The Wall Street Journal yesterday had an article on “2010: worst movie year ever?”. Movie critics have a way with words that leaves us aid critics in the dust.
Hollywood is fighting a war on numerous fronts, and losing all of them.
And movie critics are even worse at something aid critics are often accused of: much more focus on the negative than on constructive positive suggestions — “just stop.”
Stop making movies like “Grown Ups,” “Sex and the City 2,” “Prince of Persia” and anything that positions Jennifer Aniston or John C. Reilly at the top of the marquee. Stop trying to pass off Shia LaBeouf—who looks a bit like the young George W. Bush—as the second coming of Tom Cruise. Stop casting Gerard Butler in roles where he is called upon to emote. And if “Legion” and “Edge of Darkness” and “The Back-up Plan” and “Hot Tub Time Machine” are the best you can do, stop making movies, period. Humanity will thank you for it.
Scorchingly negative movie critics are like aid critics in their social function — clear away all the bad stuff to make room for the good stuff. Without movie critics, we’ll have an octogenerarian Sex and the City 8. With critics, we have some hope of some day having another Godfather or Annie Hall.
14 Comments
So what is the aid equivalent of the Oscars? Surely not CNN heroes?
Movie critics also don’t ever suggest that simply spending more money would make movies better. Aid critics, on the other hand, tend to shout “Spend more!” far more frequently they yell “Spend better!”.
Oops. Make that: far more frequently THAN they yell “Spend better!”
I think you overestimate the power of movie critics. The bottom line is the box office. As long as tickets are sold, no one really cares what the critics say. How else to account for Will Farrel’s career?
As for aid critics, I think the jury is out. How many bad development ideas has Aid Watch prevented? I’ll give you some credit for convincing the t-shirt guys to kill their free t shirt to Africa project.
The power of movie critics:
Based on critic’s rankings at “Rotten Tomatoes”
“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” was panned by almost everyone and grossed $600 million;
“Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” also generally disliked by reviewers but grossed over one billion;
“Hancock” was probably the worst reviewed movie that starred Will Smith but did over $600 million in business. “Hancock 2″ with the same cast and director has been announced.
If “Sex and the City 2″ hadn’t flopped we could indeed look forward to more Carrie Bradshaw and friends but it did in the classic way that bad sequels do–the box office take dropped during its opening weekend.
It may be that movie reviewers get to turn a better or more pointed phrase than aid critics but if so one reason is that movie reviews have become meaningless probably even in the most marginal cases.
I think that this just goes to show the inability of the market to produce things that people had wanted to see. I propose an international conference that can set production goals for Hollywood. Let’s come together to reduce the number of plotless popcorn flicks by 25% by 2025.
Yes I think we’re learning aid critics are just about as ineffectual as film critics.
Hollywood is fighting a war on numerous fronts, and losing all of them.
Of course, anyone who said that about development would be flatly wrong. And that’s the thing: development is complicated, a lot of evidence ambiguous, and the recipe for success in a lot of instances unclear. Which is precisely why the best criticism (and to be clear: much criticism is indeed warranted; and some also very good) is nothing like a movie review: it eschews polemic; acknowledges complexity; is even handed; and aims for proper analysis, rather than catchy one-line zingers.
Scorchingly negative movie critics are like aid critics in their social function — clear away all the bad stuff to make room for the good stuff.
Which must explain why Hollywood’s stopped making bad movies right? Oh…hang on.
And finally, in the case of aid, the outcome of ’scorchingly negative’ critque isn’t inevitably the end of bad and the arrival of Stuff Which Works, but rather reduced flows of aid full stop. Which is something aid’s critics ought to think very carefully about before they start aspiring to the tone of movie critics.
Sorry – mangled the HTML in my last comment. Just to be clear…
Of course, anyone who said that about development would be flatly wrong. And that’s the thing: development is complicated, a lot of evidence ambiguous, and the recipe for success in a lot of instances unclear. Which is precisely why the best criticism (and to be clear: much criticism is indeed warranted; and some also very good) is nothing like a movie review: it eschews polemic; acknowledges complexity; is even handed; and aims for proper analysis, rather than catchy one-line zingers.
Which must explain why Hollywood’s stopped making bad movies right? Oh…hang on.
And finally, in the case of aid, the outcome of ’scorchingly negative’ critque isn’t inevitably the end of bad and the arrival of Stuff Which Works, but rather reduced flows of aid full stop. Which is something aid’s critics ought to think carefully about before they start aspiring to the tone of movie critics.
Do we really wanna see a Godfather 4 after having seen the 3rd one ?
And who will take to task the critics?
Roger Ebert et al rarely consider themselves above the tools of their own making.
Dear critic,
You overestimate your role. Yes, you have a role to “clear away all the bad stuff”. But that’s it. Period. There is nothing, cero, nix, and nada that you contribute to the “good stuff”. Good stuff does not need room, it needs creativity and leadership.
jk
And speaking of on-going analogies, Roger Ebert’s only foray into screen writing was “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls”
. . . . yep.
Bill if you get the chance will you check out our 2009 M&E report and let me know what you think?
http://camara.ie/web/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/ME-Report-2009.pdf
Warm Regards,
Ciarán Casey
2 Trackbacks
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by William Easterly and Michelle Byrd, bruno bernardes. bruno bernardes said: RT @bill_easterly: What aid critics could learn from movie critics http://bit.ly/9o9Bzx [...]
[...] The trouble with bad reviews… Filed under: Aid — terence @ 7:39 pm Tags: Aid, Movie Reviews, Silly analogies, William Easterly It’s revealing, albeit depressing, I think, that William Easterly believes the roll of himself and fellow ‘aid-watchers’ to be similar to that of movie critics. [...]