not once did I think its creator, Vince Gilligan, condoned cooking meth or committing murder.
Simply because the film follows a racist in Earl Stone, does not mean it promotes racism. Critics should be able to separate the characters in a film from the message of a film. Martin Scorsese has followed a plethora of villainous characters throughout his career as a filmmaker, but often the message of the film is polar opposite to the character he follows. She seems to confuse following a character who happens to be a racist, with a film that espouses and encourages racism
Even after watching “Mule”, she writes that it looks like there is a critique of capitalism in the film itself. But here she admits she has not given it a second thought:
“But by the end of the boring, racist melodrama that is “The Mule,” thinking twice doesn’t even seem worth the effort.”
Ms. Walsh offered a shallow review of a film that looks like – as she admits herself – deserves a closer look.
Unfortunately, that is not what Ms. Walsh has done in this review. Instead of providing a review of what message the film sends, she simply states that since Eastwood’s character is a racist and misogynist, therefore the film itself is guilty of the sins of the character.
We rely on critics to provide thoughtful reviews for films we have yet to see. A critic should be able to judge a film based on its own merits, and make a recommendation to watch or not watch it, regardless if they happened to enjoy the film themselves.
I expect more from film critics; their job title demands it.
