Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...
Cahiers du Cinema's Top 10 Movies of 2014: 'Goodbye to Language,' 'Under the Skin,' 'Love Is Strange' Cahiers du Cinema's Top 10 Movies of 2014: 'Goodbye to Language,' 'Under the Skin,' 'Love Is Strange' Daily Reads: The Epic Uncool of Philip Seymour Hoffman's Career, How Scarlett Johansson Subverts Her Good Looks and More Daily Reads: The Epic Uncool of Philip Seymour Hoffman's Career, How Scarlett Johansson Subverts Her Good Looks and More 'The End of the Tour' Sundance Reviews: Jason Segel Impresses as David Foster Wallace 'The End of the Tour' Sundance Reviews: Jason Segel Impresses as David Foster Wallace Why the Unanimous Praise for 'Boyhood' Is Bad for Film Criticism — and for 'Boyhood' Why the Unanimous Praise for 'Boyhood' Is Bad for Film Criticism — and for 'Boyhood' 'Girls' Outrage Tracker: Season 4, Episode 1, 'Iowa' 'Girls' Outrage Tracker: Season 4, Episode 1, 'Iowa' Now Streaming: 'The Interview' and Other Movies That Didn't Get Us Threatened Now Streaming: 'The Interview' and Other Movies That Didn't Get Us Threatened 'Strange Magic' Reviews: Yup, That's Late Period George Lucas, All Right 'Strange Magic' Reviews: Yup, That's Late Period George Lucas, All Right 'Going Clear' Sundance Reviews: A Scorching Takedown of Scientology 'Going Clear' Sundance Reviews: A Scorching Takedown of Scientology Not at Sundance? Watch 14 Festival Films Via Sundance's #ArtistServices Not at Sundance? Watch 14 Festival Films Via Sundance's #ArtistServices David Bordwell Shows How Aspect Ratios Matter David Bordwell Shows How Aspect Ratios Matter Love or Hate 'American Sniper,' We're Brought Together By Its Bad Fake Baby Love or Hate 'American Sniper,' We're Brought Together By Its Bad Fake Baby 'Girls' Outrage Tracker: Season 4, Episode 2, 'Triggering' 'Girls' Outrage Tracker: Season 4, Episode 2, 'Triggering' The Scrambled Sexuality of 'Frozen's "Let It Go" The Scrambled Sexuality of 'Frozen's "Let It Go" Meet the Indiewire | Sundance Institute Ebert Film Criticism Fellows, 2015 Meet the Indiewire | Sundance Institute Ebert Film Criticism Fellows, 2015 Daily Reads: Movie Monsters That Look Like Genitalia, Why It Feels Like There's Too Much TV and More Daily Reads: Movie Monsters That Look Like Genitalia, Why It Feels Like There's Too Much TV and More 'Disney Deaths' and 'Big Hero 6': How Children's Stories Process Loss 'Disney Deaths' and 'Big Hero 6': How Children's Stories Process Loss 'Dope' Sundance Reviews: A Smart, High-Energy Comedy 'Dope' Sundance Reviews: A Smart, High-Energy Comedy How Kids Change the Way Critics Watch Movies, Why It's Hard to Fight for Gender Equality in Hollywood and More How Kids Change the Way Critics Watch Movies, Why It's Hard to Fight for Gender Equality in Hollywood and More 'Z for Zachariah' Sundance Reviews: M for Mixed 'Z for Zachariah' Sundance Reviews: M for Mixed First Reviews of Johnny Depp's 'Mortdecai': Scraping Bottom With a Waxed Moustache First Reviews of Johnny Depp's 'Mortdecai': Scraping Bottom With a Waxed Moustache

Criticizing the Critic of Everything

Criticwire By Matt Singer | Criticwire March 26, 2012 at 8:03PM

Should an action film be judged purely on its merits as an action film? Or should it aspire to something greater than that?
5
'The Raid: Redemption.
'The Raid: Redemption.

I ask a lot of questions on Criticwire.  Too many?  (See, there's another.)

I don't know.  The questions aren't because I'm wishy-washy -- although I am -- but because I'm trying to start a conversation with readers.  I tell you what I'm thinking, you tell me what you're thinking.  When I see that someone has taken something I wrote to heart and written something back in response, that gets me excited.  

So I was really excited to see that Jonathan Poritsky of The Candler Blog picked up a few of the questions I tossed off in last week's piece "The Pros and Cons of the Critic of Everything" and turned that into his own post entitled "Criticizing Everything."  My original essay was inspired by Glenn Kenny's admission that he was relieved not to have to review "The Hunger Games," or to form an opinion about it, and the question -- I'm not the only one with questions! -- of whether a critic should feel obligated to have an opinion on everything.  From there, Poritsky takes the idea of a "critic of everything" in a direction I hadn't necessarily intended.

While the original piece was about "The Hunger Games," Poritsky's is about "The Raid: Redemption" and the social media reaction to Roger Ebert's 1-star pan of the otherwise critically acclaimed Indonesian action film.  As Poritsky debated the film's value, the conversation eventually moved into an area that, I imagine, is going to come up a lot on this blog: the endless discussion over whether to judge a movie based on its relative merits or its overall merits.  In other words, should a solid action film like "The Raid: Redemption" be compared only to other action films or to films of all genres?  Poritsky says a movie must stand against everything:

"When I say 'The Raid: Redemption' isn’t a very good film it’s because I’m judging it the same way I would any other film (a Spielberg, a Malick, a Brakhage, etc.), based on my own knowledge of the cinema. If your experience is different, then great! This is why there is no shortage of critics and viewpoints... I get that 'The Raid: Redemption' is better than a lot of the other crappy action films of the last few years, so people are jumping to laud it in hopes of seeing more like it. But this is how the bar gets lowered; this is how we end up with multiplexes full of varying levels of crap. So no, I don’t think it’s a good movie, and I think it’s preposterous to tell me I’m judging it wrong. I’ll be as good a critic of everything as I can be."

Not quite the critic of everything I had in mind -- which was more about open-mindedness than creating a single evaluative framework that can be applied to any and all films -- but an interesting one nonetheless.  Maybe it is my wishy-washiness coming out, but I kind of want to have it both ways on this issue.  I want to be able to exalt "The Raid: Redemption" on the relative merits of its meticulously choreographed fight scenes, breathtaking long takes, and inventive use of camera placement; as an exemplar of technique in the world of modern action, the film is certainly without recent equal.  But I also want to remind the people who have proclaimed "The Raid" the greatest action film in decades (like the unnamed critic who did so on the film's poster) that action films are more than savvy technique.  Plot, characters, and dialogue matter too.  American action films could learn a thing or two about visual style and editing from "The Raid" but if they look to it for advice on how to deal with narrative and dramatic arcs, they're not going to get very far.

So what do you think? Is it valid to call "The Raid" a really good action film even if you don't think the elements of it besides its action are all that spectacular?  Or is it unfair to give something genre props?  If your instinct in praising a movie is to say that it's "Pretty good for what it is," are you really saying that it's not very good at all?  It's a question I'll have to pose to the critics who participate in our weekly Criticwire surveys, the first of which premieres tomorrow morning on this blog.  

I know, I know.  More questions.  

This article is related to: The Raid: Redemption


E-Mail Updates