Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...
What Quentin Tarantino Gets Wrong About TV Critics What Quentin Tarantino Gets Wrong About TV Critics The Dissolve's Keith Phipps Will Be Uproxx's Film/TV Editor The Dissolve's Keith Phipps Will Be Uproxx's Film/TV Editor Criticwire Survey: The Worst Movie and TV Accents Ever Criticwire Survey: The Worst Movie and TV Accents Ever 'Fear the Walking Dead' Starts Slow, and Interest Is Already Waning 'Fear the Walking Dead' Starts Slow, and Interest Is Already Waning Daily Reads: Why Yale's Library Is Preserving VHS, Who Wins When a Brown Actor Plays a White Character, and More Daily Reads: Why Yale's Library Is Preserving VHS, Who Wins When a Brown Actor Plays a White Character, and More How 'Mr. Robot' Hacks TV's Empathy Machine How 'Mr. Robot' Hacks TV's Empathy Machine The Top-Rated Movies of 2015 So Far: Defying Conventions The Top-Rated Movies of 2015 So Far: Defying Conventions When You Laugh at Old Movies, the Joke Is On You When You Laugh at Old Movies, the Joke Is On You Joe Hill: Review Aggregrators Like Rotten Tomatoes Provide 'Confusion, Not Clarity' Joe Hill: Review Aggregrators Like Rotten Tomatoes Provide 'Confusion, Not Clarity' British Film Critic Was a Soviet Spy British Film Critic Was a Soviet Spy 'Manic Pixie Dream Girl' Is Officially Part of the English Language Now 'Manic Pixie Dream Girl' Is Officially Part of the English Language Now Real Life Hasn't Punished Jordan Belfort. Why Should 'The Wolf of Wall Street'? Real Life Hasn't Punished Jordan Belfort. Why Should 'The Wolf of Wall Street'? Daily Reads: How 'Straight Outta Compton' Fails Its Audience, Universal's Blockbuster Year Without Superheroes, and More Daily Reads: How 'Straight Outta Compton' Fails Its Audience, Universal's Blockbuster Year Without Superheroes, and More Amy Schumer, Meryl Streep and the State of the 'Strong Female Character' Amy Schumer, Meryl Streep and the State of the 'Strong Female Character' Daily Reads: Sexism Isn't Just a 'Straight Outta Compton' Problem, How Samuel L. Jackson Lost 'Reservoir Dogs,' and More Daily Reads: Sexism Isn't Just a 'Straight Outta Compton' Problem, How Samuel L. Jackson Lost 'Reservoir Dogs,' and More Sleeper of the Week: 'The Diary of a Teenage Girl" Sleeper of the Week: 'The Diary of a Teenage Girl" Daily Reads: What Colin Trevorrow Got Right About Female Directors, the Art of Cynical Sincerity in 'BoJack Horseman' and 'Rick and Morty,' and More Daily Reads: What Colin Trevorrow Got Right About Female Directors, the Art of Cynical Sincerity in 'BoJack Horseman' and 'Rick and Morty,' and More 'The Gift': A Great Thriller (Almost) Ruined By a Terrible Ending 'The Gift': A Great Thriller (Almost) Ruined By a Terrible Ending Daily Reads: 'Mistress America' and the Art of Making a Living as an Artist, How Summer TV Surprised Us, and More Daily Reads: 'Mistress America' and the Art of Making a Living as an Artist, How Summer TV Surprised Us, and More Criticwire Classic of the Week: Roman Polanski's 'Chinatown' Criticwire Classic of the Week: Roman Polanski's 'Chinatown'

The World's "Most Reliable" Movie Critic Speaks

Photo of Sam Adams By Sam Adams | Criticwire May 9, 2014 at 10:04AM

The Chicago Reader's J.R. Jones, at the dead center of a study ranking critics by how often they agreed with their peers, speaks out against turning criticism into math.
0
Reader
Chicago Reader

Last week, the website Vocativ posted a ranking of English-language film critics according to how frequently they agreed with a movie's overall Metacritic score, using the results to place them on a continuum ranging from "Least Discerning" to "Haters." Smack dab in the middle was Chicago Reader critic J.R. Jones, who was honored with the title of "Most Reliable."

In the new Reader, Jones takes stock of his dubious distinction, grudgingly accepting that as the new "Mr. Reliable" he'll have to give up his traditional aisle seat for the middle of the theater's middle row. But he also registers a forceful objection against the conversion of thoughtful criticism into a numerical value, and the pseudo-scientific analysis that inevitably follows. 

Over the years, as contributors to the Reader's movie section have come and gone, I've always tried to impress on them that, as long as they write well, I couldn't care less whether they like a movie or not. Manny Farber, one of the greats, was known for the ambiguity of his reviews; from his work comes the ideal, imparted to me by my predecessor, Jonathan Rosenbaum that precise, colorful description of a movie can be more helpful to the reader and more revealing of the writer than opinion, because opinions are like -- well, you know what they're like. Rosenbaum always fought like hell the suggestion that every capsule review carry some sort of rating, though eventually the paper instituted the little backward R as a "recommended" icon throughout all the arts sections. Thumbs up, thumbs down; four stars, two stars, no stars; 59 out of a hundred -- there's no respect for words in this racket. 

As a critic, I've reconciled myself to giving ratings, whether in terms of stars or letter grades, when I write for outlets that use them, but I still dislike the practice, which unavoidably lessens the value of the review itself. No matter the argument behind it, a starred or graded review will be remembered first and foremost by the rating attached to it, reducing the hard work of good criticism to the one part of the process any idiot can do. Readers, I've been told, prefer ratings, although that seems to be more an article of faith than the product of actual research.

I believe, in part because I have to, that intelligent readers will look past the stars and the grades to the substance of a review, and not end up quibbling that a B review sounds more like a B+. But ratings travel in a way arguments and insight do not, and when those ratings are remapped onto Metacritic's 100-point scale and those numbers are treated as hard data in turn, the signal is vastly overpowered by noise. 


E-Mail Updates