THE ORIGIN, PURPOSE AND FUTURE OF FILM … to “enquire particularly into what modern literature...

1

THEORIGIN,PURPOSEANDFUTUREOFFILMCRITICISMRichardAlaba,PhDCineMuseFilms

TableofContents:1Abstract p12Introduction p23CulturalCriticismandFilmHistory p44TheEvolutionofFilmCriticism p55ApproachestoFilmCriticism p96CriticalTensions:FilmIndustry,theProfessions,andTechnology p137Conclusion p178References p19

Abstract Filmcriticismhasitshistoricalrootsinculturalcriticismandsharesits

corediscourseaboutobjectivity,aesthetics,andpolemics.Regularlyseenas‘incrisis’,filmcriticismhasevolvedtobeadiversegenreofwritingthatusesdifferentframesofreferenceandexplanatoryparadigmstomeetavarietyofreadershipneeds.Theso-calledcrisesresideintheambivalentrelationshipsbetweenindustry,thecriticprofession,andtechnologicalchangethathasresultedintheerosionofthecritic’sauthorityinmoderntimes.Farfromfacingexistentialcrisis,filmcriticismcontinuestoevolveasavibrantcontributortofilmliteracyandengagement.

2IntroductionTheword‘crisis’hasbeenappliedtofilmcriticismthroughoutitsentirehistory.In1909,filmcriticswereridiculedinUSAmagazineMovingPictureWorldfortheir“downrightstupidity”andlackoffilmknowledge,andin1919therewerecallsinEuropeforlegislationtostopthepublicationoffilmreviewsentirely(Frey2015,37).TheHollywoodmagazineVarietyhasregularlythrownbarbslike“arefilmcriticsreallyneededanymoreorisitawashed-upprofession?”(2007).Inamedia-obsessedglobalenvironmentfilmcriticism“isbesiegedonallsides…byjoblayoffsinnewspapers,bythecollapseofthemarketforspecialisedprintmagazines,bytheproliferationofamateursitesonline”(Martin2016).Manycommentatorsbemoanthe“glutoffilm-criticalwriting”thathastransformedcriticismintoaformofonlinefastfood(Tompkins2016)whileothersurgethat“itistimetostopwhiningaboutthedeathoffilmjournalismandstartconsideringwaystoresurrectit”(White2014).Thepopularityoffilmwritingacrossallmediaformatshighlighttheambivalenceandparadoxofcriticism.Howcanconsumersoffilmcriticismmakesenseoftheseviewpoints?Theliteratureonfilmcriticismisonlypartiallyhelpfulinclarifyingtheseissues.Therearemanybookswithtitleslike“ThePermanentCrisisofFilmCriticism”(Frey2015),articleswithnamessuchas“TheRiseandFallofFilmCriticism”(Nowell-Smith2008),andanabundanceofonlinecommentarywithheadingsdescribing“Thewaragainstmoviecritics”(Taylor2003).Thisamorphousfieldofwritingofferslittleclarityorcommondiscourseonfilmcriticism,reflectingthefactthattherearewidelydifferentviewpointsandvestedinterestswithininstitutionsandindustry,aswellasamongstfilmwritersandreaderships.Allmassmediaplatformsareexperiencingthecrisisofmodernisationasthetechnologicaladvanceofthecapitalisteconomymarchesrelentlesslyforwardwithoutregardforhowartformslikefilmwillfitintothenewonlineworld.Givenitslongandcontentioushistoryandthecontinuingcriesofimminentcollapse,somemayfinditsurprisingthatfilmcriticismhassurvivedatall.Itisinthiscontextthatfilmcriticismcouldbedescribedasinperpetualexistentialcrisis.Ithasalwayshadanambivalentrolewithmanyinherentcontradictions:widelyexploitedbutnotalwaysrespected;withoutuniversalguidingprinciples;eminentlycorruptibleinitsrelationships;andneverinits

3historyacknowledgedasanessentialcontributortotheculturallifeofwhichitisapart.Atthesametime,filmcriticismisconsumedwidely.Itwasthemidwifeatthebirthofcinema;ithasbeenahandmaidenofthefilmindustry;ithashelpedtomakethefilmart-formintelligibleandaccessibletocountlessaudiences;anditisnowwitnesstothedemocratisationofitslife’sworkasfilmliteracyspreadsthroughubiquitousconnectivity.Filmwritinginallitsvarietycontinuestoexistbecausewhilemostpeoplecandescribewhattheyseeandhearinamoviemanyareunsureofwhatitmeans(Corrigan2004,1).Readerslooktofilmcriticismforinterpretationandengagement,andfilmcriticismofferstomeettheseneeds.Thesignsofcrisiscontinue.However,thenatureandscaleofthecrisis,whetheritisterminalorcyclical,andwhatareitscausesandeffectsareallopentodebatewithdifferentstakeholdersofferingdifferentdiagnosesandprognoses.Therearemultiplefactorsatplayinthisdebate:theroleofevaluationincriticism;thetensionbetweenaestheticsandpolemics;thepossibilityofobjectivitywithinanessentiallysubjectiveprocess;andthemergingofculturalproducersandculturalconsumersintheonlineworldof‘produsage’(Bruns2007).Whilesomepredict(andevenhopefor)itscompletedemise,othersdeclareitonlytemporarilyincapacitatedbutredeemable.Stillothersviewthecrisissimplyastheconstantlychangingintersectionbetweentheoldandthenew,andsignsofcrisesasevidenceofhealthyevolutionandapromisingfuture.Inattemptingtoreconcilethismontageofviews,thisessaytracesthebroadhistoryoffilmcriticismanditskeydiscourses.Itoutlinesthemostcommonparadigmsofcriticismandidentifiessomeofthehistoricalandcontemporary‘battlelines’betweenacademic,industryandpopularmediaapproachestofilmcriticism.Itisarguedthattheselinesreflectentrenchedprofessionalandideologicalpositionsabouttheauthorityoffilmcriticstoshapepublicopinionaboutfilmasartandasacommercialproduct.Thedebatehassignificantcontemporaryimpactbecauseitaffectsfilmmakerreputations,box-officepotential,andthepositionoffilmwithintheculturalsphereofsociety.Thediscussionwillfocusonfilmcriticismasanactivityseparatefromfilmtheory,whilerecognisingtheclosenexusbetweenboth.Theoverarchingobjectiveistotesttheassertionthat“filmcriticismisincrisis”.

4CulturalCriticismandFilmHistoryThehistoryoffilmcriticismrunsparalleltothatofcinema.Filmcriticismdidnotjustappearconcurrentlyorinacausalrelationshipwithcinema,ratheritderivedfromapre-existingphilosophyofculturalcriticism.Itisimportanttoacknowledgethefundamentalanti-authoritarianismofcriticalthought.AsEagletonputit,“ModernEuropeancriticismwasbornofastruggleagainsttheabsolutiststate”andgrewinresponsetorepressiveregimesinanerawhenthe“bourgeoisiebeginstocarveoutforitselfadistinctivediscursivespace”(Eagleton1985,9).Thusfilmcriticismhasbecomeaconflicteddiscoursebetweencritics,cultureandsocietyinanongoingstruggletodetermine“whatcountsintheseaofwhatwesee”(Corrigan2016).IntheAgeofEnlightenment,literarycriticismevolvedfrom“aformoflegitimationofcourtsocietyinthearistocraticsalons”towhatHabermascalledthe‘publicsphere’ofcollectivethoughtwhereindividualscouldexchangeideasabouttheexistingsocialandpoliticalorder(inEagleton1985,9).Criticismthusbecameavehicleforinterrogatingrealitiesand“separatingthegenuinefromthefake,orthecreativefromthecompliantlyconventional”(ClaytonandKlevan2011,5).Atitsextreme,culturalcriticismfunctionsassocialsatirethathasthe“feelingofasafetyvalvewhereoneisrelievedtoreadsomeonespeakingagainstrulingassumptions.Ithasascurrilous,rebellious,blasphemousair,terrorisingsacredtexts”(10).Inthisway,culturalcriticismisadialecticbetweenoldandnewthatcarriespotentialforsocialchange.ThecenturyofEnlightenmentsawrapiddevelopmentsinthetechnologyofliteraryproductionanddissemination,togetherwiththeemergingauthorityofthe‘manofletters’.Thislabelsignifieda“beareranddispenserofageneralisedideologicalwisdom…abletosurveythewholeculturalandintellectuallandscapeofhisage”(Eagleton1985,45).Culturalcriticismwascorebusinessforthe‘manofletters’,arolethatgraduallybecameprofessionalisedtobedistinguishablefromthe“disreputablyamateurliteraryacademy”andtoestablishcriticismasa“rigorouslyanalyticaldiscoursebeyondthereachofbothcommonreaderandcommon-roomwit”(Eagleton74).Thecriticlabelhasthusalwaysbeeninherentlyseparatistandassertiveoftheauthoritytocriticisecultureatarms-length.Suchauthorityhascometoincluderesponsibilityto“enquireparticularlyintowhatmodernliteraturereflectsof

5contemporarysocialexperienceandintothewayinwhichsociallifeinfluencesthesubject,formandlanguageofliterature”(Williams1993,quotedinCole2008).Powerstrugglesbetweencriticsandcreatorshavebeenaconstantinthehistoryofculturalcriticism.NineteenthcenturypoetandcriticMatthewArnold,regardedbysomeasthefirstmodernliterarycritic,declaredthat“itisundeniablethattheexerciseofacreativepower…isthehighestfunctionofman”(Arnold1864).Heobservedthatasnotallmenarepossessedofcreativegenius,theyshouldstrivetoacquirethelowerlevelfunctionofcriticalpower,thepurposeofwhichis“inallbranchesofknowledge,theology,philosophy,history,art,science,toseetheobjectasinitselfitreallyis”(Arnold).Thecritic’staskthereforeis“simplytoknowthebestthatisknownandthoughtintheworld,andbyinitsturnmakingthisknown,tocreateacurrentoftrueandfreshideas”guidedprincipallybytheruleofdisinterestedness(Arnold).Thistensionbetweencriticandcreator,andtheparametersofcomparison,evaluationandarms-lengthobjectivity,havealwaysbeenthebedrockofthecritic’stask.Notallacceptedtheneatseparationofcriticismandcreativity.WriterT.S.Eliotsaidthat“thecriticandthecreativeartistshouldfrequentlybethesameperson”becausethe“twodirectionsofsensibilityarecomplementary”(Eliot1921).Eliotderided“badcriticism…whichisnothingbuttheexpressionofemotion”whiletruecriticalsensibilityis“anaridclevernessbuildingtheoreticalscaffoldsuponone’sownperceptionsorthoseofothers”(Eliot1921).Thetensionbetweensubjectivityandobjectivityinculturalcriticismwaspartofthecontextintowhichthefilmcriticfirstappearedanditcontinuesincontemporarydiscourse.TheEvolutionofFilmCriticismArnoldlivedatatimewhentheavailablerangeofartstechnologyexpandeddramaticallythroughtheinventionofphotographyin1839(Daniel2004).Theabilitytofreezetimeintoarepresentationofrealityopenednewcreativevistasandoccupations.Thenewinventionmadeitpossibletorecordimagesofhistoryandpeople,thusallowing“thousandsofordinarypeopletoachievethekindofimmortalitythathadhithertobeenreservedtoanelite”(MonacoandLindroth2013).Thetechnologyofthenewart-formprogressedfromstilllifeto

6movingimages,thentopublicviewingsincinemas,evolvingincrementallyinawaysothat“nosingleevent…canbeheldtoseparateanebulouspre-cinemafromcinemaproper”(Usai,inNowell-Smith2008,20).Withinitsfirsttwodecades,commercialfilmproductionhadexpandedsofastthat“whatin1895hadbeenamerenoveltyhadby1913becomeanestablishedindustry”(Pearson,inNowell-Smith32).Withinitsfirstcentury,cinemawasalreadybeingdescribedasproducing“worksofartworthytostandcomparisonwiththemasterworksofpainting,music,andliterature”(Nowell-Smith14).Theearlyaspirationsofthenewcinemaindustrywereaboutamusementandentertainmentratherthanart.Thephysicalityofresponsesfromaudiencesastheyduckedanapproachingtraininthe1895LumiereBrothersfilmdemonstratedhowconvincinglyrealitycouldbecapturedonascreen.Asearlysilentfilmmovedfromnoveltytoseriousdepictionsoflife,itwasnolongeraquestionofwhetherfilmcouldbeconsideredartbut“towhatheightswouldthenewarteventuallydevelop?”(Arnheim1935,91).Someevenasked“isitpossiblethatwearestandingonthethresholdofanewvisualculture?”(Balazs1922,56).Socialreformers,literarycriticsandeducatorsofthedayrecognisedthepowerofthenewvisualmediumtoeducatethemassesinthesamewaythattheadventoftheprintingpresshadacceleratedthe“formationofopinion,thetrainingofmanners,(and)thedisseminationofideas”(Williams1961,175,quotedinCole).Asfilmtransitionedfromthesilentera,manybelievedthatthenewmediumofsoundwassuchapowerfulcommunicatorthatthefilmcritic’scommentary,interpretation,andevaluationwouldsoonberedundant.Duringtheseformativeyears,everynewmajorfilmrepresentedastageoftechnicaldevelopmentfortheemergentart-form.Thesemilestonessignalledanewcinematictechniqueorsome“artisticmeanstomaketheplot,thecharacters,andthebackgroundvisuallycomprehensible”,andcommunicatingthehistoricalsignificanceofsuchofdevelopments“shouldhavebeenthetaskofthefilmcriticoftheday”(Arhheim1935,91).Thecriticwasthusenvisagedasapracticalobserverofinnovationinfilm,andthetaskwasconceivedasapublicreporterofnewsworthychangessuchastheappearanceofnewtheatresandfilmsthatwereshown(BywaterandSobchack1989,5).

7Evenintheearlyera,criticsweretargetsforcriticism,oftenfromwithintheirownranks.In1935,aprominentfilmcriticdescribedhisroleasnomorethana“second-ratejobforlocalreporters”whosetaskwastocopyothercriticsofbooks,paintings,novelsandtheatre(Arnheim1935,90).Tomovebeyondsuchidleaestheticstomattersofsubstance,thecriticmusttake“considerationoffilmasaneconomicproduct,andasanexpressionofpoliticalandmoralviewpoints”,(Arnheim93).Ratherthantreatcinemaasa“littleluxurytheatreinwhichafewindependentartistsactforafewartlovers”thefuturecriticmustrecognisefilm’spotentialforsocialtransformation(Arnheim95).Thusthetaskoffuturecriticsshouldbe“toridtheworldofthecomicfiguretheaveragefilmcriticandfilmtheoristoftodayrepresents”andanalysefilminitswiderculturalcontext(Arnheim,quotedinSinger2012).Thesubjectivityandobjectivitydebatehasappearedregularlyinfilmcriticismdiscourse,withsomeearlycommentatorsrejectingthepossibilityofobjectivityinfilmcriticismentirely.Forexample,inthemid-1930sprominentBBCcriticAlistairCookeassertedthatasacritichisrolewastowrite“withoutpoliticsandwithoutclass”andthathowevermuchhemightwantto“rageorprotestormoralise”,hismainrolewasto“decidewhetherMissHarlow’ssmilesandpoutswereperformedexpertlyenoughtoenticeMr.Gableaway”(quotedinFrey2015,64).Otherstooktheoppositeview,arguingthatcriticismcouldnotexistinavaluesvacuumandthatcriticswhoclaimedthattheirfunctionsweredivorcedfrompolemicwere“merelyindulginginavoluntaryself-emasculation”astherewasnosuchthingasvalue-freecriticism(Frey65).Threedecadeslater,duringwhatmanydescribeastheheydayofcinema,thedebatewasre-openedintherespectedjournalFilmQuarterlyintheessay“TowardsanObjectiveFilmCriticism”(Jarvie1961).Itarguedthatwhilethesearchforobjectiveprinciplesmaybecontentiousitdoesnotmeanthatsuchprinciplesdonotexistand“thereisnoharminfilmcriticismcopyingsciencetotheextentofmakingclear-cutstatementsaboutthewaythefilmworks”(Jarvie22).Criticalobjectivityrepresentsadividinglinebetweenprofessionalandamateurfilmcriticismasreadersaregenerally“suspiciousofpersonalinvolvementwithfilmsandapprehensiveofvaluejudgements”(ClaytonandKlevan2011,2).Cinemaexperiencedrapidgrowthoverthe20thcentury,withlargeraudiencesviewinglongerfilmswithincreasingcomplexityofcontent.Moresubstantial

8filmsinvitedmoresubstantialandelaboratecriticism,leadingtoextendedarticlesappearinginnewlyestablishedfilmjournals.Theappearanceof‘serious’filmartmagazinesandjournalsgavefilmculturalrespectabilityandapublicspherefordiscourse.Inadditiontocritiquingfilms,criticsoftheearlyerawerelobbyistsforthemedium,theindustryandtheirrole(BywaterandSobchack1989,7).Theyarguedthatcriticismwasessentialforthefutureoffilmandassertedtheircriticalauthorityasarbitersoffilmculture(Frey2015,30).Thegrowingacceptanceoffilmasartwasdueinnosmallmeasuretothecritic’srolein“callingformorerefinedproductionsandcinematictechniquesandpointingouttheneedforindividualcreativitytoenablethecinematoachievetheestablishedarts’levelofsophistication”(Frey31).Cinema’sgradualadaptationofwell-knownliteraryworksfurtherencouragedtheinfluxofcastandcrewfromthetheatreworldintofilmandthe“proliferationofartisticfilmsbasedonhigh-culturalaspirations”(Frey33).Thegradualintroductionoffilmstudiesatuniversitylevelinthelatterpartofthelastcenturyalsobroughtfilmcriticismintoclosercontactwithtraditionalliterarydisciplinesandacademictraditionsthatenhanceditsstandingasadisciplineinitsownright.Theearlyeraalsosawtheemergenceofcelebritycriticswithavarietyofentertainingwritingstylesthatbroadenedreadershipsandraisedthecritic’spublicprofile.Intheheydayofthemovieera,somecelebritycriticsweresaidtohavethe“oralswaggerofgunslingers”whowere“quickonthedrawandeasytorile,theyhadthepowertokillindividualfilmsandkneecapentirecareers”(Wolcott,inHoberman1998,531).Theyevenattractedadmirationfromhigh-cultureliterati.Forexample,W.H.Audendescribedtheworkofonesuchcriticasbeing:

…ofsuchprofoundinterest,expressedwithsuchextraordinarywitandfelicity,andsotranscendsitsostensible…subject,thathisarticlesbelonginthatveryselectclass…ofnewspaperworkwhichhaspermanentliteraryvalue(inBywaterandSobchack10).

Bytheendofthecenturyfilmcriticismhadcomefullcircle.Fromhumbleoriginsitgrewtocelebrityprominence,onlytofacethenextwaveoftechnologicalinnovationandsocialtransformation.Thedeclineofprint-basedmediaandtheretrenchmentofprominentcelebritycriticsintheearly2000striggeredawaveofpronouncementsthatcriticismwasdead.Reportsofits

9demise,however,wereclearlyprematureasthewritinggenrecontinuestoevolve.Onthecentennialanniversaryoffilmitself,eminentfilmcriticSusanSontagdeclaredthat“cinema's100yearsseemtohavetheshapeofalifecycle:aninevitablebirth,thesteadyaccumulationofgloriesandtheonsetinthelastdecadeofanignominious,irreversibledecline…(into)…astonishinglywitless…bloated,derivativefilm-making”(Sontag1995).Insteadofdeclining,however,filmcontinuestoevolve“fromthecollectivegatheringsinpublicspacestotheintimacyandisolationofone’sowncell-phonescreen,fromcelluloidtopixels,andfrompalpablesupportstointangiblestreaming”(Sayad2016).Intheworldofubiquitousconnectivity,thereisagreaterdiversityoffilmcriticismthaneverbeforethatismeetingawidervarietyofneeds.Thisoverviewoftheevolutionoffilmcriticismprovidesacontextinwhichtoconsiderthetypologiesoffilmcriticismincontemporarysociety.ApproachestoFilmCriticismDiscussionoffilmcriticismpre-supposesthatthetermhasanagreedandsingularmeaning.However,incommonusagethetermsfilmreviewer,filmcritic,andfilmwriterorfilmjournalistareconflatedandusedinterchangeably.Thisobscuressignificantdefinitionaldifferences.Filmreviewsemergedintheearlydaysofcinemataskedwithreportingthereleaseofnewfilmsanddescribingtheircontentsinthepopularmedia.Thereviewstilltendstobeadescriptionofafilm’sstorylinethatincludessubjectiveandevaluativeopinion,oftenwithanumericalrating.Thetermfilmcriticism,however,tendstorefertoabroaderconsiderationoffilmasaculturalartefact.Itisoftenassociatedwithacademicprotocolsthat“investigatethemediumasanaesthetic,socialandhistoricalphenomenon”,usuallywiththeintenttopublishinpeer-reviewedandsimilarmedia(BywaterandSobchack,1989xii).Whileareviewerandacriticmayattimesbethesameperson,historicallytheyhavedifferentbackgroundsanddifferentpurposes.Inpracticalterms,therangeandstylesofcontemporaryfilmwritingmorecloselyresembleacontinuumofhybridsratherthanadichotomybecauseofthevarietyofpurpose,formatandrelationshipswithstakeholders.Alongthiscontinuumitispossibletoidentifydifferentframesofreferenceandanalyticalparadigms.

10Iffilmwasreducibletoasingleexplanation,interpretation,ordescriptiontherewouldbelittlevarietyorcontroversyinfilmwriting.However,readershipneedsvarywidelyintermsofeducation,age,genderandothersocio-politicaldemographics.Theyarealsodependentonwhetherareviewisreadbefore,after,orinsteadofviewingafilm.Pre-filmreaderstendtoseekgeneralinformationaboutgenrelabel,plotdescription,castingandsometimesproductiondetails(likedirectingandfilming)inordertomakeadecisionaboutwhichfilmtosee.Post-filmreadersaremorelikelytobeseekingengagementwithafilminordertotestorexpandtheirinterpretation.Therearealsoreaderswhodonotseeafilmforavarietyofreasonsbutwhovicariouslyexperiencethemoviebyreadingfilmcriticism.Thevarietyoffilmwritingandfilmreadershipiscompoundedbytheexistenceofdifferentframesofreferenceandparadigmsforexplainingfilm.

FramesofReferenceFilmwritingoccurswithinoneoftwobroadframesofreferenceinrelationtotheobjectbeingwrittenabout:thetextualandcontextual.Textualcriticismemphasisestheseenorabouttobeseenfilmbecausetypically,“itisthetextoftheparticularfilm–itsplot,characters,themes,performers,andtechnicalcompetence–thatfirstarouses(reader)curiosity”(BywaterandSobchack1).Textualcriticismfocusesonaspecificfilmandisthepredominantwritingmodeforthedescriptivereviewsfoundinnewspapersandothermassmedia.Thecontextualframeofreferencegoesbeyondaparticularfilmtoincludeanalysisofextra-textualcriteria.Forexample,suchareviewmightincorporatesocial,politicalorculturalthemes,orincludereferencetootherfilmsbythesamedirector.Inpractice,filmcriticismoftenincorporatesseveralextra-textualelementsintheprocessofcontexualisingaparticularfilm.Thekeydifferenceisthatinthecontextualframe“theindividualfilmhaslittlecriticalimportancebyitself”(BywaterandSobchack50).Astheframeofreferencebroadensbeyondanalysisoftheparticularfilm,severalexplanatorymodelsmaybemobilisedsimultaneouslythat“revolvearoundtheinterplaybetweentheexperienceofindividual(thetext)andthecumulativeexperienceofmanyfilms”(BywaterandSobchack50).

ExplanatoryModels

11Inpractice,theanalysisoffilmdrawsfromavarietyofexplanatorymodels,themostcommonbeingthehumanist,auteurist,socialscientific,historical,ideologicalandgenreparadigms.Collectively,theyofferrichandvariedinsightsintofilm,whileatthesametime,theyreflectthediversityofpurposeandapproachincontemporaryfilmcriticism.Thehumanistparadigmisinvokedwhencriticismfocusesonaparticularfilminthecontextofotherfilmsanditsrelationshiptosocial,political,andphilosophicconsiderations(BywaterandSobchack2).Aguidingquestionwithinthisparadigmis“whatisthereinthisfilmorinmyexperienceofitthatwillhelpmeunderstandthevarietyandcomplexityofthehumanheartandmind?”(27).Suchquestionsgobeyonddescriptiveinformationtoadeeperconsiderationofthefilm’scinematiccontributionsandoftenincorporateanelementofcomparativeevaluation.Likeotherculturalproducts,filmisevaluatedbyasking,asArnolddidin1864,whetheritsaestheticandsymbolicqualitiesarerecognisablysuperiortoothersandhowthesequalitiesproducemeaningthroughthedeploymentofvisualandauraldevicesindialogueandaction(BywaterandSobchack35).Theauteurparadigmhasafocusonfilmsmadebyorfeaturingasingleauteur.Auteuranalysisoftendrawscomparisonswithpreviousfilmsbythesamedirectororactorinordertoidentifycriticaldifferencesthatcanaidtheinterpretationofafilmorgroupoffilms.Whileitisausefultaxonomicdevice,ithaslimitationsasanexplanatoryparadigmbecauseitassumesthefilmisdrivenbypersonalcreativetalent.Inreality,thecapitalistimperativesthatunderliefilmmakingoftenrenderauteurassumptionsunsustainable.Auteurshistoricallyenjoyedhighlevelsofinfluenceoverafilmasproducer,director,writeroractor.However,contemporaryfilmsareelaboratecorporateenterprisesthatinvolvelargenumbersofpeople,andcreditinganauteurwiththeoutcomedoesnotreflectthefilm’sdiversityofinputs,compromisesandconstraints.Auteurismisalsovulnerabletothehalo-effectthatpraisesaparticularfilmbecauseofitsoeuvre,lineageorheritage.Filmsbydistinguishedauteursarenolessvulnerableatthebox-officeas“hundredsoffilmsarespoiledeachyearbecausedirectorsarepermittedwithoutrestrainttomakeapicturepreciselyastheyplease”(Kaufman,inBywaterandSobchack56).Apartfromitsanalyticalvalueandlimitations,theauteuristcriticalparadigmhascontributedtotheevolutionoffilmcriticismbecause“anartform,andthe

12criticwhoexaminesthatartform,needsanartist,andauteurtheorysuppliedtheartists”(BywaterandSobchack78).Thesocialscienceparadigmconsidersfilmintermsofitspsychologicalorsociologicalimpact.Thefilmcriticwritinginthisparadigm“seesfilmsastheartefactsormanifestationsofaparticularcultureataparticulartime”andseekstoidentifycausallinksbetweenfilmandhumanbehaviour(BywaterandSobchack113).Asearlyas1911,forexample,theportrayalofviolencein‘cowboyandIndian’filmsandtheuseoffilminpoliticalpropagandaandreligiousindoctrinationwereraisedasconcernsforpublicpolicy(BywaterandSobchack111).Filmcanalsobediscussedintermsitsimpactonpersonalandnationalidentityandhowitdrawsonthemany“disguisedandunconsciousdramasoffearandwishfulfilment”thatunderpinsocialandculturalmythology(121-127).Forexample,theterm‘Hollywooddreamfactory’representstheaspirationallureofthevaluesandgoalsembeddedinfilmmakinganditsplaceasacommodityproductionwithinthecapitalistsystem.Thesocialscientificviewdrawsonempiricalmethodologiesthatforegroundthebehaviourofaudiences,filmmakersandotherpartsofthefilmindustry,ratherthantheaestheticsorintentoffilmasculturaltext.Filmcriticismwithinthehistoricalparadigminterrogatestheveracityandauthenticityofafilm’sdepictionofearliertimes.Thehistoryofcinemaisrelativelyshortandsamplesoffilmshavesurvivedforalltheyearsfrom1895(BywaterandSobchack138)thusmakingitpossibletoexaminefilmsashistoricalrecordsoftheireras.Inthiscontext,filmhasrecordedasignificantpartofworldhistorysincetheearly20thcenturyandthusitcouldbesaidthat“Hollywoodisthemainrepositoryofculturalmemory”(Hoberman1998,533).Whilethehistoricalparadigmisofteninvokedincritiquesoffilmgenressuchashistoricaldramaandbiography,ithasalimitedcapacitytoempiricallyverifyhistory.Itisalsolimitedbytheethno-centricismandpatriarchalnatureofhistoryinwhichnarrativesof“itsheroesandheroines,itsfoolsandvillains”havebeenrecordedoverwhelminglyfromthemaleperspective(BywaterandSobchack143).Despitesuchlimitations,thehistoricalparadigmdrawsinsightsfromawiderangeofspatialandtemporalcontextsandisasignificantadditiontothefilmcritic’sexplanatoryrepertoire.

13Criticismwithintheideologicalparadigmistheanalysisoffilmintermsofsocialandpoliticalvalues.Forexample,severalrecentfilmsthatdepicttheconsequencesofthe2008GlobalFinancialCrisisimplicitlyorexplicitlyinvokeapoliticalcritiqueofAmericancapitalism.Manyfilmsthatdepictthesocialinstitutionsofmarriageandfamilyimplicitlyinvokeideologiessurroundingnormsofromanticheterosexuality,domesticpatriarchaldominationandissuesrelatingtosame-sexmarriage,aswellastheroleofwomeninsocietyandthepoliticalaestheticsofphallocentricvisualpleasureinnarrativecinema(Mulvey1999).Filmcriticismwithinthisparadigmexploresdimensionsoftheessentiallycontestedfabricofsocietyandanalysisofanyspecificfilmisrelevantonlyinthewidercontextofideologicalvalues.Byfarthemostcommoncriticalparadigmistheanalysisoffilmsbasedongenre.Hollywood-producedgenrefilmsareuniversallyrecognisablethroughacodaoflabelsandmotifsthatcommunicatetheirnarrativessymbolically.Genrelabelsinformaudienceswhattoexpectinamovieandhowtointerpretwhatisseen.Audiencesgenerallyprefertoknowwhatafilmisaboutbeforedecidingwhethertoseeitbecause,asHobermanputit,“familiaritymaybreedcontemptbutcommercialcinematradesonprioracquaintance…genresrule.”(1998,529).Asthestudiosystemoftheearly20thCenturybecamethemostcost-efficientmeansofproduction,filmswitheasilyrecognisednarrativestructure,motifsandcinematicstylesbecamethestandardproductundercommonlabelssuchaswestern,horror,drama,comedy,thriller,musicalandromance.Earlycriticsshowedwidespreaddisdainforgenrefilmsandsawaudiencesas“thegreatunwashedwhowereinneedoflargedosesofculturaltraining”(BywaterandSobchack82).Criticismwithinthegenreparadigmfocusesonnarrativestructureandcontentinrelationtothefilm’ssocialandpoliticalcontexts(BywaterandSobchack82).Genreanalysisisbothpopularandanalyticallysignificantasitshowshowfilmcanbeunderstoodasareflectionormeditationonsociety.CriticalTensions:FilmIndustry,theProfessionandTechnologyThediversityofexplanatorymodelshasmadefilmcriticismaccessibleandrelevanttoeveryone,andinthatsense,itcontributestothecultureofdemocracy.Filmhaslongbeendescribedasthemostdemocraticofart-forms,onethathas“practicallyabolishedthenumerousandenviousdistinctionsofpriceandclassinalltheplayhouseswhereitholdsexclusivesway”(Frey2015,

1453).Giventhescaleoffilmconsumptioninthemoderneraanditsfunctionasarepositoryofcontemporarycultureitcanbearguedthatthisdescriptionismoretruetodaythaneverbefore.Itisironicthereforethatfilmcriticismisperceivedtobeincrisissimplybecausethepowerandauthoritytospeakaboutfilmhasbecomefurtherdemocratisedinthecontemporaryonlineenvironment.Muchofthisso-calledcrisisinfilmcriticismoriginatesinshiftingpowerrelations,itisusefultoidentifysomeofthekeytensionsbetweenindustry,thecriticprofessionandtechnologicalchange.

RelationswithIndustryFilmcriticismwasbornasacreatureofthefilmindustryandtherehasalwaysbeena‘love-hate’relationshipbetweenthetwo.Criticisminthe1920swas“definedwithinaninstitutionalframeworkthatrepresentedeconomicratherthanaestheticconcerns”(Hake,inFrey43).Thecritic’sroletoinformthepublicaboutmovies,“heraldandagitateforbetterfilms”,andtoalesserextent,“guidingthecinema’saestheticprogress”(43).Theearlycritic’srolewasthustomediatebetweenindustryandaudience,aninherentlyunstableandvulnerablerole.Forexample,wherethecriticistoocloselylinkedtoindustrytheyareseenasamouthpieceforfilmmakersandasadoptingindustrydiscourseasnews(Frey,42).Foritspart,thefilmindustryroutinelydismissesnegativecriticismwhenitsuitstheircommercialinterests,reflectingthe“uneasybalancethatearlyfilmwritersstruckbetweencateringtotheindustry,theirultimatepaymasters,andpamperingthedelicate,infantart”(Frey45).Thissymbioticrelationshipbetweencriticsandindustryispotentiallycompromisingforboth.Sympatheticlinkswithindustryresultincriticsreceivingbenefitssuchasprivilegedpressscreeningsandbeinggranteda“discretespaceandadvancedknowledge…toreinforcetheirauthorityanddistinguishthemfrommereviewers”(Frey38).Thisoftenincludesprivilegedaccesstodirectorsandcast,andinformationformediagossipcircuits.Moviesentailmassiveinvestmenthenceitisnaturalthatmarketingexecutivesseektocontrolthepublicmessageabouttheirproductandunsympatheticfilmcriticsimpedetheircontrolofinformation.Thisdelicatelybalancedindustrial-commercialnexusbetweenstudiosandcriticshasledtoaccusationsthat“tobeamovierevieweristostrikeaFaustianbargainwiththeindustry”which

15makesthecritic“partofavastmachinedevotedtoinculcatingthemassurge-to-see”(Hoberman1998,530).Ontheotherhand,professionalfilmcriticsneedtomaintainsomelevelofengagementwithindustrytohaveauthorityintheirprofession.Criticswhowillinglydistancedthemselvesfromindustry,itisargued,“onlyforfeitedtheirinfluenceonimprovingproductionsandactuallyprecipitatedperceptionsofacrisisofcriticism”(Frey44).Filmwriterswithoutinsidercontactshavelesscontextualinformationforcritiquingnewfilmsandcanbecriticisedforlackoftechnicalknowledge.Oneindustry-orientedviewarguesthatfilmcriticsneedtoappreciatethatafilmis“theendresultofacomplexproblem-solvingactivity”andcriticsareencouragedtoregard“mediocrefilmsasthosemadebynoviceswhopossessinsufficientknow-howtosolvefilmmakingproblems”(Buckland2016).Thisdebateabouttheroleofcriticsinrelationtocreators,firstarticulatedbyArnoldin1864,remainsrelevantincontemporaryfilmcriticismdiscourse.

TheCriticProfession

FilmhistorianNowell-Smithobservesthatbythemid20thcentury,filmcriticismwasnotawell-regardedwritinggenreandmanymediapublishersbelievedthat“reviewerscouldpontificate,safeintheknowledgethathoweverlittletheyknewofwhattheyweretalkingabout,theirreadersknewevenless”(Nowell-Smith2008).Overthefollowingdecadestherewasan“openingupofaspaceforafilm-criticalpractice”that,Nowell-Smithargues,didlittletoadvancetheprofessionalisationoffilmcriticismwhichhadwallowedin“bourgeoissubjectivism”(2008).Therapidexpansionofculturalstudiesinhighereducationalinstitutionsinthelatter20thcenturyconsolidatedfilmstudiesasanacademicdiscipline.Thestrengthenedlinkbetweencriticismandacademiawasseenbysomeasamixedblessingbecausetheacademicemphasisonthe“verifiableandgeneralizable…hadsqueezedoutmoreadventurousformsofwriting”(Nowell-Smith).TheestablishmentofTheJournalofPopularFilmin1972wasoneofmanymilestonesforthenewinterdisciplinaryfieldthathasintegratedperspectivesandpracticesfromliterarycriticism,psychology,sociology,journalism,history,politicalscience,andmasscommunications(Frey93).Thesedisciplinarystrandsnowunderpintheanalyticalparadigmsofcontemporaryfilmcriticismdiscussedearlier.

16Thecloserlinksbetweenprofessionalcriticsandhighereducationbroughtnewtensionsintofilmwritingthatrevivedhistoricaldebatesconcerningtheaestheticversusthepolemicinfilmcriticism.Asfilmstudiesconsolidateditsstatusasanacademicdisciplineitdrewonthetraditionsofliterarystudiesthatemphasisedclosereadingsof‘thetext’.Somecriticsarguethat“filmcriticismatitsstrongestremainsfocusedonthespecificinstance”(Gunning2016)andthat“asaspecial,visceral,andemotionalform,filmdemandsaclose,ratherthandistancedformofcriticism,performedbythosewithpracticalexperience”(Frey47).Othersarguethatthefilmcritichasabroadersocialpurposethan‘thetext’andthat“criticismmustbeembeddedinanunderstandingofsocialandpoliticalculture”(Rushton2016).ThisdebateechoesArnheim’s1935advocacyforthesocialandpoliticalrelevanceoffilmcriticism.Neitherthespecificityofaestheticdetailoritsextrapolationintosocio-politicalcontextscanalonefulfilthepurposeofculturalcriticism.Whiletheconflictingviewpointsareseenbysomeasevidenceofcrisisanda“lingering,culturalsnobbishness”towardstraditionalliterary-basedcriticalexpression(Martin2016),othersdismissthedebateasbeing“divorcedfromtherealitiesoftheindustry”(Frey46).Thisongoingdiscourseaboutthecorefunctionofadisciplineorprofessionisnormalandconstructiveanddoesnotofitselfconstituteanexistentialcrisis.

TechnologicalChangeTheadventoftheinternethasfundamentallyrestructuredtherelationshipbetweenculturalproducersandculturalconsumers.Whereknowledgewasonceconcentratedwithintheboundariesofacademicdisciplinesorprofessions,theinternethasmadeknowledgealmostuniversallyaccessible.Thisrealitycausestensionwithinfilmcriticismbecauseontheonehand“internetutopians”celebratethenewdemocracyinfilmcriticism,andontheother,professionalcriticsbemoantheirlossof“traditionalauthoritytospeakandbeheardbythepublic:thecritic,severalprominentcommentatorshaveconcluded,isdead”(Frey2015,12).Theadventofubiquitouscomputinghasatomisedthetraditionalauthorityoffilmcriticstothepointthatthe“filmcritic’slabourwasnolongeraprivilegeofthefew”(Klein,2016).Theproliferationofonlinecriticismisnotconfinedto“justthefanboysandyourrecluseaunt”butincludesvastnumbersofsingle-authoredprofessionalblogsencouragedbytheeaseofpublicationwithout

17peerrevieworstrictpublishingcriteria(Klein2016).Inthisway,theblogosphereoffereda”spaceofdemocraticexchangewhererankdisappeared”andwherefilmenthusiastscouldengageinconversationsaboutfilmideas(Klein).Manycriticshaveadjustedtotechnologicalchange,sayingthat“itreallydoesnotmatterwherethecriticismis(inabookorablog)orhowlong(140charactersorencyclopaedic)orwhatform(proseoracartoonorparodyfilm)”(Staiger2016).Whatdoesmatter,itisargued,isthecritic’sabilitytoengagewithfilminwaysrangingfrom“historical,theoretical,stylisticandsocialconsiderationstoanecdotes,gossip,andinterventionsasminimalistastheclickingona“Like”icon”(Sayad2016).Theonlineproliferationofalternativesourcesofinformationrepresentsnewopportunitiesforculturalengagement,aswellaschallengestotheboundariesoftraditionalrepositoriesofknowledge.Itisarguablethatprofessionalcriticswhopubliclyprotesttheirlossofauthorityasculturalcriticsarereflecting“nostalgiaforanageinwhichcriticismcouldchangewhy,how,andevenwhetheronesawafilm”(Flaxman2016).Earlyadaptorsofnewtechnologyhaveembracednewopportunitiestocontributetofilmliteracyandenjoymentwhileotherscontinuetoarguefortherestorationoftraditionalcriticalauthority.Asprint-mediatransitionstowardstheonlineenvironmentthatisalreadypopulatedbyvastnumbersofaspiringoraccomplishedauthors,thevoiceofthe‘manofletters’stillechoestheelitismofaformerera.Whilemanystillinsistthat“asfilmscholars,critics,andhistorians…wehaveanobligation,moresothaneverperhaps,todecidewhatmattersandwhyitmatters”(Corrigan2016),thenewgenerationofcinephilesaredecidingforthemselves.ConclusionThisresearchsetouttotesttheassertionthatfilmcriticismisincrisis.Itsurveysthehistoryoffilmcriticism,examinesvarioustypesoffilmcriticism,anddiscussesissuesrelatingtothefilmindustry,thecriticprofession,andtechnologicalchange.Fromthissurvey,itcanbesaidthatfilmcriticismisfarfromexistentialcrisis.Despitenaturaltensionswithindustry,academeandtechnology,filmcriticismtodayisasvibrant,relevantandwidelyconsumedasfilmitself.Theartformoffilmpervadeseveryaspectofourculturallifeand,asonecriticputit,“prophesyingtheimminentdeathofthemediumisatadparochial”

18because“mostoftheworld’scitizensstillwatchmovieswhetherathomeorintheatres”(Ganguly2016).Traditionalfilmistransitioningtoitsnextstageofevolution,beyondtheaudio-visualtowhatisbeingcalledthe“NewCinephilia”(Shambu2014).Thenewfilmisamulti-mediaartformthatis“essentiallydigital,interactive,networked,ludic,miniaturized,mobile,social,processual,algorithmic,aggregative,environmental,orconvergent,amongotherthings”(DensonandLeyda2016,1).Likemuchofsocialchange,thefutureoffilmcannotbemappedwithprecision.Theemerging‘post-cinema’eraisbeingdescribedbysomeasa“transitionalmovementtakingplacealonganuncertaintimeline,followinganindeterminatetrajectory,andcharacterizedbyjuxtapositionsandoverlapsbetweenthetechniques,technologies,andaestheticconventionsof‘old’and‘new’movingimagemedia”(DensonandLeyda6).Inthisenvironment,nothingcanbecertainexceptacceleratedchangeandsociety’scontinuingfascinationforculturalstorytellinginwhatevermediaconnectswithpeople.Justascelluloidhastransitionedtodigitalformats,thenewfilmcriticismismovingtonewmedia,achangethatrequiresculturaladjustmentbyallinstitutionalguardians.Thenextgenerationoffilmcriticismisemerging“attheverymomentwhensomanydigitalpractices,amateurandsophisticated,areblastingopennewpathsandforms,fromthehumble,jokey,YouTubemashuptothemostelaborateaudio-visualessay”(Martin2016).Printandonlinediscourserevealthereisbothresistanceandenthusiasmforchange.Culturaltransformationoccursattheintersectionoftheoldandthenewand“snobberytodayisthesymptomofacriticismthathasrefusedtoworkthroughtheschismbetweenafadingfilmcultureandanascendantfanculture”(Flaxman2016).Thetaskoffilmcriticismis“preciselytobridgethedividebetweenfilmcultureandfanculture”(Flaxman2016)sothatcriticismcancontinuewhatishasalwaysdoneandthatistohelpreaders“steerthroughtexts”(Staiger2016).Vigorousdebatedoesnotconstitutecrisis.Historicallinksandgroundrulesbetweenfilmcriticismanditsinstitutionalframeworksaremakingwayfornewpractices.Oldbattlesarebecomingout-of-dateandmakingwayfornewones.Asonewriterputit“althoughtheinstitutionsandprofessionofcriticismhaveundergoneprofoundtransformations,theirimpactoncriticism’saimsdonotrunasdeep.Itsroleremainsoneandthesame:toinformfilmictastes…”

19(Sayad2016).Thefilmcriticismofthefutureissecurewhileeveritcontributestoa“continuingconversationaboutawork”(Klevan2016)andadeeperunderstandingoftheartformoffilm.

•••

ReferencesArnheim,R.1935“TheFilmCriticofTomorrow”.InFilmEssaysandCriticism,

TheUniversityofWisconsinPress,Wisconsin,USA.90-95Arnold,A.1864.“TheFunctionofCriticismatthePresentTime”.Republished

fromTheNationalReview,November,1864,http://fortnightlyreview.co.uk/the-function-of-criticism-at-the-present-time/

Balazs,B.1922“FilmCriticism!”.InOctober,Vol.115(Winter,2006)TheMITPress,p55-56

Bazin,A.1960“TheFunctionofCriticismToday”.InCommentaryMagazine,Nov.1,1960,https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-function-of-criticism-today/

Bywater,T.andSobchack,T.1989.IntroductiontoFilmCriticism:MajorCriticalApproachestoNarrativeFilm.Longman,NewYork&London.Print

Bruns,A.2007.“Produsage:AWorkingDefinition”.OnProdusage.org:FromProductiontoProdusage:ResearchintoUser-LedContentCreation.http://produsage.org/node/9

Buckland,W.2016.“TheFilmCriticBetweenTheoryandPractice;(Or:WhatEveryFilmCriticNeedstoKnow)”.InFilmCriticism,Vol.40,Issue1.January2016.http://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.106?view=text;rgn=main

Clayton,A.andKlevan,A.2011.“Introduction:thelanguageandstyleoffilmcriticism”.InTheLanguageandStyleofFilmCriticism,Eds:AlexClaytonandAndrewKlevan,Routledge:LondonandNewYork.p5-26,2011.

Cole,J.2008.“RaymondWilliamsandEducation–aslowreachagainforcontrol’.TheEncyclopaediaofInformalEducation.http://infed.org/mobi/raymond-williams-and-education-a-slow-reach-again-for-control/

Corrigan,T.2004.A Short Guide to Writing about Film. Pearson/Longman Corrigan, T. 2016. “The Glare of Images, and the Question of Value”. InFilm

Criticism,Vol.40,Issue1.January2016.

20http://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.108?view=text;rgn=main

Daniel,M.2004.“Daguerre(1787-1851)andtheinventionofPhotography”.InHeilbrunnTimelineofArtHistory,NewYork:TheMetropolitanMuseumofArt.October2004.http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dagu/hd_dagu.htm

Denson,S.andLeyda,J.,2016.“PerspectivesonPost-Cinema:AnIntroduction”.InPost-Cinema:Theorizing21st-CenturyFilm.EditedbyShaneDensonandJuliaLeyda.FarmerREFRAMEBooks.p1-19.2016.E-book:http://reframe.sussex.ac.uk/post-cinema/

Eagleton,T.1985.TheFunctionofCriticism.ThetfordPressLtd,GreatBritainEliot,T.S.“ThePerfectCritic”.InTheSacredWood:essaysonpoetryand

criticism.NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1921,Online:http://www.bartleby.com/200/sw2.html

Flaxman,G.2016.“TheDysfunctionofCriticismatthePresentTime”.InFilmCriticism,Vol.40,Issue1.January2016.http://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.109?view=text;rgn=main

Frey,M.2015.ThePermanentCrisisofFilmCriticism:TheAnxietyofAuthority.AmsterdamUniversityPress.E-Bookversion:http://www.oapen.org/search?keyword=The+Permanent+Crisis+of+Film+Criticism+The+Anxiety+of+Authority+Mattias+Frey

Ganguly,K.“OnNotRunninginPlace”.InFilmCriticism,Vol.40,Issue1.January2016.http://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.112?view=text;rgn=main

Hoberman,J.1998“TheFilmCriticofTomorrow,Today”.ReproducedInPhilipLopate,AmericanMovieCritics:FromtheSilentsUntilNow.LibraryofAmerica,FirstEdition,2006,528-37.

Jarvie,I.1961“TowardsanObjectiveFilmCriticism”.InFilmQuarterly,Vol.14,No.3(Spring1961),19-22,UniversityofCaliforniaPress

Klevan,A.2016.“WhatisEvaluativeCriticism?”.InFilmCriticism,Vol.40,Issue1January2016.http://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.118?view=text;rgn=main

Klein,A.2016.“TheAcademicFilmBlog(2000-2015),AEulogy”.InFilmCriticism,Vol.40,Issue1.January2016.http://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.117?view=text;rgn=main

Gunning,T.2016.“FilmCriticism:theChallengeoftheSpecific”.InFilm

21Criticism,Vol.40,Issue1.January2016.http://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.115?view=text;rgn=main

Martin,A.2016.“OntheCouch”.InFilmCriticism,Vol.40,Issue1.January2016.http://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.119?view=text;rgn=main

Monaco,J.andLindroth,D.2013HowToReadaFilm:Movies,Media,andBeyond(KindleEdition),HarborElectronicPublishing;4thEdition

Mulvey,L.1999.“VisualPleasureandNarrativeCinema”.FilmTheoryandCriticism:IntroductoryReadings.Eds.LeoBraudyandMarshallCohen.NewYork:OxfordUP,1999:833-44.

Nowell-Smith,G.1996,TheOxfordHistoryofWorldCinema.OxfordUniversityPress

Nowell-Smith,G.2008,“TheRiseandFallofFilmCriticism”.FilmQuarterly.Autumn2008.Vol.62.No1.http://www.filmquarterly.org/2008/09/the-rise-and-fall-of-film-criticism/

Rushton,R.2016.“InThisWorld,NotAboveIt”.InFilmCriticism,Vol.40,

Issue1January2016.http://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.127?view=text;rgn=main

Sayad,C.2016.“AMatterof(Informed)Taste”.InFilmCriticism,Vol.40,Issue1. January2016.http://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.129?view=text;rgn=main

Shambu,G.2014.TheNewCinephilia,E-Bookbywww.caboosebooks.comSinger,M.2012.“ReportsofFilmCulture’sDeathHaveBeenGreatly

Exaggerated”.IndieWire,Oct3,2012,http://www.indiewire.com/?s=Reports+of+Film+Culture%27s+Death+Have+Been+Greatly+Exaggerated

Sontag,S.1995.“TheDecayofCinema”.InTheNewYorkTimes.February25,1995.http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/03/12/specials/sontag-cinema.html

Staiger,J.2016.“TheMoretheChange,theMoretheSame”.InFilmCriticism,Vol.40,Issue1.January2016.http://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.132?view=text;rgn=main

Taylor,C.2003.“Thewaragainstmoviecritics”.InSalon,TuesdayJanuary14,2003.E-magazine:http://www.salon.com/2003/01/13/bart/

22Tompkins,J.2016.“FilmCriticism–TheReboot”.InFilmCriticism,Vol.40,

Issue1January2016.http://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/fc/13761232.0040.100?view=text;rgn=main

Variety.2007.“Arefilmcriticsreallyneededanymore…orisitawashed-upprofession?”.InVariety:USEditions,25April2007,http://variety.com/2007/scene/people-news/are-film-critics-really-needed-anymore-or-is-it-a-washed-up-profession-1117963778/

White,B.2014.“APleatotheFilmCriticsofTomorrow”.InCurnblog:BelieveinCinema,28March2014.http://curnblog.com/2014/03/28/plea-film-critics-tomorrow/

Williams,R.1961."TheAnalysisofCulture".InTheLongRevolution,London:Chatto&Windus,p57-70

***