Peary's Take on the Movies

Gerald Peary’s documentary For the Love of Movies explored an extremely wide range of subject matters.  The film covered the beginnings and history of film criticism, advise critics might give to aspiring writers, and the ultimate question of what will come next for film critics.  Obviously, there is a vast difference from where the field started to where it is now, but the question arises: should that change the quality of film criticism?  Well, the obvious answer is no, but the more realistic answer is yes.  As Peary’s film revealed, film criticism is a dying professional field, overrun with amateur writers.  Yes, many critics in the film do argue that new, untrained film critics have just as much right to explore their own ideas of film, but in turn a lot of un-credible writers are entering the film world.

Within the film two schools of thought seemed to emerge.  One perspective was from the older generation of film critics; most of who are now either retired or deceased, and the other was from the newer generation who are now competing with untrained writers.  The older generation had more of an elitist attitude.  Now, this is not necessarily a bad quality in a movie critic.  These writers need to be confident that they are the authority in this field, believing that their opinion will dominate others.  The newer school does acknowledge that amateurs with no real professional experience are challenging their area of expertise, but they seem to welcome the competition.  Most of these critics even revealed that they are no more qualified to write than anyone else.  I completely disagree with this.  These writers have had education, training, and experience that most of these internet writers have not.  Even if one may lack a formal education in film, strong writing is a must!  Obviously, writing is the most critical component of becoming a film reviewer, but a great critic must have the ability to reach an audience.  Some might argue that writing for a wide base gives a critic less academic authority, but I would beg to differ. 

Peary did examine a writer that I feel is a great writer.  I went into this film not knowing much about the history of film criticism (aside from what I had been reading for class) so I must admit that I did feel a bit lost at points.  So many names were thrown around that it almost felt like I spent most of my energy keeping track of names, rather than following the progression of the film.  And then, about halfway through the film, I reached what felt like my “A-ha” moment.  Finally, the viewers were introduced to a critic that I knew.  Not just a name that I had picked up from class or maybe read one review from, but a critic that I have had a relationship with for years.  Lisa Schwartzbaum, a critic for Entertainment Weekly, made me feel comfortable within the context of the film.  As a viewer, I now had some form of basic knowledge to anchor me down within a subject matter that I knew little about. 

Schwartzbaum provided some of the films most insightful advice for up and coming film critics, expressing the need for critics to build their own personal perspectives before writing.  Sure, she did make some whacky comments about hiking once or twice, but she did speak with authority.  However, Schwartbaum’s presence in the film did make me question how other moviegoers perceive her.  It also made me think about my own association with this critic and what that says about me.  Lisa Schwartzbaum writes for Entertainment Weekly, a national publication that I have been reading for several years now.  Each week a large portion of the magazine is dedicated specifically to film and almost always Schwartzbaum takes control of the lead article.  To some, Entertainment Weekly may not seem like a credible source for serious film discussions.  Since the publication is so popular and probably considered to be mainstream media, I feel that some elitist, self-proclaimed movie buffs may not view Schwartzbaum’s work as serious writing.  Some may think that I am amateurish in my choice of film publications, but those would be wrong.  Interestingly, Peary’s documentary helped dispel my own personal worry that I was reading a low level, generic, mass media critic.  Instead, I realized that Schwartzbaum is a talented and informative writer, mixing reviews of popular movies with lesser known foreign pieces and bits of film history. 

Aside from not knowing some of, but mostly not connecting with, the critics featured in the film, the movie also contained a few technical issues that became distracting as time went on.  The transition pieces between main sections of the film became tiring.  First the transition slides were to differentiate the periods of time that Peary was examining, but once they began to ask questions, they felt old and overused.  Even the fonts and background images used for these frames seemed out of date.  Peary himself did state that this film took him over eight years to complete, and these transition frames brought attention to that.  Each slide looked like something that you would see at the movie theaters before the preview started – a photo of a concession stand or people ripping movie tickets.  This portion of the film was really minor, but unfortunately it has stayed in my mind as distracting moments. 

I would consider For the Love of Movies to be a great introductory piece for any person that may be interested in the area of film criticism.  The film covers every aspect of the field, giving the audience a full range view into this dwindling field.